Libya Attacks and Foreign Policy

This week there was an attack on the US Embassy in Libya where the US Ambassador, Chris Stevens, and three other Americans were killed along with a handful of Libyans.  The Embassy was attacked after an American made film that mocked the Islamic prophet Mohammed was released in Libya.

This event brings up the question of foreign policy into the presidential debate.  A president, as commander-in-chief, is the head of our foreign policy apparatus.  He uses the informal power of speeches and crisis manager to deal with these issues.  He also uses the formal powers of his office of appointing ambassadors, meeting with foreign dignitaries, and commanding the military to conduct foreign affairs. 

What should the president do about the attack on our embassy in Libya?
Is foreign policy an important issue to you as a voter?  Why?

(Please respond to this post by September 23.)

President Obama made his plea to the American voter this evening, laying out his vision for America and attacking Mitt Romney's policies over the last four years.

How did he "sell" himself?  What was his vision and what were his criticisms?  Did you like the speech?  Would you vote for him?

Remember, you can respond to this speech or Mitt Romney's speech last week.

College Costs Rising

The costs for attending college are increasing.  According to the Washington Post, "tuitions and fees for four-year public colleges grew by 72 percent above inflation over the past decade, averaging $8,244 last year, according to the College Board, which represents more than 6,000 schools. Student loan debt in the U.S. has hit $914 billion; the average borrower owes more than $24,000, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York says."

Not surprisingly, this topic is an issue in this year's presidential race.  Both Romney and Obama are trying to court young voters with their policy positions on curbing college costs.  There is no doubt that Obama has an advantage over Romney with young voters:  "In 2008, voters age 18 to 24 sided with Obama over GOP candidate John McCain by a 66-32 margin. A Gallup poll taken in July and August found that same age group preferring Obama over Romney by 56 percent to 36 percent, an edge that Republicans would love to erode further."

 Here is a site that compares the candidate's position on education.

With that said, what role should the government play in regulating escalating education costs?  (Think of chapter two and the concepts of tradition, command, and market economic systems.)  Would costs be reduced if all government subsidies were removed and a more "free market" approach were instituted?  Or should Pell Grants be extended as proposed by President Obama?  Since "private" colleges like Carrington College and Heald are very expensive, would turning colleges into a more free market system increase costs more or would competition bring the costs down?  Privatizing colleges would reduce costs for the taxpayer since colelges would not get public dollars anymore.

What is your solution for the increasing college costs?

Romney Asks For Your Support

Mitt Romney made his plea to the American voter this evening, laying out his vision for America and attacking Obama's policies over the last four years.

How did he "sell" himself?  What was his vision and what were his criticisms?  Did you like the speech?  Would you vote for him?

Remember, you can respond to this speech or President Obama's speech next week.

What's Behind the 2nd Amendment?

You may have heard about the recent tragic shooting sprees that have occurred across the country recently:  one in  NY City, another in Wisconsin, and of course the one in Aurora, Colorado this summer.  These tragic shooting events bring up discussion about how far our rights under the 2nd amendment should go.  How do we limit these senseless shootings?  Do we impose gun control regulations?  Or do we deregulate guns further, allowing people wider access to guns?

Allow me to add some quick background information: the 2nd amendment was one of the amendments added to the US Constitution in 1791.  The amendment reads:  

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The key to this phrase hinges on whether an individual has the right to own a gun or whether gun ownership was part of a larger duty to perform defense responsibilities as part of a local militia.

Guess who determines the intent and ultimate meaning of the 2nd Amendment?  The folks over at the judicial branch get to interpret the law.  The 2008 Supreme Court case of District of Columbia v. Heller ruled that the 2nd amendment protects an individual's right to own a gun outside of service in a militia for lawful purposes.

The only way to overturn the Court's ruing in "Heller" is by having a future Supreme Court overturn it or to pass a constitutional amendment, both are slim possibilities.  

Here are your discussion points:  do you agree with the Court's ruling that people have the right to own a gun outside of service in a Militia?  If the Supreme Court is going to allow Americans to posses a wide range of guns (lawfully), what public policy do we implement to limit all the mass killings that have occurred in our society and that will probably continue into the future?  Are mass killings the price we pay for having the 2nd amendment?