Anna Eschoo Bills Opinions

1) Abortion
Abortion Pain Bill
Official title: HR 6099: To ensure that women seeking an abortion are fully informed regarding the pain experienced by their unborn child.

Summary: This bill would require hospitals or physicians to give the woman wanting an abortion a brochure that warns her of the possibility that the unborn fetus over 20 weeks old will experience pain during the abortion. It should be noted that the woman must sign a document in order to waive the receipt of the brochure, rather than suggesting that the woman may receive one if she wants.

Rep. Eshoo voted “Nay” on this bill.

I think that she did the right thing. I think the creators of this bill probably aimed to dissuade a woman from abortion by making her feel guilty about it, even though it was a choice that she has already decided was necessary.

 

2) Civil Liberties and Civil Rights

Reporter’s Source Confidentiality Guidelines

Official Title: HR 2102: To maintain the free flow of information to the public by providing conditions for the federally compelled disclosure of information by certain persons connected with the news media.

Summary: This bill prohibits from any federal organization such as a communications service provider from forcing a reporter to show or demonstrate any media he or she is providing to his or her customers for any reason except in certain extreme cases.

Anna Eshoo voted “Yea” on this bill.

I agree with her choice because if it was legal for such a federal organization to evaluate the reporter’s product, they could easily censor it and create propaganda and misleading within the public.

 

3) Immigration

Immigration Law Enforcement Act of 2006

Official Title: HR 6095: To affirm the inherent authority of State and local law enforcement to assist in the enforcement of immigration laws, to provide for effective prosecution of alien smugglers, and to reform immigration litigation procedures.

Summary: This bill lets government officials arrest, detain, interrogate, etc. any “illegal aliens” or people who have been “smuggled” into the country and also clarifies litigation issues about it.

Eshoo votes “Nay”

I feel that this bill is harsh on said “illegal aliens,” but I personally do not have a stance on whether we should dispose of them or let them stay in America yet.

 

4) Sexual Orientation

Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007

Official title: HR 1592: To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.

Summary: This bill amends the federal definition of a “hate crime” to include sexual orientation and gender identity as one of the protected classes.

Rep. Eshoo voted “Yea”

I wholeheartedly agree with this bill since it impacts me directly. I am now more protected than I was previously.

The Continuum of United States Foreign Polity: A Ranking of the Effectiveness of US Actions

••••

(Averages)

 

Explanation of bullet points:

Meaning, in order from left to right

•National Security •Democracy •World Peace •Aid to People in Need

Color Coding

•Failed •Somewhat Successful •Extremely Effective

 

USAID •••• (12 points)

USAID is a programme started under the Marshall Plan whose objective is to provide aid to developing countries and people in need. According to Wikipedia, “USAID advances U.S. foreign policy objectives by supporting economic growth, agriculture and trade; health; democracy, conflict prevention, and humanitarian assistance.” It has provided countries in need with 0.17% of its Gross National Income, a whopping $23.53 billion in 2006. The program makes certain that all of its actions are easily accessible information.

USAID promotes national security by attempting to stabilizes countries where there may be radical movements because of lack of an acceptable lifestyle, and by being generous to other nations it helps keep the US image positive. The program upholds democracy by attempting to finance operations necessary for a democratic process where otherwise a nation would not be able to. The program unquestionably promotes world peace and aids those in need because that is what it was created to do and it has clearly been the only target of its funding and resources.

 

Marshall Plan •••• (11)

The Marshall Plan was a program hosted by the United States in which they granted 13 billion dollars of economic aid to many Western European countries after the second World War. By the time the plan came to a conclusion every country that it had helped except Germany had economically grown beyond pre-war levels. It also had an essential role to starting European integration by erasing tariffs and trade boundaries.

The plan indirectly helped national security by preventing the nations the US aided from becoming communist, since the nations knew the US is against communism and wouldn’t give them aid otherwise. It helped to support democracy because it gave the countries a peaceful means of rehabilitating instead of a revolution like the Russian or French revolutions. Both world peace and aid to others were achieved with great success by the Marshall plan because it created a greater alliance between the European nations and it directly aided them to recover from the War.

 

Spanish-American War •••• (10)

The Spanish-American War of 1898 started off as excitement by the American population about liberating the Spanish colonies in the Mediterranean that had been struggling for independence. After Spain refused to peacefully resolve the Cuban fight for independence, and America heard of riots in Havana, the US government deployed the USS Maine to patrol the waters around Cuba. Unexpectedly the ship exploded and along with muckraking that accused Spain of horrible atrocities, the US government decided to go to war. 109 days later after a few decisive naval victories at Cuba and the Philippines the Treaty of Paris was signed and the United States won the war.

This war was very quick, easy, and mostly light-hearted for America, and had many positive consequences. From the standpoint of national security, the war helped to unite the north and south after the Civil War by providing them a common enemy, and helped to integrate the Black population into society by allowing them to fight for the homeland alongside whites. From the standpoint of democracy, the United States freed five colonies from imperial Spain and allowed Cuba to elect their own government, although it did keep three as US colonies. From a standpoint of world peace—it was indeed a war, but it was short and had relatively few casualties, and it served to resolve conflicts between Spain and its colonies by separating them. Finally, the US aided at least Cuba and Puerto Rico, where citizens were looking for a turnover of Spanish power. The Philippines sought this as well but when the US replaced the Spanish as oppressors they were not pleased.

 

National Security Council •••• (10)

The Council was created by the National Security Act under president Truman and is the main medium through which staff members can discuss national security and foreign policy matters with the President. The decision making process of the council has become less and less formal and regulated, while the influence of the council has become stronger and reached farther than ever. Throughout its history, the NSC served as the center for all operations regarding foreign policy and national security that the United States has made, including Cold War and post-Cold War invasions.

Though many of the decisions of the NSC have had almost disasterous consequences, many others have served their purpose, and many others still have gone beyond expectations, such as the Peace Corps. So far, national security has been very heavily monitored, so the goal of the national security council has been mostly achieved. This by its very nature supports democracy as the nation that harbours one of the most prolific democracies in the world is kept secure from other ideologies. In addition, the council has passed many decisions, such as the Marshall Plan, that provide very generous aid to peoples that are genuinely in need. However, all three of these things must be taken with a grain of salt for they are done very haphazardly and with many grave and unforgiveable errors, and because of these errors, world peace has been greatly compromised more than once. Therefore, the NSC is a very dangerous, but essential instrument.

 

Détente •••• (8)

Détente was a period during the Cold War where both Superpowers realized that the hostilities were negatively affecting their economies and that there would really be no benefit to waging a war against the other side. Consequently, both sides started trying to loosen tensions and begin negotiating. The first treaty to be signed was the Partial Test Ban Treaty in 1963 which was the beginning of the period, and several other important treaties such as SALT I were signed. However, by 1979, Détente began to unravel with the hostage crisis in the Iranian revolution, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan followed by US financially aiding Pakistan to oppose communism. Because of this, many planned treaties were abandoned and tensions increased yet again.

Détente was a very good idea on both superpowers’ parts, but in the end it was only marginally successful at maintaining national security by slightly curbing the nuclear arms race, and equally slightly effective at promoting world peace because even during the peak of good relations each side still had missiles pointed at each other and the Vietnam War was raging throughout the entire period. The goal of supporting democracy wasn’t achieved because the United States increased relations with a communist country. However, the United States did send vast shipments of grain to the Soviet Union to help them after the failure of kolkhoz, so providing aid to people in need was visibly effective.

 

Cuban Missile Crisis •••• (6)

The Cuban Missile Crisis was a confrontation between the United States, Soviet Union and Cuba during the cold war with the climax of the crisis beginning on October 15, 1962 when United States discovered the missile silos and bases being build on the island of Cuba and then came to a conclusion two weeks later on October 28 when the two superpowers agreed to dismantle all missiles in Cuba.

The actions that Kennedy took during the Cuban Missile Crisis did maintain national security, as he quarantined Cuba in order to prevent the Soviet Union from putting more missiles there. However, the way he treated Cuba—not even noticing them or asking them of what they wanted to do with their own country—cannot be viewed as upholding democracy, and furthermore, his threats to the Soviet Union are anything but an attempt to promote world peace. Finally, providing aid to people in need is not even an applicable goal of this action because the United States cannot be bothered by people in need when we are about to get nuked… right?

 

Iraq War •••• (5)

            The Iraq War is a US-led invasion of Iraq by several different nations. The basis for the invasion was that Iraq posessed and was actively developing weapons of mass destruction and that this was a direct threat to the United States in many ways. However, the weapons of mass destruction were never found in the country even though it was the most heavily investigated case of all time. After the defeat of the Iraq military, the US coalition occupied Iraq and tried to establish a democracy, but many sectarian groups started violences agains the occupation. Estimates of people killed range from 150,000 to over a million, and the cost to the US budget is between 3 and 5 trillion dollars.

From a perspective of national security, the Iraq War was not a good move. Not only did we risk the Iraq government striking us with the supposed weapons of mass destruction, but in the end it was uncovered that there were no such weapons in the first place so the invasion was completely unnecessary. Second, the occupation claims to have attempted to institute democracy to the country, but there is a difference between “supporting” it and imposing it on those that don’t want it, which was evident by the mass insurgency that started happening. Promoting world peace is completely out of the question since an invasion is anything but peaceful, and aid to people in need was completely forgotten as the coalition forces heedlessly killed many of those people in need in Iraq.

 

The War on Terror •••• (4)

This is a series of operations undertaken by the United States after the September 11 attacks in order to eliminate all possible global terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda, with the first being the invasion of Afghanistan by the United States. The war has been going on for more than seven years with no end in sight all over the world. Not only has this been a terrible strain on both our country and the rest of the world, especially economically, but it is also regarded as unproductive. Many experts say that it has actually served to consolidate the opposition to the US, to aid terrorist recruitment, and to increase the likelihood of terrorist attacks.

Though based on a need to maintain national security, the war on terror in many ways has only made it worse—by having a lack of success in the middle east, by heavily straining our economy, by exporting troops and power overseas making our nation less defended on the home front. Though the war on terror tries to promote democracy by fighting against terror dictatorships and the like, it fails by collapsing any type of democracy extant in a country the US invades, and even installing new dictatorships. By the constant warfare and invasion, world peace is heavily compromised by this war on terror, and many people are needlessly killed and left completely neglected.

Life’s Appearance was Elegant and Probable

There are many theories as to how life got its start on Earth. Whether it was by intelligent design, evolution, comets or space aliens—the same problems tends to pervade each hypothesis.  The first problem (with theories such as evolution) is the very beginning of life. Sure, evolution accounts for every subsequent stage, but how indeed was the first life form created? And the second problem is the probability factor of any theory. For those such as space aliens or even intelligent design, there is no proof of the cause itself, much less a way to determine if it really was the cause of life. Other theories are more susceptible to such ponderings. So was life probable or not, and how so? These questions are at the heart of any scientist seeking to find the origin of living existence, and rightly so.

First, let us consider the theory that Harold Urey and Stanley Miller researched. “They passed an electric discharge through the flask containing the atmosphere to simulate lightning … After a week, Urey and Miller … found that the water contained large amounts of amino acids, … nucleic acids, sugars, and fats.”[i] This experiment demonstrated that it is not in fact impossible to create organic compounds from inorganic ones, given the right conditions. And, according to Panno, “Given the conditions of that period [prebiotic Earth], it now seems almost inevitable that such molecules would be synthesized.”[ii] This experiment, however, does not provide an example of how this organic matter could have replicated itself, not even mentioning creating living cells. To begin countering this flaw, another hypothesis is coupled. Since neither DNA nor proteins can both replicate and catalyze reactions simultaneously, scientists proposed that most of the matter created by these random lightning storms was RNA, which can perform both functions. “Ribozymes [an RNA molecule capable of enzymatic activity], assembled in the prebiotic oceans, could not only replicate themselves but also could have catalyzed the formation of specific proteins, which in turn could have functioned as structural proteins or enzymes.”[iii] So we have one hypothesis that states that organic matter was created from inorganic matter by random lightning bolts, and another that says that RNA became the dominant molecule of this organic matter. This still does not address the question of how actual cells came into being, as well as others. Before this adventure delves even deeper into improbability, a different opinion is called upon.

Though one of the mainstream theories, this Urey-Miller series of hypotheses may not be at all likely. The Scientific American explains that “In recent years … researchers have envisioned that life’s ingredients might have accumulated in … rocks, like gray volcanic pumice, [which] are laced with air pockets created when gases expanded inside the rock while it was still molten. … Given enough time and enough chambers, serendipity might have produced a combination o fmolecules that would eventually deserve to be called ‘living.’”^iv Hazen goes on to explain many different ways in which minerals could have helped creating a stable beginning for life. In addition to creating pockets for cells, rocks could have acted as scaffolding in layered minerals that prevents the breakup of large molecules in early-earth conditions, and participated in vital reactions, such as crystal lattices aligning amino acids to form peptide bonds. Nick Lane in his book Power, Sex, Suicide elaborates on a very stunning and elegant example of the role of minerals. “[Mineral] bubbles were probably formed … by the mixing of two chemically different fluids: hot, reduced, alkaline waters that seeped up from deep in the crust, and the more oxidized and acidic ocean waters above, containing carbon dioxide and iron salts. Iron-sulphur  minerals … would have precipitated into microscopic bubbly membranes at the mixing zone.”^v This theory is so elegant because it helps to explain a number of questions, which all stem from the same problem—life’s common ancestor. The problem is that prokaryotes are in two fundamentally different domains: archaea and bacteria. The differences between them are so numerous that it is hard to imagine a common ancestor for them, but there was one (called LUCA—the Last Universal Common Ancestor of all known life on earth.)  After a lot of research and comparing data, it was determined that both photosynthesis and fermentation are too complex of processes to have been part of LUCA, but the last remaining option of respiration at first seems no less complex. However, “Although respiration is far more complex than fermentation today, when pared down to its essentials it is actually far simpler: respiration requires electron transport (basically just a redox reaction), a membrane, a proton pump, and an ATPase, whereas fermentation requires at least a dozen enzymes working in sequence.”^vi  So how does this relate to the iron-sulphur minerals? Simlpy enough: another vast difference between archaea and bacteria are their membrane structures, which leads scientists to believe that LUCA didn’t have either type of membrane. If the iron-sulphur mineral bubbles could act as such membranes, it would be fairly easy to apply the other ingredients of respiration to their structure: an ATPase across the bubble canopy would create a passage for electrons, and the environment of this primordial mineral formation would have already had a huge difference in charge because of the reduced alkaline waters from the crust mixing with the oxidized and acidic ocean waters.  Thus, it is one of the best explanations as to why archaea and bacteria are so different and how they could have possibly had a common ancestor.

The iron-sulphur mineral bubble theory is a very convincing candidate for the origin of life—not only because it explains previously unanswered questions, but because it is very probable, and we once again turn to Nick Lane, the author of the theory, to explain how probable it is. He suggests to

“Think about what is happening here. Such conditions could not have been rare on the early earth. … Volcanic seepage sites must have existed across much of the surface of the earth. … The formation of many millions of tiny cells, bounded by iron-sulphur membranes, requires no more than a difference in redox state and acidity between the oceans and the volcanic fluids emanating from deep in the crust—a difference that certainly existed. … UV rays [from the sun] split water and oxidize iron … The ocean becomes gradually oxidized relative to the more reduced conditions in the mantle. According to the basic rules of chemistry, the mixing zone inevitably forms natural cells, replete with their own chemiosmotic and redox gradients.”^vii

These conditions are not only probable but they must have been in constant existence, unlike the fragility of something like a primordial soup or an RNA world. And if all the cells really need is an ATPase in the iron-sulphur membrane, it would be easy to imagine that perhaps more than one such bubble trapped this essential protein from the environment created by a Miller-Urey type of process, and was able to begin respiration and other chemical reactions that would eventually lead to life itself. With the iron-sulphur mineral bubble theory, I can now reasonably conclude that the appearance of processes performing chemical reactions that aid to propagate the same processes (which is one of the definitions of early life) was probable, if not inevitable on the early earth.

---

[i] Panno, Joseph. The Cell. Facts on File, Inc. 2005, p. 4.

[ii] Ibid.

[iii] Panno, Joseph. The Cell. Facts on File, Inc. 2005, p. 11.

^iv Hazen, Robert M. “Life’s Rocky Start.” The Scientific American, 2001, p. 79

^v Lane, Nick. Power, Sex, Suicide: Mitochondria and the Meaning of Life. Oxford University Press. Oxford, UK: 2005, p. 100, 102.

^vi Ibid., p. 98.

^vii Ibid., p. 103

Division of Labor in a Service Economy

The famous political economists Frederick Taylor and Adam Smith both write of the division of labour as the be all and end all of progress at the workplace. Though their views differ, they both exalt its efficiency and capacity to inspire workers to put out as much as they are able. But a brave journalist by the name of Barbara Ehrenreich sets out to test if this hypothesis still applies in the modern day United States by becoming one of the workers the economists spoke of. What she helps the modern world to discover is that though they may have been applicable at the time, the views of both Frederick Taylor and Adam Smith on the best way to govern the workplace are obsolete in the United States’ 21^st century economy, since in today’s service-based world there is no easy way to divide one job into multiple independent malleable units.

A pioneer of political economy, Adam Smith describes his vision of the division of labor in great deal in his book, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. In his view, “The division of labor, … so far as it can be introduced, occasions, in every art, a proportionable increase of the productive powers of labour” (p. 9). This makes much sense when considering his example of pin-making―each person working on one particle of this manufacturing process can indeed create a lot of efficiency. However, to take this suggestion and apply it universally to every labor market can seem almost foolish. Barbara Ehrenreich tells the story of working for a business she calls “Hearthside” in her book, Nickel and Dimed. She describes how after finishing her actual waitressing duties, her manager forces her to move on to tasks such as vacuum-cleaning or other similar tasks that have nothing to do with her main line of work (pp. 22-23). In fact, had the business employed extra personnel to perform these tasks, it would probably have lost more profit than gained, since the task could be performed by people who are finished with their main job. Similarly, my mother Kate once worked for a branch of an insurance company called Farmers’ Insurance, where rather than being assigned a single form to fill out for each customer or a single procedure to walk through, she got one customer’s entire program of responsibilities to herself―ensuring the customer’s house, car, helping them through their paperwork, answering questions, and even inspecting the property of that customer. Her coworkers operated similarly, and this was the most efficient way to run this service-based business, because customers would be driven away unless they had a familiar face to work with, in addition to many other aspects that make this arrangement optimal. Thus, Smith’s view on the magnificence of the division of labor may apply to factory-style jobs, but certainly not a large proportion of service-based labor.

Like Smith, Frederick Taylor heavily promoted the division of labor, but he went beyond Smith to say that not only should the labor be divided, but precisely spelled out for the worker in minute detail days in advance. In his article called Scientific Management, Taylor writes that “The work of every workman is fully planned out by the management at least one day in advance, and each man receives in most cases complete written instructions, describing in detail the task which he is to accomplish, as well as the means to be used in doing the work” (p. 72). From the previous examples applied to Smith, this may seem as easily dismissible when applied to service-based labor, but Ehrenreich demonstrates that businesses have indeed attempted to do so, as she works for a firm called the “Merry Maids.” To introduce her to the trade, she is asked to watch a series of videos. While watching a particular one about Dusting, her manager tells her, “You know, all this was figured out with a stopwatch” (p. 74). Throughout this chapter, however, Ehrenreich finds out that it’s not at all possible to work methodically as the videos suggest. In fact, she has to skip some parts, swap others with coworkers, and overall use a great deal of cooperation to get the job done. This is counter to Taylor, who not once mentions the advantage of inter-worker cooperation on the workplace. Even this one example opens the door to a vast array of trades where Taylorism, the scientific management of absolute efficiency at the workplace that Taylor promotes, is impossible to practically implement, especially in jobs that are service-based.

In conclusion, both Smith’s theory of the division of labor to make increasing efficiency easy for the workers, and Taylor’s theory of scientific management to force workers to increase efficiency are highly effective in the industrial world where each piece of the labor puzzle is independent of the other until the final product is finally produced. In the modern context, however, neither of these two theories are the most efficient solution any longer, because the major economic production has shifted away from manufacturing and into services, the labor processes within which are very difficult to divide up into individual, independent tasks. Though this conclusion may make sense to the reader, the problem of the incongruence continues to be very present and sometimes even counterproductive, when managers out of traditional favorability for these theories, try to force them into their own businesses. Scientific management of customer service type jobs may increase efficiency in the short run, but eventually the customers will become dissatisfied with the process, whether because they are being rushed, or not receiving sufficient attention. Therefore, the question remains of how to convince modern employers to seek alternative management techniques that maximize both their efficiency, and their consumer favor. It is time to move on from Taylorism and into the service world of today.