I am lobbying to change the "Curfews" in Philadelphia that mayor Nutter has given. I know that there are many kids all around who don't support Mayor Nutter's opinion inn the curfews. I know that he did it for a good cause it's to avoid and try to protect teenagers from "Flash mobs." The issue that I want to change is the curfews rules. I think it would be better if Mayor Nutter had the ages vary and have the times vary based on age. Mayor Nutter has minors going inside at 9:00 on weekends. WHat if some kids have to work? What then? Not everybody agrees with the situation at hand. His main reason was because of "Flash Mobs" no? Was it a bad thing what he did? I say yes but it was for a good cause but several of the "flash mobs" have not been solved, this situation might have gotten worse.
I think that this change will be able to help elders witness and be able to see how much responsibility and leadership teenagers have. I am interested in this topic because there has been so much change in our generation and I think that one of the changes is the maturity rate in teens over the years. There is an article about a teen mom asking a question about how she knows if her teen is able to make their own decisions especially when it comes to curfews.
I believe that the main supporters are minors who must be inside their home at 9:00. There are teens who feel as if they don't get to express themselves they need a voice, they need someone to speak for them someone who is in support of them. The main opponent is Mayor Nutter because he is fully against minors being out past 9:00 on weekends. His view on it I believe is protectiveness but if he gave teenagers a bit more freedom teens will be able to show how responsible they are. It is also that fact that teens need freedom in order to develop although teens maturity rate levels vary depending on the teens.
I would love to here teens opinions. "Freedom of speech" they have the right to speak what is on their mind they have to opportunity to be heard. it seems as though teens aren't stepping up to plate and letting others hear them out.

An Article about this case from the New York Times can be found HERE.


Question:

Can Medicaid recipients sue a state for reducing the rates required by Medicaid?

Summary:

The state of California reduced rates of reimbursement from Medicaid to the recipients, which is a Federal-State law. But State law cannot trump Federal law because of the supremacy clause in Article 6 that basically states that Federal law is supreme.

Arguments:

California-

They are using Article 11 as a defense. Article 11 refers to a state's immunity against being sued by an individual.

Douglas-

The prosecution is using the Ex parte Young case in their argument. The case was about when Minnesota limited railroads charge, which violated the 14th amendment and was sued by shareholders of the railroad

Prediction:

I think the court will give the individuals the right to sue California because the Supreme Court will take into account the Federal Government before the State Government. 

Philadelphia has twice as many bicycle commuters than in any other city in the United States, which ranks it among the most bicycled city in the country. According to a census report of 2,100 population, Center City and South Philadelphia rank in the top 25 of the part of the city that uses bicycles as a form of transportation the most, in the country. However, Philadelphia lacks bike paths. Bikes are considered a vehicle. Vehicles are not permitted on sidewalks. There are not enough bike paths in different parts of the city to satisfy riders. They would be less likely to ride on the side walk if there were bike paths in the street. There are bike paths in the east and west direction on Spruce and Pine streets. " The rate of sidewalk riding on Spruce and Pine is eight times lower than on streets with no bike lanes." According to Research Director John Boyle. What about North and South? Or 10th and 13th streets? Having bike lanes on busy and important streets throughout the city is the key to make Philadelphia sheets safer for drivers, bikers and pedestrians.

I am extremely for the bike lanes because I have biked in the city. Biking through traffic is intimidating and scary especially since there are drivers who do not pay attention or are texting and not focusing on the task at hand. Therefore putting their lives and mine at risk. I would rather go around the world to get to the bike paths on Pine or Spruce than bike through the city with cars. Bicycles are considered vehicles. We all know bicycles do not go nearly as fast as cars, so although drivers should share the road, it is much more convenient for bikers to have their own paths and for drivers to have their own. EVERYONE'S HAPPY! The Bike Coalition of the greater Philadelphia area are constantly on a move towards improving the safety of bikers. Recently the City is even doing trials in order to test the feasibility of riders by removing a traffic lane on JFK and market. They are testing whether or not three lanes can handle the motor vehicle traffic, who are used to having four lanes. If the test is successful than they will permanently add physically separated bike lanes, which will be the first for Philadelphia.

Bikes lanes to be added to 10th and 13th streets
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2011/04/29/philadelphia-adding-bike-lanes-to-10th-and-13th-streets-in-center-city/

Pennsylvania Bike Laws

New Bills

MORE FACTS

Of the nation's 10 biggest cities, Philadelphia's bicycle mode share is twice as high as next-best Chicago.
Percent of commuters who bike to work: 2009- 2.16 %
Female cyclist % very high
Between 2000 and 2009, percent of workers who bike grew by 151 %

This rate is similar to what the Bicycle Coalition documented by counting bicyclists on the street during the morning and evening rush hours; between 2005 and 2010, the average number of bikes per hour counted grew 127 percent. Between 1990 and 2009, the number of bicyclists crossing the Schuylkill River grew by 361 percent

Bike lanes, and more bicyclists, lead to better behavior.
Sidewalk riding drops from 19.8% on streets with no bike lane to 8.6% on streets with a bike lane to 2.4% on streets with a buffered bike lane. The Bicycle Coalition's counts document that, between 2006 and 2010, while helmet use has risen, sidewalk riding and riding the wrong way have fallen at all counted locations.

Bicyclists like bike lanes, and they like buffered bike lanes even better.
The Bicycle Coalition's counts found streets with bike lanes had more cyclists than streets without them, and had more growth in bicyclists than streets without bike lanes.

A person can't watch TV without seeing an advertisement claiming that one election candidate, whether it be for mayor or maybe president, has does this and that and is worse than the other candidate because of that and this. Or, you can get those passionate and all-American support-my-campaign-and-vote-for-me ads, such as the recent commercial by Republic candidate Rick Perry. They air all the time, night and day, and are eye-catching. This takes serious money. You also can't forget about all the traveling and hand-shaking candidates do. Plus, who can forget about the countless speeches you hear that this person made in this state for this cause. It's everywhere, in all forms of media. Now, I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with advertising. The candidates need to get their names and faces out there. Who will vote for someone they never saw before or know absolutely nothing about? Also, it's not like a candidate will openly admit all the contradictions and mistakes they have in his or her career. Nope, that's left up to the opponents to handle. But, what I do have a problem is where this money for all this comes from. 

Our government can say as much as they want that all money is fair game for any candidate to use in anyway they please, because that's true. This is where the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) comes into play. But this handy Act wasn't always as restricting as it is now in 2011. Before 1974, it was perfectly okay for corporations and groups to fund election campaigns, and most candidates took as much as they could, such as Richard M. Nixon. One of the most notorious presidents in American history, Nixon was funded $2.8 million by issuance executive W. Clement Stone during his re-election campaign. Of course, after the Watergate scandal, Congress needed to spring into action to help reform the trust and confidence of the public. What's one thing they choose to do? Reform private financing for election campaigns. 

So, much to some candidates disappointment I'm certain, the FECA was amended. Now, corporations, labor organizations, federal government contractors, and foreign nationals are prohibited from contributing to election campaigns. Also, in federal campaigns, a contributor may not make a contributions in another's name or place a donation of more than $100. For the rest of the contributors (individuals, national parties, political committees, etc) there are several contribution limits they have to follow. 

Alright, so what's my problem? Everything seems all hunky-dory now, right? Nope. The FECA still has its loopholes, the most important being soft money. While corporations and lobbyists can't make contributions to and individual candidate, they can put funds into the political party finances. The candidates then take the necessary funds from these finances. So, there is basically just a middle-man in the situation now, but the candidates will still get their money. But wait, political parties and candidates need to disclose where they get their contributions according to FECA. Well, of course they do - to the federal government. When was the last time you actually heard a candidate openly list all their sources of money in a speech? That would be ridiculous. Some voters may actually connect some dots along the money trail. 

So, while some people are completely open to their opinions and even have valid points about "stupid voters," but its the tricky politicians at work, too. This is why I propose we put a lock on donations. Why is it okay for Sarah Palin to ask donations from her supporters during a time of desperate economics times just so she can think about running for president? Seriously? Corporations need to get their little noses out of elections altogether. In the state our country is in, the last thing candidates need to be doing is spending millions of dollars to just bash their opponents on TV. It isn't' even fair since the people from the smaller political parties won't get the same kind of funding as the larger ones for the campaigns. No one will hear the little guy when the big guy is shouting at the top of his lungs. There is currently a Bill pending, Fair Elections Now Act. This basically calls for fair political funding to help gain public confidence in a time of government distress. It speaks of a government funding pool that will take away the power of big donors and better control private funding by putting more weight on public funding. So, who supports this Bill? Senator Dick Durbin and Rep. Walter Jones are all for it, saying that more time desperately needs to spent on fixing the issues than raising more money for advertisements. Common Cause is a group that is majorly pushing for the Bill to be passed. Of course, there are many candidates currently running for office such as Rick Perry that have no problem with private funding and corporations to help with their election campaigns to push along their career. So, the question is, what do the voters want to see?  

​      Recently, a lot of commotion has gone on about fracking in the Marcellus Shale and how the government is fracking in the Marcellus Shale to release the trapped gas in the rock formation. You might be wondering, what is Marcellus Shale? Marcellus Shale is a geological formation that was formed by the accumulation of sediment into a sea. It stretches all the way from New York all the way through Kentucky, Virginia, and even Ohio. Scientists recently a few years ago discovered that gas was trapped in the huge geological formation, and were excited to see natural gas in huge amounts come from it.


That is why scientists use a process called hydraulic fracturing or for short "fracking", to retrieve that gas. Fracking is a process that entails drilling down and creating tiny explosions to shatter shale rocks to release the natural gas trapped inside. Water, sand and chemicals are injected into the rock at high pressure which basically cracks the rock from the top and allows the natural gas flow out. The process can create new pathways to release gas or can be used to extend existing channels, and that is why it is the most efficient process. So right now you might be thinking: "Wow, fracking is so awesomee! It has so many upsides to it, why would you want to lobby it?" Though fracking may open up so many new jobs for America and provide tons of natural gas for America, possibly making it its own natural resource, lower pollution/emissions/greenhouse gases, and advance America a big step, there is controversy with it. Fracking requires tons of water. 3-5 million gallons of water are required per well, and many of the sites have multiple wells, so do the math and thats ALOT of water. This water needs to come from somewhere, and that could have a big impact on water supplies. Fracking also pollutes tons of water because of the many toxic chemicals that are involved in the fluid that is released down to crack the rock. That water gets contaminated and not only is it not safe if it gets into water bodies, but all the water has to go somewhere. Also one of the main concerns is it contaminates ground water and gets into tap water of the area, which if someone were to drink that water, it could get that person very sick. On top of that, The Pennsylvania Gas Legislation Act does not allow residents from regulating/taxing the fracking companies for any damage or anything done to the environment there.

      I chose to lobby fracking because of my experience with fracking in Mr. Best's class. I found it really appealing and interesting to read and talk about, and I instantly had thoughts and opinions on it based on the information and articles I had read. I am lobbying against it, as I did in Mr. Best's class. Fracking may be a huge finding and probably would be great for America, but are the lives of Americans really worth it? Is damaging the environment worth it? Is contamination in our own homes with nothing we can say or do about it really fair? I don't really think so. Fracking may have some positives, but they don't really negate all of the negatives. My goal is to see fracking put to an end really, but really mainly focusing on seeing what is put in the water conataminating it, rules put down so that any damage done to us can be repaid or fixed (having a say), and in general fixing the effect fracking has on us as Americans.

     There are many people supporting my lobbying idea. For example, The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are doing many things such as doing a study to find out the relationship between fracking and drinking water resources. There are tons of other groups such as Food & Water Watch, Frack Action, Democracy for America, Friends of the Earth, Credo Action, Center for Heath Environment and Justice, Catskill Mountainkeeper and Citizen Action New York. They are all standing up for not only the environment, but for the citizens and the safety of the American people. Some people against my lobbying idea are the big oil companies such as Exxon and others that say that fracking is good, can provide alot, and the chemicals used aren't even alot, they are just "required" to perform the process. Exxon seems to be concerned, but they really dont want to lose fracking, especially since they made a 35 million dollar bet on shale gas.

       There hasnt been much response to protestors and such from the government, but I recently heard and was told by Mr. Best that Governer Corbett put down rules and regulations that require fracking companies to state what they are doing, and how the fracking has an effect. There is still time for action, and hopefully that action is taken soon to really make change to the downfall of fracking.

However, Philadelphia City Council introduced two bills that will pass regarding to city bikers and other bikers in Philadelphia. (Click here for more information)
The Regulations for bicycles in Philadelphia are a bit stricter than the laws of the State.  Click here for more information!

By this saying, it's proving that bikes are legal and that it can be on duty at all times. However, in able to ride bikes around without violating any rules, you must know the PA. Law and Philly retraction. 

  

The Pennsylvania laws are stating that bikes are consider as a vehicle and will be generalizes with all traffic rules. There are penalties for bikers as well as for drivers on any street of PA./Philadelphia. 

Philadelphia Bike laws

This law will help defense my lobbying cause, since bikers have to follow the same rule as any other vehicle and they are consider as a vehicle. It is not fare that bikers do not have there on lanes on any street and at any part of the city/state. Since they have to follow the same law they should have the same respect and rights. Bikes are considered as a vehicle so they are not illegal and therefore they should also have the own parking/place to stores their vehicle in the city!

Here are more stories regarding to voices from the Citizens and the City Council of Philadelphia.



For Citizens opinions

Click here!

Click here!



For City Council opinions

Click here!

 

Fracking is a shortened version for Hydraulic Fracturing, which is a process to drill horizontally for natural gas. Above is a diagram which displays the process is short detail. In Pennsylvania fracking is happening a lot more often because it was discovered that natural gas was right under our feet under a huge rock called the Marcellus Shale. If we keep drilling for natural gas in the Marcellus Shale, it ground will become more and more unstable. This is horrible because many people live close to, near, and even maybe on top op portions of the Marcellus Shale. If the foundation of the houses are unstable then it may be dangerous for people to live in these houses. Fracking also has gone wrong by it contaminating the drinking water of many homes. Although the human body is made up of 70% water, water is a very large necessity in order for Humans to survive. How will a human survive without water clean enough for them to drink coming out of their own faucet? Some would say that if that water is contaminated, couldn't people just boil the water and then it would be pure enough for one to drink? But I would respond to that by saying that the drinking water coming out of the faucet is contaminated with Natural Gas which cause the water to be flammable so if one attempts to boil the water they may end up blowing their entire kitchen up in flames. To view an example of this click here. (Links to excerpt of the documentary "Gasland") 

There have been many protest about fracking. Most recently there was one in Center City. There was an anti-fracking rally (for more info on the rally click here)