Author: Kellie Bartoli

Someone might want to tell Rep. Peter King (R–NY)  about the huge problems facing the nation and world today – maybe then we wouldn’t have to suffer through another worthless proposal.

Recently, King sponsored H.R.414, the Camera Phone Predator Alert Act. Essentially, the bill would ban a silent mode when taking a picture with a cell phone.

The act “requires[s] any mobile phone containing a digital camera to sound a tone whenever a photograph is taken.” Furthermore, such a tone should be “audible within a reasonable radius of the phone.”

According to the market research organization NPD Group, 83 percent of cell phones sold in 2008 were equipped with built-in cameras.

King has not commented publicly about the Camera Phone Predator Act since it was introduced on Jan. 9. His language in the bill, however, speaks volumes.

According to the bill, “Congress finds that children and adolescents have been exploited by photographs taken in dressing rooms and public places with the use of a camera phone.”

Where, may I ask, are these kids shopping?

Every once in a while, you do hear stories about customers being filmed while changing in a store’s fitting rooms. But in those cases, the victims are filmed with a hidden camera that records every movement not a grainy, still shot from a cell phone.

Perhaps King’s heart is in the right place, but his proposal doesn’t do enough. If it really wants to protect unsuspecting children (and adults, I might add), it shouldn’t limit itself to cell phone cameras.

Personally, I’m more suspicious of other recording devices. Almost everyone has a digital camera, and it seems that other digital video recorders, like the Flip Video for instance are getting smaller and more discreet by the minute.

Even King himself acknowledged that the plan isn’t infallible when he said to Congress: “An audible tone can at least help warn people that they’re being surreptitiously photographed. Is it foolproof? No. But it is an extra layer of protection, that warning signal.”

If passed, the United States would join Japan and Korea on the list of countries with such a law.

In an interview with ABC News, Sascha Segan, lead analyst for mobile devices at PCMag Digital Network, explained that in Japan and Korea, the cell phone camera law was passed in response to the growing number of occurrences of “underskirting.”

For those of you who don’t know, “underskirting” is when men, usually on a crowded train or bus, position their camera phone under women’s skirts and take pictures. Segan also says that a similar problem, cleverly called “downblosuing,” is also a problem. (Just a side note – I guess Tracy Jordan was right about “sharking” being popular in Japan. “30 Rock,” anyone?

The frequency of these incidents forced Japanese and Korean governments to act. Apple wasn’t even allowed to sell the iPhone in Japan until the camera’s silent mode was disabled. But, says Segan, in the United States, “this seems to be a solution in search of a problem. …I haven’t seen any reputable source saying that there’s a major problem with secretly taken dirty camera phone photos.”

Don’t look for this law to pass anytime soon, though. King has yet to pick up any co-sponsors in the month-plus since the bill was introduced. It looks as though this act will follow the path of King’s 2007 version of the act - and that’s nowhere fast. 

Author: Kellie Bartoli

Before he was even inaugurated, President Barack Obama drew steady comparisons to arguably one of the greatest presidents in history, Franklin D. Roosevelt. Both men used progressive tactics to communicate with Americans and each inherited the presidency at a less-than-ideal economic time. And if Rep. Jose Serrano’s (D-NY)  proposal passes – a lack of serving just two terms.

On Jan. 6 (the first day of the 111th Congress, in case you’re keeping score), Serrano introduced

H.J.Res.5 , a proposal to repeal the  22nd Amendment, removing presidential terms.

The 22nd Amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution on Feb. 27, 1951, when three-fourths of the states’ legislatures ratified it.

The “two term tradition,” as it is often known, dates back to George Washington, who, despite being wildly successful across the nation, didn’t seek a third term of office. Whether he meant to set a precedent or not, the ensuing leaders followed suit.

In an 1805 letter, Thomas Jefferson, America’s third president, wrote: “General Washington set the example of voluntary retirement after eight years. …I shall follow it, and a few more precedents will oppose the obstacle of habit to anyone after a while who shall endeavor to extend his term. Perhaps it may beget a disposition to establish it by an amendment of the Constitution.”

How prophetic, Mr. Jefferson! His constitutional vision wouldn’t be seen for a century or so, leaving a little wiggle room for a few presidents.

In 1860, Ulysses S. Grant sought a third term in office, after serving the country from 1869 – 1877. He narrowly lost out on the Republican Party’s nomination to James Garfield, who eventually won the presidency.

Just a few decades later, Theodore Roosevelt tried his hand at serving three terms. After assuming the presidency in 1901 after William McKinley was assassinated, Roosevelt was elected to his own term in 1904. But presiding over the United States from 1901 to 1909 wasn’t enough for Roosevelt. He attempted another election in 1912, but fell to Woodrow Wilson.

The most famous case concerns that other Roosevelt, though. FDR broke all precedent by being elected four times. The rising conflict in Europe helped lead Roosevelt to his third victory, and World War II ensured his fourth election.  One year after his fourth term began, Roosevelt suffered a stroke and died in office.

After FDR’s historic turn in the White House, Congress went to work on crafting an amendment to prevent such a presidency. While the 22nd Amendment wasn’t ratified until 1951, Congress actually passed it on March 21, 1947 – less than two years after FDR’s death.

But perhaps Rep. Serrano (and the others who have sponsored similar bills in the past) know something about American history that the rest of us don’t.

Many experts believe Washington’s iconic Farewell Address hints that it was Washington’s age that stopped him from seeking a third term.

“Washington didn’t want to die in office and have the succession appear ‘monarchical,’” wrote James MacGregor and Susan Dunn, college professors and authors of “George Washington.” “His primary reason for retiring was simply that after a lifetime of public service, he was bone-tired, desperate to return to the tranquility of Mount Vernon.”

The authors also note that Washington believed that term limits would “exclude from the presidency of a man whose leadership might be essential in a time of emergency.”

Alexander Hamilton, Washington’s close friend, fiercely opposed presidential term limits in his Federalist No. 72, saying among other things, that term limits would discourage new projects and threaten political stability.

While the current proposal to repeal term limitations doesn’t have any co-sponsors yet, many believe it has a chance to make an impact on Congress. It needs a two-thirds approval vote in both houses and ratification by three-quarters of states before becoming official.                                                        

Author: Kellie Bartoli

As Americans, we enjoy our freedom to do anything we may choose. Anything, that is except travel to Cuba.

Since 1963, the United States has followed a strict travel ban with Cuba – the only country that Americans are forbidden from visiting. Earlier this month, however, Rep. William Delahunt (D-MA) and eight co-sponsors introduced to Congress H.R.874, the Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act.

By lifting the 46-year sanction, the bill aims to restore the travel rights of Cuban refugees living in the U.S. and enable unrestricted American travel to Cuba, except during times of war and “imminent danger to the public health or physical safety.”

Despite growing popularity, the bill faces a tough crowd. Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-Miami), a longtime advocate of the Cuban sanctions, says similar acts are often proposed, and “every year embargo supporters kill [them] before they get any traction. …While we recognize that these are fights take place, we have great confidence that we’ll defeat them.”

The strongest argument against the measure is the belief that American tourism will breathe money into the Castro regime.

According to Humberto Fontova, a Cuban exile who has since penned two books about the island, at least 2 million tourists have visited Cuba each year since 1994, creating a $2 billion cash flow, which “is only going to increase now with Americans going to Cuba.”  

If the measure passes the House, President Obama will almost certainly sign it into law; throughout his presidential campaign, Obama pledged to change the travel ban. At a Cuban Independence Day event in Miami, he said, “My policy toward Cuba will be guided by one word: ‘libertad.’ …We’ve been engaged in a failed policy with Cuba for the last 50 years. And we need to change it.” Obama later went on to vow unrestricted travel and financial rights for Cuban-Americans.

The Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act will be a good test of Obama’s pledge. In addition to lifting travel sanctions, the new bill loosens the tight strings pulled by President George W. Bush, who placed even more stringent restrictions on American-Cuban relations.

Under the Clinton administration, for example, Cuban-Americans were allowed to visit the island once a year and send quarterly payments of up to $3,000 to their families. In 2004, Bush enacted stronger limitations: Cuban-Americans could only visit family once every three weeks for 14-day intervals, “family” was defined as parents, spouses, children and siblings – not friends or other family members, travel spending was capped at $50 per day, and cash remittances were maximized at $300 every three months and could only be sent to immediate family.

The new bill, however, calls for a $170-per day travel allowance, the ability for Cuban-Americans to visit relatives once a year and stay as long as they want, and eliminates a cap on remittance.

While the travel ban has been enforced for nearly 50 years, the proposal is moving much more rapidly. It was initially introduced to Congress on Feb. 4, and the House plans to vote as early as Wednesday. It is to be reviewed by the Senate at the beginning of next week. 

Author: Kellie Bartoli

Hippies (and Michael Phelps) – rejoice! On Feb. 23, the California legislature introduced AB390, a bill to legalize marijuana. And, if I do say so myself, it’s about time.

The measure is said to “remove all penalties in California law on cultivation, transportation, sale, purchase, possession or use of marijuana…or paraphernalia for persons over the age 21.”

Oh yeah, and bring in roughly $1 billion annually. Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, the bill’s sponsor, mandates “establishing a fee on the sale of marijuana at a rate of $50 per ounce.” That’s certainly one way to chip away at the state’s $42 billion deficit.

There couldn’t be a better time for such a proposal, especially when you consider the World Health Organization’s estimate that 42 percent of American adults have tried marijuana (not just the hippies anymore…my apologies). A recent study says 40 percent of Americans believe the drug should be legalized.

While that percentage wasn’t broken down by state, I can imagine that many California residents might be even more likely to support legalization. Since 2006, California has accounted for almost one-third of pot production, and marijuana has been more valuable to its growers than wheat and corn – combined. 

California is often viewed as the leader in creating policy changes that will eventually take over the country. The indoor smoking ban? California’s was enacted in 1994 and strengthened in 1998, years before the rest of the country caught on. Perhaps if the bill passes in California, other states may soon follow suit. The economy couldn’t ask for more.

According to a 2005 report by Professor Jeffrey A. Miron, “marijuana legalization – replacing prohibition with a system of taxation and regulation – would save $7.7 billion per year in state and federal expenditures on prohibition enforcement and produce tax revenues of at least $2.4 billion annually if marijuana were taxed like most consumer goods.”

The report goes on to explain that if marijuana were taxed like alcohol or tobacco (and it’s safe to assume it would), up to $6.2 billion could be generate each year.

And the economic windfall doesn’t stop there. With the decriminalization of marijuana, the government would be able to save the money it spends fighting against the drug and put it to better use. How much difference can that really make? It’s estimated that every state annually spends around $19.2 billion to fight the war on drugs, and at least 20 percent of that amount goes toward marijuana. That’s an extra $3.8 million that could be saved.

The “War on Drugs” sounds so very Nancy Reagan, though, right? When I hear the term, I imagine undercover FBI agents taking down an underworld drug cartel. But alas, my vivid imagination has gone too far.  Instead, the government focuses its efforts on arresting people for smoking marijuana – in the last decade alone, 6.5 million citizens have been arrested with marijuana violations.  Just in case you were wondering, that’s a higher number than the populations of Alaska, Delaware, Washington D.C., Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming put together.

• Yearly marijuana arrests have almost tripled since the early 1990s, accounting for the highest number recorded by the FBI.
• In 2006, 89 percent of the Americans arrested (738,915) were charged with simple possession.
• The amount of marijuana-related arrests in 2006 greatly exceeded the combined arrests for murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault.

That’s right – more Americans were locked up for smoking pot than committing violent crimes.

While some states may not be as forward thinking as California, they are willing to give marijuana a second chance, at least medically speaking.

In 2007, Massachusetts introduced HB2247 to legalize medical marijuana. While the bill didn’t make is past the Committee, voters took the issue into their own hands this November. After securing 65 percent of the vote, Massachusetts decriminalized pot possession of one ounce or less, making it a $100-fine offense.

On Feb. 23, the New Jersey Senate passed S119  22-16, making the state one step closer to providing some aid to the suffering.

For many, traditional medicines are simply not strong enough. However a significant number of patients could get some much-needed relief thanks to medical marijuana.

Some of the most common medical uses for marijuana:

• Relieve mild to moderate nausea brought on by chemotherapy.
• Help reduce nausea and weight loss in people with AIDS and suffering from anorexia.
• Reduce tremors, muscle spasms and the pain brought on by multiple sclerosis.
• Relieves pressure from the eye and pain from glaucoma.
• Lessen the extreme pain caused by cancer, AIDS, arthritis and others.

After all, “Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man.” Or so said DEA Administrative Law Judge Francis Young. 

While marijuana isn’t harmless, there are much more dangerous drugs readily available – and legal. Alcohol? Tobacco? Countless studies have proven fatal consequences from the two. Yet there are no documented deaths from marijuana.  A UCLA study found no link between smoking pot and lung cancer. So who made marijuana the bad guy?

Author: Kellie Bartoli

Video games may soon resemble a pack of cigarettes if Reps. Joe Baca, (D-CA), and Frank Wolf, (R-VA), get their way.

The pair recently co-sponsored H.R. 231, which aims to “require certain warning labels…be placed on video games that are given certain ratings due to violent content.”

Essentially, the congressmen want to slap a Surgeon’s General-style warning on any deemed-violent video game that is rated T (Teen) or higher. There are only two stronger ratings – M (Mature) and AO (Adults Only).

According to the Entertainment Software Rating Board, games rated for teens are meant for those 13 and older, and “may contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated gambling, and/or infrequent use of strong language.”

The bill calls for such video game covers to carry a clear and prominent label that reads: “WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior.”

Oh, where to begin.

It seems to make sense at first, but the more I think about it, the more questions flood my mind. 

Number one: Where is this scientific research linking video game violence to aggression?

In November, the Washington Post reported on a new study that claims a link between the two. The article goes on, however, to quote Texas A&M psychology professor Christopher Ferguson, who noted “‘numerous flaws and called into question ‘the meaningfulness of the study.’” I’m personally inclined to agree with Ferguson. How can we accurately measure “aggressive behavior” and in turn, link it to video games? The only correlations I’ve seen are based on a questionable report and a few episodes of “Law and Order: Special Victims Unit.” Not exactly scientific.

Secondly, what is “aggressive behavior” after all? I grew up with two sisters, so babysitting two active boys came as quite a shock.  But, as others have told me, that’s only “roughhousing.”

So maybe my definition of aggression is a little narrower. But a case can be made that many normal activities promote aggressive behavior. Just look at football! So should “Monday Night Football” begins its programming with a warning, just in case children want to recreate what they saw?

Here’s what I really don’t understand. Parents and advocacy groups are quick to blame video games for violence. What then, was the scapegoat before video games were even invented?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy – they terrorized the nation long before the advent of video games, let alone violent ones.

Aggression is an innate sensibility, and it is up to an individual to lash out or not. If seeing violence on a screen will lead to hostile behavior, we better pull the plug on countless television shows and movies – not to mention the evening news.

It is the parents’ responsibility to monitor their children’s activities as they see fit. However, according to the Parents Television Council, “90 percent of teenagers say that their parents never check the video game ratings before allowing them to rent or buy computer or video games.”  So why doesn’t Congress redirect its efforts and work to solve the problems at hand?

Here’s my plan – let’s just stick to the classics like Tetris and Paperboy. Problem solved.