The Informed Public

Keeping America Informed - A Political News Blog

[life]

In the 1950s and ’60s, LIFE magazine spent a lot of time with the parents and the kids — and, occasionally, the grandkids — of a well-known American family, the Romneys of Michigan. George W. Romney (1907 – 1995), was for eight years the president of American Motors Corporation and, from 1963 to 1969, served as the Republican governor of Michigan.

These photos, ultimately, offer one, small window through which to view the world in which Mitt Romney was raised.  His father (“lean, hard George Romney,” as LIFE put characterized the AMC chairman and president in 1958) is here, as are his mom and his siblings. Here, photos of what it was like — at least when reporters and photographers were around — growing up Romney.

Pictured: George Romney with his son, Mitt, 1958.

[mittromney]

Find out when Paul Ryan will be in your state http://mi.tt/R8eOJA 

[theinformedpublic-blog]

Check out a little bit of history with Lyndon Baines Johnson's "We Shall Overcome" speech!

[theinformedpublic-blog]

The Key of Awesome! : Hot Problems - feat. Mitt Romney

Parody of Mitt Romney

[theinformedpublic-blog]

A New York Times assessment of how states may vote, based on polling, previous election results, and the political geography in each state. 

[theinformedpublic-blog]

"You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life."

Winston Churchill

[theinformedpublic-blog]

Miss the debate? Catch the YouTube video anytime!

[theinformedpublic-blog]

Check out Mitt Romney's real agenda in this weeks issue of Rolling Stone.

[theinformedpublic-blog]

Will Super PACs be a game changer in the 2012 Presidential Election?

                             Super PACS have already proven themselves extremely important to political candidates as well as their party affiliations thus far in the primary season. Free to flood a campaign with as much money as they can, this new type of political action committee has already had immense impact on the presidential campaign process. However, the question remains: Will Super PACs be a game changer in the 2012 Presidential Election?             According to the Federal Election Commission’s website, a political action committee, or PAC, is the name given to a private group of any size that is organized to elect political candidates or to advance the outcome of a political issue or legislation.             Under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, an organization becomes a "political committee" by receiving contributions or making payments of more than $1,000 for the purpose of influencing a federal election.  When an interest group, union, or corporation wants to contribute to federal candidates or a particular political party, it must do so through a PAC.             In order to understand the basics of political action committees, the Federal Election Commission from which they stemmed must first be explained. The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 is a United States federal law, which explained the rules and regulations behind federal campaign contributions.             It was amended in 1974 to place legal limitations on campaign contributions. This amendment, in turn, created the regulatory organization known as the Federal Election Commission (FEC) that we know today. By federal law as outlined by the FEC, PACs must report all of the financial activities, including direct donations and other expenses, to the Federal Election Commission, which then makes the reports available to the public.             Legally, what constitutes a "PAC" for purposes of regulation is a matter of both state and federal law. These PACs obtain and raise money from a "restricted class," that commonly consists of managers and shareholders of corporations and individual members who donate funds to candidates for federal office.             However, there are limitations as to what groups and individuals can contribute. The FEC explicitly explains that corporations and unions may not contribute directly to federal PACs. However, they are allowed to pay for the administrative costs of a PAC that is affiliated with a specific corporation or union. The website further explains, “contributions by individuals to federal PACs are limited to $5,000 per year.”             As a result of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decision in SpeechNow.org v. FEC, PACs which make only "independent expenditures,” which are advertisements or other spending assistance or opposition in the federal candidate election process but are not coordinated with a particular federal candidate or political party, are not bound by contribution limits stated above.             In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, that the government may not prohibit unions and corporations from making independent expenditures in politics. The Supreme Court ruling in this case forever changed the rules regarding corporate campaign expenditures. Direct corporate and union contributions to federal campaigns, however, are still prohibited.             Soon after the Supreme Court ruling of Citizens United v. FEC, the 2010 election marked the rise of a new political committee called the "Super PAC,” officially known as an "independent-expenditure only committee," which can raise unlimited sums from corporations, unions and other groups, as well as individuals.             However, since Super PACs are “independent,” they are not allowed to coordinate directly with candidates or political parties. Although, according to Trevor Potter, former chairman of the Federal Election Commission and lawyer of TV satirists Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, a candidate may "talk to his associated Super PAC via the media. And the Super PAC can listen, like everybody else.”             Just like traditional PACS, Super PACs are required to reveal their donors. Despite the fact that many Super PACs do not have a formal connection to a particular campaign, Super PACs openly support particular candidacies.  For example, during the current primary season of the 2012 presidential election, the “Restore Our Future” Super PAC benefits Republican Mitt Romney while attacking his rival Newt Gingrich. In contrast, the “Winning Our Future” Super PAC endorses Gingrich while attacking Romney.             Professor Mitchell of the University’s Political Science Department described the impact of the Citizens United decision on political campaigns. “The Citizens United decision in essence privatizes the campaign process.  In part, this is a positive development because it means candidates, in theory, should not have to spend as much time raising money themselves instead can let friendly Super PAC do it. This is the Mitt Romney model. Yet in part this is a negative development as well. The biggest danger, in my opinion, is it breaks the accountability link between candidates and voters,” Mitchell said.             Dan Ste. Marie, Communications major at the University, believes that the Citizens United decision was an extremely poor decision made by the Supreme Court. “To say corporations and extremely well funded individuals should have a bigger voice in general elections is tarnishing our political process more than it already has been. It's as if the Watergate fiasco has been forgotten and some Supreme Court justices feel elections should be bought rather than judged on facts, persona and ambition,” Ste. Marie expressed He believes that it is already a problem that advertisements can lie or misconstrue facts and deceive the public, but now Super PACs can up the amount of times voters see the advertisements. “It makes you wonder who really picks the candidates and who helps them win, the people or money? Ste. Marie said.             According to a New York Times article, “Who’s Financing the ‘Super PACs’” from February 2012, “The Times tracked donors to “Super PACs” as they filed reports on Tuesday detailing their activities in the final three months of 2011. Unlike candidates, who can raise a maximum of $2,500 per person for each election, Super PACs are independent from candidates and can raise unlimited amounts from individuals, corporations and labor unions, and spend unlimited amounts to support or oppose a candidate.” The article further outlines each Super PAC along with the particular candidates that they endorse and the funds raised by each member.             The “Restore Our Future” Super PAC, created by former aides to Mitt Romney, is running advertisements in Florida, Nevada and Arizona to oppose Newt Gingrich and has raised the most out of all Super PACs in the 2012 election year with $30.2 million raised so far.             According to the Center for Responsive Politics, 318 groups organized as Super PACs had received $98,650,993 and spent $46,191,479 as of this February.  In relation, there were only 84 groups organized as Super PACs during the 2010 mid-term elections.             However, Bordelon explained that, “the media coverage of the phenomenon is pervasive and surely litigation surrounding these matters will continue, particularly with political free speech challenges.”             Super PACs have become so popular in the 2012 election as well as in the media, that even satirists Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have one. “Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow,” better known as the “Colbert Super PAC” is a political action committee started by Stephen Colbert. Like all Super PACs, Colbert’s organization can raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions and other groups, as well as wealthy individuals.             During the January 12, 2012 episode of The Colbert Report, Colbert announced his whimsical plans to form a possible candidacy for "President of the United States of South Carolina." When told by his lawyers that he could not both run a Super PAC while running for “presidency” at the same time, he transferred control of the Super PAC to Jon Stewart, renaming it “The Definitely Not Coordinating With Stephen Colbert Super PAC.” On January 30, 2012, Stewart transferred the Super PAC back to Colbert. Despite the satirical nature of both Colbert and Stewart’s agendas, in the January 31, 2012 FEC filing, the Super PAC reported raising over $1.02 million.             When asked what he thought of Colbert’s Super PAC, Bordelon said, “I think it is very interesting what Colbert has done and what is his intent to present a social commentary on the process.  He has set up a political action committee and collected funds in a way many would argue should be the way to collect funds in campaigning, but he's not running for office.  He's essentially using that process to criticize the decision in Citizens United, a modern political satire if you will.”             Similarly, Dr. Phillips-Anderson of the Communication Department and professor of Political Communication believes that Colbert has used his Super PAC and television show to discuss and shine a light on Super PACs more than anyone else in media. “I think that without his show fewer people would be aware of the Super PACs and what they can do,” Phillips-Anderson said.             Ste. Marie has even donated to Stephen Colbert's “Making A Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow” Super PAC. He expressed his support of Colbert’s ideas by saying, “I think it's a great way to show how money controls our political process and educate the viewing audience on the inner workings and legal proceedings of a Super PAC.”             He went on to express that “While Colbert and Jon Stewart are openly mocking the system, they are also showing the hypocrisy of politicians claiming they have no working relationship with their Super PACs. Colbert has also developed political advertisements in the same vain as Super PACs which rely more on substance, shock factor and capturing the audience's attention rather than using facts or logical reasoning,” Ste. Marie continued. He said, “If Super PACs can say John Kerry wasn't a Vietnam veteran, then Colbert can allude Mitt Romney as a murderer and nickname him Mitt the Ripper.”             However, Super PACs have only been increasing in their popularity as well as their controversial nature with this upcoming election. According to Dr. Mitchell of the Political Science Department, “Super PACs will no doubt have some impact on the 2012 campaign. The big losers from this development are the two political parties.” Mitchell went on to explain how both Republican and Democratic Party establishments have lost control of the campaign process in that individuals outside of the formal partisan establishments run Super PACs.             Mitchell also offered an interesting approach in regards to money and politics. He indicated “For democracy to function, voters must be put in a position to make informed choices at the ballot box. Privatization of presidential campaigns and moving them out of the control of the traditional parties undermines the ability of voters to make rational decisions.”             For the first time in election history, Mitchell described, it is not about what candidates say about other candidates, but what anonymous groups say about particular candidates and their positions. We are then approached with the question, “What's to stop a Super PAC from saying just about anything? Democrats and Republicans must deal with one another after Election Day, thus there are some formal and informal rules on their campaign behavior. Again, for me, Super PACs cloud the notion of accountability in campaigns,” Mitchell revealed.             Lastly, Mitchell described that overall, money has always dominated American presidential campaigns, but that he is “not sure that the general impact of Super PACs is that significant. I favor public financing of presidential campaigns. Take the money out of the process and let campaigns focus on ideas.”             Bordelon also offered an interesting legal outlook with regards to the innovation of Super PACs. “I think that actors in the campaign process have different expectations of the use of Super PACs. Plus, they are still a relatively new phenomenon. Certainly, candidates have an interest in showing to their constituents that they do not want to accept unlimited amounts of money even indirectly or otherwise appear unfair to the electoral process.”             Bordelon went on to describe that the arguments focused on today’s political action committees are not new, however, “are recast in a more technologically advanced era with more money to throw around and with more constant media scrutiny. He continued by explaining that the direct cause of an increased number of Super PACs as a result of the holding in Citizen United is still unfolding. While the Citizens United case was just decided in January of 2010, “this will be the first full campaign cycle where significant electoral impact could be felt.”             Phillips-Anderson expressed how Super PACs have had an immense impact on this upcoming presidential election. “This is the first presidential election since the creation of the Super PACs. We have seen that the Super PAC supporting Romney has used it keep rivals at bay. The Super PAC supporting Gingrich has almost single handedly kept him in the race. And this week we learned that President Obama will consent to a Super PAC raising money and spending on his behalf, after saying that he thought Super PACs were terrible,” Phillips-Anderson explained.             Ste. Marie also believes that Super PACs have a tremendous impact on elections today “as we see more and more candidates being funded by these major donors and the slew of political advertisements shown in multiple states,” he said.  Ste. Marie believes that any candidate that is being funded by a Super PAC, especially one that has millions of dollars on hand, will have a clear advantage over those that do not. “To win an election today, voters need to know who a candidate is and what they stand for, and the best way to reach voters is through political advertisements either through television, radio, newspapers, online sites or social networking sites. When a candidate has the funds and the organization to adequately use all these mediums, that candidate will reach the most voters and be able to sway the vote,” Ste. Marie explained.

[theinformedpublic-blog]

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.

Thomas Jefferson

[theinformedpublic-blog]

Tweet Tweet #Victory

Social Media Becomes a New Battleground for Obama and Romney

                            Nearly two-thirds of all Americans are using social networking websites, a study from the Pew Research Center revealed in May 2012. As the amount of social media users continues to grow, so does the question of whether or not social media will play a crucial role in this presidential election.

In order to express their message and to gain support from the American public, presidential candidates in recent years have chosen to not only use, but to embrace social media as their method of engaging voters in the election process.

Former presidents such as Franklin D. Roosevelt mastered the radio; John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon made use of the television; President Barack Obama put the spotlight on social media in his 2008 presidential victory, establishing Facebook and Twitter’s status in the political election process.

After President Obama’s victory, the 2008 presidential election came to be known as “the social media election,” because of the Obama team’s use of the Internet to both raise money and engage in grassroots networking.

Since that time there has been an explosion in the variety and reach of the digital tools made available to voters, campaigns, and the candidates themselves, providing powerful and significant new ways to lobby for both finances and votes. Today, Republicans and Democrats alike are engaging in all-out social media war over the attention of the American public.

Despite the common notion that social networking appeals specifically to younger generations, its use is growing exponentially amongst all age groups. Although 86 percent of Americans ranging between ages 18 and 29 comprise most avid social network users, the Pew Research Center revealed that 72 percent of those between age 30 and 49 are active on web based social media, as well as 50 percent over the age of 50.

The number of social media users has grown in direct correlation with voter turnout, based on the 2008 election. According to the U.S. Census Bureau report on the 2008 Presidential Election, “Overall, 131 million people voted in 2008, a turnout increase of about 5 million people since 2004. During this same 4-year period, the voting-age citizen population in the United States increased by roughly 9 million people. In 2008, 71 percent of voting-age citizens were registered to vote.”

Social media took center stage during the 2008 presidential campaign and has been widely adopted as a viable and necessary means to reach American voters ever since. President Barack Obama was able to adapt to the ever-changing means of communication used by American voters in 2008, and continues to utilize social media today– he currently has more than 28 million Facebook “likes” and close to 20 million followers on Twitter.

Twitter currently provides real- time feedback on presidential debates, a much faster approach than traditional polling. As a result, presidential campaigns have been paying close attention to the discussions surrounding their candidates. These discussions offer interesting feedback as to whether the candidate’s message is being received.

According to Professor Robert Scott of the communication department, “It seems that Facebook and Twitter have been the most commonly used social tools during this campaign season, although others such as Reddit and Flickr have taken on a significant presence as well.”

“For the first time, social media has become more ubiquitous across multiple demographics and is likely to have more of an impact on elections than in previous years. In fact, some analysts have already taken to calling the current presidential race the ‘First Twitter Election,’” Scott explained.

He also described a new aspect of the social networking site: Twitter’s Political Index. Alsocalled “Twindex” for short, it has been tracking campaign-related tweets for months to produce a day-by-day guide to the online conversations involving the candidates. “The index then creates a sentiment score relative to all tweets. The company hopes that it will complement traditional polling techniques to provide a more complete forecast,” Scott said.

Compass Labs, a social media platform, released a comparison of the likes and dislikes of Facebook supporters of both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama earlier this week. According to their analysis, “Obama currently has 28,365,075 fans to Romney’s 6,446,941 fans on Facebook -- but Romney has the edge on both the amount of online chatter about candidates with 3,340,348 people talking about him, against Obama’s 3,051,585.”

The analysis also found that in terms of demographic breakdown, “the majority of Romney’s supporters – 43 percent – are older than 55 years of age, while Obama’s appeal is spread more evenly across age groups: 24 percent aged over 55, 17 percent aged 45-55, 18 percent 35- 45 years of age, 21 percent aged 25-35 and 20 percent aged 18 to 25.” “Not surprisingly, Romney’s followers tend to be older and Obama’s skew younger. And while the President has about 22 million more fans than his challenger, Romney’s fans tend to be more socially engaged,” Scott said.

Professor Mary Harris of the Communication Department also offered an interesting outlook as to how social media is impacting elections. “Commonly known is that social media played a critical role in the last presidential election, and this election is also being influenced by this type of networking and online content,” she said.

Harris believes that Facebook has a major influence over voter turnout. “One reason for this is that Facebook is very versatile, with features ranging from large image sharing to brief or lengthy status updates to sharing videos that can be viewed within the news feed itself. It is a platform that encourages ease of use with a combination of graphics, text, and video that can be accessed quickly and with little effort,” she explained.

Harris continued, “People can be influenced by their friends on Facebook and other social networks by seeing what their friends share, like, and write. Today, political opinions and voting decisions are often openly shared through social media; this has become a normal thing to do for many users, where it once may have been more private, so this openness can sway public opinions and voter turnout alike.”

In recent years, many researchers have been working diligently to find a link between social media and elections. According to an article published in Nature, the International Weekly Journal of Science on September 12, “About 340,000 extra people turned out to vote in the 2010 U.S. congressional elections because of a single election-day Facebook message, estimate researchers who ran an experiment involving 61 million users of the social network.”

The study, published September 12, is “the first to demonstrate that the online world can affect a significant real-world behavior on a large scale,” the journal’s website explains.

The journal’s website describes the experiment in full. The study involved all U.S. Facebook users over the age of 18 who had accessed the website on November 2, 2010 – the same day as the elections. It found that about 611,000 users, or a small 1 percent of all Facebook users received an “informational message” at the top of their news feeds, which encouraged them to vote by providing a link on local polling places and included a clickable “I voted” button along with a counter of Facebook users who clicked it, the journals website explains.

Just to show how strong the influence is of Facebook users by their friends, the journal’s website said, “about 60 million users (98 percent) received a ‘social message’, which included the same elements but also showed the profile pictures of up to six randomly selected Facebook friends who had clicked the ‘I voted’ button.”

The website continues by explaining that the researchers estimate that the social message directly increased turnout by about 60,000 votes. A further 280,000 people were indirectly nudged to the polls by seeing messages in their news feeds, for example, telling them that their friends had clicked the ‘I voted’ button.

It may not sound like much, but in a close election such as the 2000 presidential election, where Florida’s vote was contested over just a small amount of votes, that kind of bump could make the difference between a win and a loss.

As the generation essentially sponsoring the social media movement, college students fall in the most active of the social media demographics. Social media as an approach to voting has the greatest impact on the youth, relative to all other sources.

Senior communication major at the University, Nicole Shapiro, stated, “As a whole I believe our generation is more likely to ignore a longer source of information in exchange for the more fast-paced social media options.” She went on to state that, “While adults make specific time to access social media through out the day, it is a constant source of information for the youth. As social media has progressed, I have personally developed a more global awareness; something I would never have done without Facebook and Twitter.”

In combination with reaching a larger percentage of American youth, social media is also capable of reaching other specific demographics. According to a Forbes Magazine article by Deborah L. Jacobs published June 25, 2012, “Politicians who want to win the women’s vote should take a lesson from consumer marketing. In that arena, women use blogs, social media platforms and web site comment spaces to influence each other’s purchasing decisions. They will use the same communication tools to affect the 2012 presidential election.”

The combination of fast-paced social media and hot-button topics in this election, such as war, debt, and abortion, any major political statements have the potential to cause a swing in public opinion. The election of 2012, just like 2008, is an election of firsts. American youth, women, race, and various other hidden demographics played an enormous role in 2008, and with the progression of social media, are likely to do so again in 2012.

[theinformedpublic-blog]

Christie Brings New Jersey Attitude to Florida GOP Convention

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie delivered the keynote address for the 2012 Republican National Convention on Tuesday, August 28. While the overall convention theme was “A Better Future,” Christie focused on leadership, choosing respect over love, giving Americans the unvarnished truth, and why Mitt Romney is the right man for the job and for America.

Standing in front of the backdrop of a New Jersey postcard, the same one used on Bruce Springsteen’s album Greetings from Asbury Park, N.J, Christie began his speech explaining how unbelievable it was for him to be on the stage of the Republican National Convention in the first place, as he is “from a state with 700,000 more Democrats than Republicans.”

Expressing his pride in his party, his state, and his country, Christie explained how the lessons his family taught him throughout the course of his life have impacted his everyday life.

“The greatest lesson Mom ever taught me, though, was this one: She told me there would be times in your life when you have to choose between being loved and being respected. She said to always pick being respected, that love without respect was always fleeting--- but that respect could grow into real lasting love,” Christie said.

Throughout his speech, Christie expressed how his mother’s wisdom helped him learn that respect is at the foundation of effective and memorable leadership. Making a reference to past and present leadership, he said, “We have become paralyzed by our desire to be l oved.” R eflecting t raditional Republican beliefs, Christie explained how America’s principles must be rooted in “strengths greater than the passions and emotions of the times.”

Making a jab at the Obama administration, Christie said, “Our leaders today have decided it is more important to be popular, to do what it easy, and say ‘yes’ rather than to say ‘no’ when ‘no’ is what’s required.” In an effort to inspire and rally the crowd, Christie explained how we must move away from the leadership popularity contest and take charge on issues that are important to Americans.

Using the theme of respect over love, Christie said, “Tonight, we are speaking for ourselves and stepping up. We are beginning to do what it right and what is necessary to make our country great again.” He explained that it is possible to face hard truths and be honest with the American people while still being respected. After all, he explained, he was able to overcome such challenges as Governor of New Jersey.

When Christie came into office, he explained that rather than trying to be popular, he did the job that New Jersey elected him to do. While there were problems that his opponents claimed could not be fixed, such as an inability to cut taxes, balance the budget, or take on the teacher’s union in New Jersey, Christie explained, “We did it.”

As with New Jersey, Christie illuminated that problems that seem impossible to fix, such as our national debt and deficit, can be resolved with the right leadership and while making a comparison between the Republican and Democratic parties, Christie explained why the Republican party is the right leadership for America.

As is traditional with Republican National Conventions, the New Jersey Governor outlined the current problems that would be addressed upon election. “For make no mistake, the problems are too big to let the American people lose – the slowest economic recovery in decades, a spiraling out of control deficit, an education system that’s failing to compete in the world,” he said.

Christie described Mitt Romney and his Vice Presidential pick, Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, as the team to put the country “back on the path to growth and create good-paying private sector jobs again in America.” While Christie ended an era of absentee leadership without purpose in New Jersey, he promises that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan will be real leaders in the White House.

As his speech drew to a close, Christie said, “Our problems are big and the solutions will not be painless. We all must share in the sacrifice,” making note that it won’t be easy, but we as Americans must unite as one to overcome such obstacles.

Jason Wiemken, senior political science major, at the University offered his opinion on Christie and his keynote address to the nation. Wiemken explained that he likes Christie despite of the fact that he, as a student, personally leans more liberally when it comes to social issues. Specifically, Wiemken liked the points that Christie made about our education system and the difficulties that the teacher’s union presents.

“I have two teachers in the family who actually agree with Christie simply because once a teacher is tenured, there is basically no accountability. There are teachers out there who are inadequate and lacking but nothing can be done to them simply because they have tenure and the union would make a huge fit over it,” Wiemken said.

However, similar to many criticisms made by Americans surrounding Christie’s speech at the RNC, Wiemken thought it was odd that Christie didn’t even begin to discuss Mitt Romney until halfway through his speech. Discussing a similar opinion, Dr. Michael Phillips-Anderson, Assistant Professor of Applied Communication, believes that if Christie’s intent behind the address was to promote the Republican Party’s nominee, he failed. “He rarely spoke about Romney. Christie was 1700 words into a 2600 word speech before he mentioned the Republican nominee,” he said.

Phillips-Anderson explained that it has often been the case with previous keynote addresses: That the speaker neglects to fully mention and give credit to the nominee throughout the course of their speech. For example, he said, “In 1988, Ann Richards delivered what many see as an excellent performance at the Democratic National Convention, but she barely spoke about the nominee, Michael Dukakis, coincidently another governor from Massachusetts.” Phillips-Anderson explained that while Christie should have been aiming to humanize Mitt Romney, instead he argued that it is better to be respected than loved; coincidently, Ann Romney, Mitt Romney’s wife had spent her speech discussing the importance of love.

Similarly, although his speech was not all that effective in promoting and humanizing Romney, it did put Chris Christie, a New Jersey politician, on the national stage and promoted his potential future run for national office, Phillips- Anderson explained.

Phillips-Anderson believes that Christie missed an opportunity to speak about bipartisanship within our home state. “The Republicans and the Democrats of New Jersey may not particularly like each other, but with a Republican governor and the Democratic legislature, they have to work together. This just may not be the argument that Republicans want to promote nationally,” he said.

While New Jersey residents are known for having a unique, sometimes loud style of communicating, Chris Christie argues with a style of directness and truth telling, something that those outside of the Garden State may not agree with, Phillips-Anderson explained.

Historically, the Republican National Convention is the presidential nominating convention of the Republican Party of the United States, the convention’s website explains. It is convened by the Republican National Committee in order to nominate an official candidate in an upcoming presidential election, to adopt the party platform, and to establish rules for the election cycle. According to the convention’s website, the RNC signifies the end of a presidential primary season.

This year, the 2012 Republican National Convention was held during the week of August 27, 2012 in New Jersey Governor Chris Christie gives the keynote speech at the Republican National Convention. Tampa, Florida at the Tampa Bay Times Forum. There, delegates officially nominated Mitt Romney for President and Paul Ryan for Vice President for this year’s election. Other prominent speakers besides Chris Christie consisted of but were not limited to; Ann Romney, Rick Santorum, Rand Paul, John McCain, Condoleezza Rice, Clint Eastwood, and of course, Mitt Romney himself.

The convention’s website reads, “History is being made in Tampa this week as 2,286 delegates and 2,125 alternate delegates from all 50 states, the District of Columbia and five U.S. territories gather together to nominate the next president of the United States at the 40th Republican National Convention.”

For those that would like to learn more about the Republican National Convention or would like to hear particular speeches/clips, the RNC website explains that there is a RNC YouTube page that “ is filled with social conversations, social data, infographics, photos and videos to keep you informed of convention activities.” The website is http://www.youtube.com/user/rnc.

As the time until Election Day dwindles, Americans are pitted in constant internal and external debate with questions regarding who is the best candidate for themselves as individuals, their companies, their families, and their futures. Perhaps the most important question, and the one least asked by voters, is which candidate will do the most for America.

IMAGE taken from politicker.com

[theinformedpublic-blog]

Dishonoring the Family Can Lead to Murder

The Story Behind Honor Killing

According to UNICEF’s website, “An honor killing, also known as honor murder, is the homicide of a member of a family or social group by other members, due to the belief that the victim has brought dishonor upon the family or community.”

Dishonor typically stems from one of the following behaviors, the website explains: dressing in a manner unacceptable to the family or community, wanting to end or prevent an arranged marriage or desiring to marry by own choice, engaging in heterosexual acts outside of marriage or engaging in any homosexual acts.

As a result of rigid beliefs as to what is right and wrong in cultures throughout the world, thousands of women, teens and even men have been forced to adhere to their family’s strict belief systems or face the consequence of dishonor which can lead to death.

The acts that brings dishonor to many families and communities continues to grow as individuals from various cultures come to the United States, a country in which there is no law regarding honor killings. According to the United Nations website, “In many societies, rape victims, women suspected of engaging in premarital sex and women accused of adultery have been murdered by their relatives because the violation of a woman’s chastity is viewed as an affront to the family’s honor.”

According to Dr. Rehka Datta, of the Political Science Department, who specializes in foreign social enviornments said, “Some countries allow the practice in the name of cultural standards and taboos against tainting family name and honor, and others have laws such as ‘zina’ that allow for harsh punishments for extramarital and adulterous acts.” She continued, “Often these justifications of ‘killing’ women are made without much proof, and women’s powerlessness in society makes matters worse for them.”

The website also offers some alarming statistics. The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) estimates that 5000 women worldwide are killed by instances of honor killing each year. Perhaps even more alarming is that on their website, Nisha Varia, a senior researcher at Human Rights Watch, explains that there is very poor data on honor violence. “It’s such a difficult phenomenon to accurately record because many don’t get reported, or they happen in remote areas, or are classified as something else,” she said.

Despite the thousands of instances of honor killing that go unheard, there are some instances that news organizations have illuminated for the world to see. For example, CBS News explained in an article entitled “Honor Killing Under Growing Scrutiny in the U.S.” from earlier this month, that the news of a father who had deliberately and brutally murdered his daughter flooded news stations and newspapers everywhere early in 2010. Noor Almaleki, the 20-year-old woman from Arizona, had been the victim of an honor killing.

Detective Boughey, one of the detectives working to find out the truth behind Noor Almaleki’s death said in the CBS article that, “In certain traditions and certain cultures, if a father believes that a female has acted in a dishonorable or disrespectful way, to bring dishonor to the family, to bring dishonor to the community, that the only way to restore that honor is to kill them.”

What may be most surprising is that Noor’s story is not unique. According to the CBS article, Jasvinder Sanghera, founder of Karma Nirvana, a community- based project which helps victims of forced marriages and honor based violence in Great Britain by providing safe-housing, said, “There has been a survey that in the States over the past two years, there have been 3,000 cases of forced marriage.” She continued by saying, “It’s an unimaginable concept for most Americans, but some cultures believe that murdering a child to restore family honor is justifiable.”

However, what many don’t realize is that honor killing stems from a longline of cultural norms in many societies. Dr. Michelle Grillo of the criminal justice department explained, “Honor killings are acceptable in some areas of the world, such as the Middle East. If a father kills his daughter in the name of the family, the father will not be prosecuted. However, in the U.S., killing is considered wrong, no matter what the reason (with the exception of proven self-defense).”

She continued to say, “So, if an Arab family conducts an honor killing in the U.S., the family members involved will be prosecuted for murder (as is what happened in Canada a couple of months ago). This results in a clash of cultures, representing culture conflict theory - where two different cultures clash in their morals, values and even laws.”

In an article entitled “Cultural Relativism and Universal Rights,” from the Chronicle of Higher Education, Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban also describes how honor killings can be viewed in cultural relativist terms. “Changing cultural and economic status of women has also been used to explain the occurrences of honor killings. Women in largely patriarchal cultures who have gained economic independence from their families go against their maledominated culture. Some researchers argue that the shift towards greater responsibility for women and less for their fathers may cause their male family members to act in oppressive and sometimes violent manners in order to regain authority,” she explains.

Another instance of honor killing that goes along with the notion that women who gain independence from their family economically go against the idea of a male-dominated culture is Palestina “Tina” Isa. Isa was a 16-yearold girl from St. Louis, Missioui and the daughter of two Palestinian immigrants. Late in 1989, she was found to have taken a part time job without her parent’s permission and was dating an African-American rather than the man her parents chose for her in an arranged marriage. She was held down by her mother while her father allegedly stabbed her to death as a form of honor killing.

“We don’t have the mechanisms in place here in the U.S. to take care of these girls,” says Det. Chris Boughey, the detective that worked on Noor Almaleki’s case, according to the “48-hours special.”

Despite the growing number of cases of forced marriage and killing as a way to restore family honor, many Americans may think that forced marriages and so-called honor killings exist only overseas. However, according to CBS “48 Hours Mystery Special” entitled “A Family’s Honor,” “A survey the Tahirih Justice Center conducted of more than 500 social service, religious, legal, educational and medical agencies last year, 67 percent responded that they believed there were cases of forced marriage occurring among the populations they serve, but only 16 percent felt their agency was equipped to deal with the situation.”

Grillo also explained, “honor killings typically occur by a father or brother against a daughter/sister. In the most recent cases in the U.S., the father has been the person to conduct the honor killings. The other family members know and understand what must be done, whether or not they agree with it.”

She explained that typically what happens is the daughter brings shame to the family, such as in the stories of Noor Almaleki and Palestina “Tina” Isa. “This may be through becoming too “Americanized” by the way of dress or behavior, or more commonly, the daughter has a relationship (in particular a sexual one) with a man before he is married. To spare the family pain from the embarrassment of the daughter’s disrespect for the family, the daughter is killed by the head of the family, the father,” Grillo explained.

“Every time a mother or wife is tortured and murdered in the name of honor killing, it is bound to bring an incompleteness and emptiness in a child’s or man’s life; scars that will have longer lasting effect on an individual’s life as well as on the family, community, and society at large. That’s why we should all care about how a fellow human being is treated, man or woman, far or near, - worldwide!” Datta expressed.

She then explained how honor killing is still thriving within our own borders. “The U.S. does not have any mechanisms in place to assist women in these cases, if they fear their life. In addition, there is very little data available worldwide from organizations such as the World Health Organization. There is even less data in the United States, if any at all,” Grillo said.

According to Patrick Amos, a junior criminal justice major, “I agree with the murder laws, killing someone (especially a family member) is illegal and should be. Just because they did something against religious beliefs or the morals of the parents should never be a valid excuse for taking a life.”

He continued by saying, “Killing another person is inherently wrong, and if the laws of the United States are ever changed to accommodate honor killings then the government would be failing to protect its people.”

[theinformedpublic-blog]

Push Bullying Into a Locker

Global Understanding Convention at Monmouth University Cracks Down on Bullying

Professor Jennifer Shamrock of the Communication Department along with three of her senior students: Kiley Minton, Alexa Passalacqua, and Natalia Starosolsky conducted a presentation entitled “Bullying in America” for the 11th annual Global Understanding Convention on Wednesday, April 4.

Throughout the presentation, Shamrock and her students showed pictures and video clips of children and young teens that have lost their lives to the inescapable realities and pressures of bullying. While bullying continue to grow harsher each year, school administrators throughout the country are failing to put an end to the problem that has plagued America’s youth. As devastated and grief stricken families look for answers, they turn towards current laws and legislations in their home states.

Bullying is forcing kids to stay home from school, some missing a total of one third of their total school days; the problem only gets worse for some, the group’s presentation explained.

For example, one of the main videos that Shamrock and her group focused on was a news report from Anderson Cooper called “Bullied to Death,” that told the story of Asher Brown, a 13-year-old boy from Houston, Texas who ended his life as a result of bullying. When Cooper questioned the boy’s parents, they said, “Asher was picked on for not wearing the same clothes, for his stature, for his Buddhist religion and for being gay.” However, despite Asher’s parents’ complain of their son being bullied, the administrators of Asher’s school denied knowing that the boy was bullied at all.

As a result of school district’s inabilities to catch bullying in their schools before children and young teens look towards such drastic measures. Many advocacy groups throughout the United States have developed. For example, Shamrock and her students showed a trailer from the award-winning documentary made the advocacy group Parents Against Violence Everywhere entitled “Rats and Bullies.”

According to their website, those involved in the production of “Rats and Bullies” explain that the movie “Tells the powerful true story of a 14-year-old girl named Dawn Marie Wesley, who after being bullied and threatened with death by three girls at her school, hung herself in her bedroom with her dog’s leash. In the suicide note she left behind, she named the three girls. The tragedy sparked national outrage, fueled a groundbreaking investigation which led to precedent setting court case, where, for the first time in North America, teens were made to stand trial for bullying.”

For many young teens, however, bullying exists far from within the confines of their school. Cyberbullying, according to the National Crime Prevention Council’s website, is the act of using the Internet and related technologies such as instant messaging, email, YouTube, and several social media outlets, to harm others in a deliberate, repeated, and hostile manner.” Cyberbullying has breached the safety of individual’s homes, making it hard for kids to escape. To many, suicide seems like “The only way out,” Shamrock explained.

The presenters offered an example. In 2006, Megan Meier, a young girl from Dardenne Prairie, Missouri, hung herself when a 47-yearold neighboring mother, Lori Drew, made a fake Myspace account in order to find out what Meier thought of her daughter. Drew created an account of a young male under the alias of “Josh,” pretended to be interested and in love with Meier, then told her “You are a bad person and everybody hates you. Have a shitty rest of your life. The world would be a better place without you.” Meier then proceeded to hang herself in her bedroom closet as a result of the cruel messages sent by “Josh.” Despite the horrors of this story, Drew was only charged with misdemeanors of doing “bad things with a computer,” the group explained. Bullying plagues many of America’s youth and extends not only from young adults to others, but parents as well.

The presenters explained that bullying is cyclical, continuous and that it happens just about everywhere including: School, on the Internet, in the workplace and around the world. According to the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry’s website, “Surveys indicate that as many as half of all children are bullied at some time during their school years, and at least 10 percent percent are bullied on a regular basis.” The website further explains that the fourth leading cause of death among 10 to 14- yearolds is suicide as a result of being bullied.

The group continued by telling the stories of those who have been so gravely impacted by bullying. One story was that of Michael Brewer was a 15-year-old from Florida who was set on fire and left to die by bullies. After a two-month stay in a Miami hospital’s intensive care unit, Brewer is still recovering from second- and third-degree burns that cover his entire body.

As a result of such heinous crimes against America’s youth, many states have looked towards advancing, expanding, or creating anti-bullying legislation. According to the group’s presentation, the first state to enact a bullying law was Georgia in 1999. After over a decade, New Jersey created the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights, named “toughest in the country.” However, many claim that such high regard against bullying is too costly and too demanding. Although, after the recent death of Rutgers student, Tyler Clemente, many are starting to believe that the law should enact anti-bullying requirements for all schools.

As of this year, 45 states have laws about bullying, the presentation explained. Although both Montana and South Dakota currently have no bullying laws set in place. Perhaps it is because these state legislators have the same ideologies as many Americans do: “Kids will be kids, boys will be boys.” Although bullying has sparked hundreds of movements and advocacy groups throughout the country that work diligently to influence and persuade lawmakers to put an end to bullying once and for all, the crisis continues to loom overhead.

Alexa Passalacqua, one of the presenters of “Bullying in America” and senior communication major commented on the student turn out for this particular presentation. “I think the student turn out for the event was really good. I feel this is a topic that affects a lot of students so some of them might have been able to relate to it,” she said.

Shamrock shared a similar opinion in that she felt pleased with the amount of students that showed up for the event; more than the two presentations she took part in for the Global Understanding Convention. Shamrock was also pleased to see that those that attended were not only students from her classes, but others as well.

According to Shamrock, “Unless people demand that legislators make anti-bullying legislation a priority, not enough necessary policies or laws will be enacted.” However, Shamrock expressed, feature films such as the upcoming documentary film, “Bully”, which exposes the realities of bullying on a daily basis in America, and the growing amount of celebrities speaking out about bullying and will hopefully bring publicity and attention that the issue so deserves.

She also explained that the recent implementation of New Jersey’s anti-bullying law sparked her interest in the topic. “Even if you read just a little about the topic, you’ll discover the largescale magnitude of the problem,” Shamrock said. However, “Every state must realize that growing numbers in child suicide will be the consequence of not addressing such a vast and growing problem,” Shamrock said.

Passalacqua also offered her outlook on the issue. “We chose this topic for the Global Understanding Convention because it’s an issue that really needs to be brought to America’s attention and solved because no person should have to go through what some of the people in our presentation did such as suicide, being uncomfortable going to school and cutting,” she said. She then expressed her feelings on the current law and legislation that have come to being in our state. “I think New Jersey did a great job with the anti-bullying law and it’s sad but I think the death of Tyler Clemente really brought it to the forefront that a change needs to be made so this stops happening to other kids,” Passalacqua said.

According to another student who attended the presentation, Angelique Vigo, a sophomore Applied Communications major, “Bullying has gone global. It occurs worldwide. More students are standing up against bullying and trying to put an end to it internationally as more people are becoming aware of this global problem.”

Vigo continued by saying, “In my opinion, I feel that the laws passed by the New Jersey legislature against bullying is favorable to all students who were victims and those who may possibly be victims. I feel that such laws should have been in effect much sooner. Those who are running for political office should be more vocal on their views and what they propose to prevent bullying.”

[theinformedpublic-blog]

Feeling the Pain at the Pump?

A Look at Who's to Blame for Rising Gas Prices  

As gas prices continue to soar the American people are being forced to make decisions that will best suit their financial needs. In a country where prices of everything only seem to go up, gas will be just an additional expenditure that the public will be required to face. As a result of this concern, politicians and government officials keep the high prices of gas as one of their top concerns.

While prices of gas are continuously rising and politics are weighing heavily on consumer’s inability to afford fuel for their cars, they are forced to reevaluate their current cars and look towards smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles.

According to an Associated Press article, “As gas prices rise, Detroit is better prepared with small car. Gas prices are spiking. But this time, Detroit is ready.” The article explains that when gas prices soared in 2008, Detroit’s three U.S. automakers, Ford, General Motors and Chrysler, were struggling. Unlike competitors, they did not have small cars and relied on trucks and SUVs for profits. However, “When gas prices peaked at $4.12 in July of that year, sales from the Big Three (Ford, General Motors and Chrysler) plummeted more than 20 percent. That same month, sales of the fuelsipping Toyota Corolla jumped 16 percent,” the article explained.

In an effort to get better gas mileage on their vehicles consumers are shifting to small cars again. Although, the article said, “Prices have never been as high for this time of year. The price of a gallon of gas is up 46 cents this year to an average of $3.74. Analysts say gas could hit $4.25 by this April.”

President Obama explained that regardless of preventative measures being taken by auto companies to help consumers lessen the need to fill their tanks as frequently, there is no easy fix for the rising of gas this year. According to the article, “Obama: Fuel- Efficient Cars an Answer to Gas Prices” from the Associated Press in March 2012, President Obama said that, “Higher auto mileage standards set under my administration and better cars built by a resurgent U.S. auto industry will save money at the gas pump over the long term.”

He explained that Detroit automakers are planning to build cars that average nearly 55 miles per gallon by 2025, doubling current mileage standards. “That means folks will be able to fill up every two weeks instead of every week, saving the typical family more than $8,000 at the pump over time,” Obama said., “What’s happening in Detroit will make a difference. But it won’t solve everything. There’s no silver bullet for avoiding spikes in gas prices every year.”

Not only have politics played such an important role in gas prices and their rise and decline throughout the years, but gas has played an important role on politics, especially during the election process. Obama aides worry that fuel prices could hurt an American economic recovery that has been improving and also harm the president’s re-election prospects.

According to the Washington Post article, “Obama calls on Congress to repeal federal subsidies for oil industry” from March 1, 2012, “President Obama reiterated his call for Congress to repeal federal subsidies to the oil industry Thursday, escalating a political skirmish with Republicans over rising gasoline prices amid evidence that much of the public remains uncertain about who is to blame.”

Nearly one-quarter of Americans do not know who to hold responsible for the recent spike in gas prices, “Which have shot up 47 cents per gallon over the past two months,” according to a new Washington Post-Pew Research Center poll. While statistics from this poll show that most Americans do not know who is at fault for the rise in gas prices, 18 percent blame the President while 14 percent blame big oil companies.

Considering the fact that this year is an election year, the question of oil and energy policies are of special concern. President Obama has been working diligently to rally support and shape public debate behind his policies on energy in order to prevent taking a political risk before the election.

For example, the Washington Post article explained that Obama continues to defend his energy policy in recent weeks, saying there were “no quick fixes” to escalating prices at the pump. He reiterated his policy by saying, “Every time you fill up your gas tank, they’re making money,” referring to big gas companies. “Let’s put every single member of Congress on record: You can stand with oil companies, or you can stand up for the American people.”

Like President Obama, many politicians are concerned with the high prices of gas and how they are affecting the American public this year. The recent spike in fuel has also raised a large amount of controversy and debate between Republicans and Democrats alike.

Obama’s Republican presidential rivals have been criticizing the Obama administration’s policies and blamed the President for the spike at the pumps. According to Andrea Saul, spokeswoman for Mitt Romney said, “Americans deserve a president who can deliver real energy solutions and progrowth policies, not more empty rhetoric and broken promises.”

According to the Washington Post-Pew Research Center poll, published in February 2012, there is a significant partisan split over whom to blame for the price spike, with 33 percent of Republicans naming Obama compared to just five percent of Democrats and 20 percent of independents. The poll also shows that 11 percent of the public cites uncertainty in Iran and the Middle East as the primary factor.

However, President Obama offered an explanation as to why gas prices in America are skyrocketing. “Gas prices are still subject to spikes because the amount of oil we drill at home doesn’t set the price of gas on its own. That’s because oil is bought and sold in a world market. And just like last year, the biggest thing that’s causing the price of oil to rise right now is instability in the Middle East — this time in Iran.”

According to a CBS News poll released February 29, 2012, “Amid a national spike in gas prices, two in three Americans,” an alarming 67 percent, “say the hike in costs is causing them financial hardship at home.” The poll surveyed more than a thousand adults nationwide as gas prices rose to an average of $3.731 per gallon. Just one month ago, the average cost was more than $0.30 cheaper. Of the 67 percent, 38 percent of those say that the hardship is serious.

Americans with lower household incomes are especially likely to feel pain at the pump. The poll showed that “49 percent of those earning less than $50,000 say hikes in gas prices have caused them serious financial hardship; among those earning between $50,000 and $100,000, only 29 percent say the same thing. That number falls even further to 22 percent among those with incomes of $100,000 and higher.”

Similarly, the poll illuminated the statistical difference Republicans and Democrats feel in regards to gas prices. “At 37 percent, Republicans were more likely to say that they had experienced serious hardship due to the rising prices than were Democrats (28 percent), although 32 percent of people in both parties said the price hikes had caused them difficulties of some nature,” the article said.

The poll showed regional differences as well. Americans living in the West, or 43 percent of the American public, are most likely to suffer seriously from gas prices while we, those living in the Northeast, or 27 percent of Americans, are the least likely to suffer from the spike in gas prices, the poll exposed. In addition, 39 percent of Americans in both the Midwest and South said high gas prices had caused them serious economic hardship.

While politics are playing an everimportant role in the fuel game, the poll found that a majority of people believes that all Presidents, both past and present, have some control over the situation. Fifty-four percent say gas prices are something a president can do a lot about, while 34 percent think it is beyond any president’s control.”

These feelings also differ according to political party, the poll showed. “Republicans are more likely to say the president, now a Democrat, can do something significant to control the price of gas, while Democrats are more divided. Forty-two percent of Democrats say a president can do a lot about gas prices; 43 percent say it is beyond his control.”

According to Dr. Dooley of the Department of Political Science and Sociology, “It appears that oil prices will continue to rise for the foreseeable future as tensions with Iran continue to grow.” However, he questions whether or not that will have an impact politically for President Obama. “That is a tough question,” Dooley explains, “Oil prices are just one economic indicator voters will analyze, but sometimes it is not the most reliable when voting for a president.”

In regards to the impact of gas prices on Presidential elections, Dooley said, “In 1984 when Ronald Reagan was running to keep his job as president, gas prices were almost as high as they had ever been and he defeated Walter Mondale without breaking much of a sweat.”

Professor Murray of the Department of Political Science and Sociology also offered an interesting outlook on the impact of politics on gas prices this year. He said, “Gas prices are always fodder in a political campaign, but they are almost never as clearly linked as some would have you believe. Prices always go up in the spring and come back down in the fall to coincide with higher demand during the summer vacation season. With summer just around the corner, Americans will be faced with the hardship of continuous rising gas prices.”

He then explained how during Presidential years, people notoriously look for political explanations for the decline of gas prices during fall months, “Such as an incumbent trying to manipulate the market to boost his reelection prospects,” Murray said. “But the President has little control over this fluctuation. It will be worse this year, because anticipated disruptions in production are expected to make the summer price bubble much larger than normal. So we can expect Republicans to blame President Obama for the rising prices now and then offer some conspiracy theories when they come back down in September, just as Democrats did to George W. Bush when gas prices rose and fell in 2004,” Murray concluded.

Lexi Todd, a Political Science major at the University also has strong feelings about the seemingly limitless gas prices our American public is faced with on a daily basis. “Unfortunately as a commuter the constantly increasing price of gas is a necessary evil. Every week when I go to fill my tank the prices seem to creep closer and closer to the four dollar a gallon mark, and Feeling the Pain at the Pump? as the demand for gas continues to rise so will the prices,” Todd said. “Politically I do believe that Obama’s economic programs are at least partially to blame for the worsening conditions and the lack of improvement. What the average citizen fails to recognize, however, is that gas prices are determined primarily by the global marketplace. So while demand may not be at an all time high in the United States, demand in China and India remains strong, therefore oil companies are not very likely to lower prices any time soon.”

Throughout the past few years, students all over the country have been faced with skyrocketing gas prices and are especially impacted by the commute to and from school. However, the University is working hard to help students get the best gas mileage.

Vaughn Clay, Director of Off- Campus and Commuter Services explained, “Commuter students at Monmouth University have over the last 10 years had to contend with some dramatic swings in gas prices. As a regular response to those economic shifts, the Office of Off-Campus and Commuter Service’s (OCCS) has attempted to provide our students with a variety of information about stretching their gallons of gas as far as possible.”

Clay offered some informative ways that students can get the best mileage out of their vehicles. He said, “Students can improve their gas mileage by three percent by making sure that their tires are properly inflated. By changing the air filter, they can improve their gas mileage by up to 10 percent depending upon the make, model and whether or not it is fuel injected. Finally, another step students can take to improve their gas mileage is by making sure the car is properly tuned up.”

However, like many American commuters have been doing throughout the course of the past few years, Clay recommends, “Another great way to save money at the pumps is by carpooling with a friend, roommate or classmate. The savings really depend on how often you can carpool.”

If students would like to learn more about living a greener life off-campus and carpooling, Clay recommends visiting OCCS’s website at www.monmouth.edu/ commuter or by emailing occs@ monmouth.edu.

[theinformedpublic-blog]

State of the Union 2012

                            On Tuesday, January 24, an overwhelming 75 students from a wide variety of majors came out to attend the University’s second annual screening of the State of the Union address. Organized by Dr. Phillips-Anderson of the Communication department, the screening had significantly larger student turnout compared to last year. During the screening, a fun filled game of State of the Union bingo was played, using frequently used words that were presented throughout President Obama’s speech.              Throughout the 2012 State of the Union address, President Obama outlined a comprehensive list of his priorities and objectives for the upcoming year. While the speech was predominantly based on economic concerns, the President touched upon many important concerns belonging to the American public.              The President explained his desires to create a blueprint for the future of the United States, including an economy that works for all Americans, one focused on bringing back American manufacturing and promoting homegrown and alternative energy sources.              Some of the other concerns he mentioned included income inequality, unemployment, development of alternate sources of energy and resources, defense spending, free trade, education, the housing crisis, bank bailouts, and the withdrawal of United States armed forces from overseas.              For decades, middle class citizens have been forced to watch their economic security unravel right in front of their eyes. American jobs that were once a source of stable livelihoods and financial security have been shipped overseas. While the upper class watched their paychecks increase and their yearly incomes skyrocket, the majority of Americans dealt with salaries that stayed the same and a cost of living that continued to rise exponentially.               President Obama addressed these issues, claiming that we, as American citizens, need to promote new skills and better education so that all Americans can be prepared to compete in a continually growing global economy.                His policies on education were best exemplified when he expressed that every state should require their students to remain in high school until they turn 18 years of age or earn their diplomas. By requiring students to stay in school, the President is promoting the values of hard work and determination that our country was founded on.                However, Obama said, “When kids do graduate, the most daunting challenge can be the cost of college. At a time when Americans owe more in tuition debt than credit card debt, this Congress needs to stop the interest rates on student loans from doubling in July."               Obama demanded that states should make higher education a top priority in their agendas. Thus, under his administration, a tuition tax credit will be made in order to save the middle class families of America.            He proposed that if universities continue to raise their tuitions each year, they would no longer be able to receive taxpayer funding.              “Higher education can’t be a luxury. It is an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to afford.” Obama said.             However, the President announced that we must also remember the hundreds of thousands of talented, hardworking students in this country that face the challenge of not yet being American citizens. Brought here as small children, the President explained, these people are Americans through and through, yet are forced to live everyday with the threat of deportation.             Conversely, the President said that, “I believe as strongly as ever that we should take on illegal immigration. That’s why my administration has put more boots on the border than ever before. That’s why there are fewer illegal crossings than when I took office.”             However, he explained that if he and Congress cannot develop a comprehensive plan regarding this issue, they must “at least agree to stop expelling responsible young people who want to staff our labs, start new businesses, and defend this country. Send me a law that gives them the chance to earn their citizenship; I will sign it right away,” Obama said.             Ryan Franconi, Junior and Political Science major at the University expressed his feelings towards immigration. Like many Americans, Franconi believes that it is “unfair to deport eager young people who want to be here and want to gain an education.” Similar to President Obama’s beliefs, Franconi continued by saying, “I believe in a pathway to citizenship.”              Another issue that the President addressed was a need for new emphasis on American manufacturing. While thousands of Americans remain unemployed, Obama proposed that we must refocus our corporate tax structure to reward businesses that work to keep jobs in America rather than outsourcing their work overseas, and ending tax incentives for corporations that still continue to outsource. “My message is simple. It is time to stop rewarding businesses that ship jobs overseas and start rewarding companies that create jobs right here in America. Send me these tax reforms, and I will sign them right away,” Obama said.             Throughout the President’s speech, he addressed several issues, bills, and reforms in which he requested Congress to take action. His priorities were not strictly economically based, however. President Obama also explained how we must start to promote homegrown energy by finding new ways to develop natural gas reserves within the United States. This too, he believes, will allow for new ways of creating clean energy jobs in America.             The President ended his speech memorably, by showing his pride in American citizens, along with a devout sense of nationalism. “Each time I look at that flag, I’m reminded that our destiny is stitched together like those fifty stars and those thirteen stripes. No one built this country on their own. This nation is great because we built it together. This nation is great because we worked as a team. This nation is great because we get each other’s backs” Obama announced.             President Obama went on to say that if we, as the American public, hold to the truths that we can work together in a common bond of nationalism, pride, and teamwork, that “in this moment of trial, there is no challenge too great; no mission too hard. As long as we’re joined in common purpose, as long as we maintain our common resolve, our journey moves forward, and our future is hopeful, and the state of our union will always be strong.”             The conclusion was not the only part of the President’s speech that resounded within millions of Americans. Throughout the address, President Obama used military analogies, implying that the American people can learn a thing or two from our militaries ability to work together in order to achieve their goals.               “For the first time in nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq. For the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country. Most of Al Qaida’s top lieutenants have been defeated. The Taliban’s momentum has been broken. And some troops in Afghanistan have begun to come home,” Obama said.              He went on to explain how these achievements are a “testament to the courage, selflessness, and teamwork of America’s armed forces […] Imagine what we could accomplish if we followed their example.”             John Haren, junior and Communications major at the University believes that the 2012 State of the Union address will be a memorable one, yet doubts the speech’s sincerity.  “I thought Obama did a good job highlighting the problems that the United States faces today, but I won’t hold my breath waiting for his now repetitious promises that seem to always fall by the wayside” Haren said.              However, Haren was engrossed in some of the president’s key points. “I was interested in hearing of his interest in solar energy and the attempt to alleviate our dependence on foreign oil. Cutting the interest rate on student loans caught my ear as well. I will remember to keep my memory of this State of the Union address as a positive one” Haren concluded.             Dr. Phillips-Anderson of the Communication Department organized the live screening of this year’s address and explained that this year’s screening at the University nearly doubled in size from last year. Also, he was surprised that there was such student turnout, especially considering that it is the beginning of the semester.              Phillips-Anderson also shared his feelings about this year’s State of the Union address. He explained that he liked how the President used military analogies within the introduction and conclusion of his speech, all surrounded around the idea that Americans should follow the military’s powerful examples. Phillips-Anderson similarly expressed how he liked how the President “acknowledged that it will be difficult to enact those proposals.”              However, he thought the speech was a bit scattered and lacked coherent theme. “I wish that he said a little bit more about the Arab Spring and was a bit more clear in explaining his policies concerning it.” Similarly, Phillips-Anderson expressed that while President Obama proposed that Universities need to stop raising tuition costs or they will no longer receive government funding, “the President did not come up with any proposals as to how we can do that.”