Click HERE to check out the Committee Calendar for the second committee, which began at 2:30pm today.
Archive for category Today in Session
Mix Master Max
Jul 6
The spoken word and the art of rhyme have always been crucial tools in communicating and reaching generations. William Shakespeare used these resources to speak to people in the 16th century. The Beatles incorporated song to reach the youth of the 60’s. And modern artists, such as Kanye West, are using their love for technology and their urge to speak their thoughts in order to become the voice of a generation. Now it is Max Shafer-Landau’s turn.
Max is a delegate from Wisconsin who spoke in rhyme during the early committees. He made the decision to craft his opening remarks speech into a creative, catchy spoken rap. This unique course of action was chosen in an attempt to stand out from the crowd and be different. According to Shafer-Landau, after hearing countless proposals with redundant introductions, “you’re going to want some change.” When asked if he feels if his method was effective, he claimed that his decision may possibly have been too effective. After committee adjourned for the evening, Max came to the conclusion that his fellow delegates may have paid more attention to his rap than his actual proposal.
The committee members who actually listened to the lyrics of his rhythmic ballad came to realize how truly innovative and unique Max’s proposal was. The main idea of his proposal was to split the United States of America into two separate sovereign entities. This proposal appears to seem outrageous and quite ridiculous to a vast majority of delegates at CONA; however, it is an extremely original and debatable notion. When questioned on his proposal topic, Max explained that he wanted to shock his fellow delegates during his time at the Conference on National Affairs.
At the 2009 Wisconsin Youth in Government function, the bills were simple and all revolved around the same central topics. Therefore, Max desired to create a radical proposal that no one else would think of. Shafer-Landau’s quest to find originality has caused him to become the topic of discussion among many delegations. This instant fame has caused a multitude of delegates to request follow up rap performances at later committees. Regardless of how well-liked his introduction speech may have been, Max’s college advisor recommended that he should retire from rhyming and stick to traditional speaking. This recommendation was made to help Shafer-Landau’s proposal to be taken seriously in later committees.
If you were not fortunate enough to witness the rapping delegate, there were multiple teens that caught the footage on camera. It is only a matter of time before Max Shafer-Landau transitions from CONA legend to YouTube celebrity.
Minimum wage is considered either a gift or a burden to individuals across the United States of America. Those who consider minimum wage a gift need restrictions on the nation’s monetary system in order to prevent the chances of being underpaid. However, there is also a group of citizens who constitute minimum wage as a burden because of the limitations it tends to cause. This controversial debate is precisely the topic of CONA’s proposal 135. Conner Nannini, a delegate from the sunny state of California, composed a plan in which minimum wage laws would be eliminated from both the federal and state levels. The text of Nannini’s proposal explicitly demonstrates his opinions on the topic by stating: “All minimum wage controls should be abolished as they both hurt the economy and the people they are designed to help.” As the proposal goes on, Conner lists multiple different justifications as to why his proposal is relevant. Among these reasons are the increased unemployment rates, the reduced job benefits, the diminished amount of competition, and the fact that it imposes an employer mandate. According to Conner Nannini, “The U.S. government has no right to tell employers, the people who are risking their own capital to create jobs, how much to pay the people that choose to work for them.” If this proposal is passed, there will be a decrease in the unemployment rate and the United States companies will no longer have to seek cheaper labor overseas. This proposal produces a number of pros and cons and is sure to spark lively debate in its final committee.
Proposal #423/475/310
Jul 6
Sex education is a topic that each and every teenager in America is associated with. The phenomenon of sexual intercourse at a young age is sweeping the nation and leaving a harmful trail of negative results. Proposals 423, 475, and 310 all combined to combat against the current terms for sex education. Kelly Close of Pennsylvania, Ainsley Liken of Georgia, and John Aroutiounian of Kentucky all joined forces to unite their similar ideas. The three delegates crafted a proposal to reform the secondary school reproductive health curriculum nationwide. Currently in the United States, funding only exists for abstinence-only sex education. With the delegates proposal, federal funding would be appropriated for comprehensive sex education programs and 12.5 hours of reproductive health and pregnancy prevention education would be enforced throughout the course of high school.
There are a number of controversial issues with this groups proposal. For instance, the amendment that clearly states, “The abortion curriculum shall include visual images of aborted fetuses, so teenagers are allowed to make their own judgement about the nature of sex and what the result of sex often creates and destroys.”
According to John Aroutiounian, “60% of American females and 50% of males have engaged in sexual intercourse. [There have been] 50 million abortions in the United States since 1973. Abortion [is] an option that can cause infertility, miscarriage, and a higher risk of psychological problems.” If this proposal is passed, the delegates expect rates in pregnancy, STDs, and abortion to substantially decrease. The passage of this proposal may not fix every problem immediately, but they may be a step in the right direction.
Topic: Phil Gardner of Washington State has proposed to modify FDA major donation policy regarding gay men by repealing the 1983 ban on blood donation for those reporting male-to-male sexual contact.
Both Sides Now:
Pro Arguments: This policy discriminates against homosexuals. The logic behind it is no longer applicable. Originally, it was believed that gays were more susceptible to HIV and AIDS, but technology has shown us that this is not the case. In addition, the quality of HIV testing has drastically changed in the decades since the passage of this policy. When a male goes to donate blood, he is asked if he has had sexual relations with another male since 1977. If the answer is yes, he is permanently banned from donating blood. This is denying already depleted blood resources. So even if the male has an unusual blood type, he is not allowed to donate blood. If a gay male knows a terminally ill patient who is need of a blood donation, that male is still not legally allowed to give blood. Since the advancement of testing, this policy only serves as a discriminatory measure and is, in the long run, harmful to the health of others. The only person in that scenario who suffers is the terminally ill patient. In addition, the policy also virtually ignores the health risk posed by heterosexual donors who’ve been exposed to HIV or AIDS. When the policy was created, it was traditionally thought that homosexuals were much more likely to contract HIV or AIDS, but today this is simply not the case.
Con Arguments: The purpose of the Food and Drug Administration is to protect and promote the health of the American people. They have decided that the risks of homosexuals donating blood far out way the benefits. It has been shown through a variety of research that men who engage in sexual relations with other males are at a higher risk of contracting HIV, hepatitis B, and other infections that are transmittable through transfusions. According to the FDA, “Men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first time blood donors and 8000 times higher than repeat blood donors (American Red Cross). Even taking into account that 75% of HIV infected men who have sex with men already know they are HIV positive and would be unlikely to donate blood, the HIV prevalence in potential donors with history of male sex with males is 200 times higher than first time blood donors and 2000 times higher than repeat blood donors.” These statistics are just not small enough. Even though testing for HIV and other infectious diseases that can be passed through transfusions can be done, this testing is still not one hundred percent accurate. It is not worth it to put even one life on the line.
Sources: U.S. Food and Drug Administration
About.com
Author Arielle Pardes of California has proposed to eliminate age of consent laws in all states. These laws would be replaced with a three-year rule so that parties, one of whom is a minor, may participate in legal sexual relations.
Both Sides Now:
Pro Argument: There is no standard for age of consent laws in the United States. Some states allow individuals to have legal permission at the age of 16, while others require you to be 18. Specifically, “statutory rape” is defined as non-forcible act between one underage individual and one individual over the age of eighteen who are both consenting parties. Any person over the age of eighteen who was to enter into such a relationship would be faced with a possible ten years in prison and the permanent label of child molester. These laws can also differ between heterosexual intercourse and homosexual intercourse. So in addition to ruining people’s lives by labeling them as child molesters, they are also discriminatory. By eliminating consent laws, we would be preventing charges against innocent people who participated in consensual sex.
Con Argument: This proposal is utterly immoral and disgusting. With such a law, a fourth grader could be pressured into having sex with a seventh grader. She may only be nine years old, but if she is within three years of her partner, it is considered legal. The brain reaches a partial maturity at the age of sixteen and doesn’t fully mature until the age of twenty one, so why would we allow a nine year old to decide whether or not they should be sexually active or not? In addition, this is also a blatant violation of states’ rights. Each state varies in culture and social views, so confining all states to such a law would be a failure to examine regional differences throughout the nation.
Let’s talk about the auto industry bailout—Jared Cutlip of Michigan certainly wants to. After witnessing Michigan’s auto industry plummet along with the economy, Clutip realized the current bailout plan only benefits struggling auto companies. He thinks American taxpayers should benefit as well. From this, Cutlip became the author of proposal 110, one that, if put into law, would give each American family or singularly-living individual a $10,000 voucher for the purchase of a car from an American owned auto company. Cutlip argues that his proposal would work to stimulate the economy, create jobs within the industry, and provide Americans with a means of transportation. As far as the cost behind his proposal, Cutlip estimates that between one and three trillion dollars in vouchers would be issued to Americans compared to the three billion pledged by the federal government thus far. However, Cutlip, like many Americans, predicts this number will continue to increase as long as the economy remains in its present state. “So let’s talk”, he says. Let’s talk not about taxpayers losing money on this bailout, but about what taxpayers can gain while rebuilding the auto industry and repairing the American economy.
Controversial Proposals to be Reckoned With: Which will make it through to the End? By:Malissa
Jul 1
Authors Azzam Merchant, Emily Michael, and coauthors Shayla Thomas and Cayla Spear have decided to begin their race to the finish line with a sprint. The ultimate goal: to be the first tearing through that final yellow ribbon labeled General Assembly. Each of them has chosen equally controversial topics that spark equally riveting debate. Such debate includes the issues of patriotism vs. capitalism, gender equality and violation of the 8th and 9th amendments to the Constitution, and foreign relationships vs. taking care of home first. Each incorporates current issues, both national and international, which ultimately effect the growth of the United States.
“To Sell Ad Space on all One Dollar Bills in Circulation”: What would this mean for the symbolic meaning and monetary value of the dollar bill? Azzam Merchant, a California Delegate spoke eloquently and confidently as he proposed such a change. He argued that not only will the country “make revenue using money by placing ads on dollar bills,” but the marketing industry, one of the largest in America, will benefit, because currency is the largest flowing item in America. Moreover, sticking to the American way, Azzam has concluded that the government will have the right to deny any ads which seem to pose a threat to the values of America. Delegate Benjamin Schiff from Michigan argued against the proposal, claiming that the “dollar bill pays respect to historical figures,” and should not be altered. Agreeing with this con speaker were delegates Ashley Diviney of the Tennessee delegation and Megan McBride from Michigan who asked, “Is capitalism or patriotism more important in our country?” Would not the passing of this proposal finally establish the separation of capitalism and communism in America? “This takes capitalism to a new status,” argues Delegate Nina Raheja from South Carolina, in favor of the proposal. In his closing statement, Delegate Merchant emphasizes that his idea would bring in revenue at a new level, and added, “Symbolism becomes less important as the country continues to sink deeper in debt.”
“Some numbers are too serious to ignore” begins Delegate Cayla Spear from South Carolina, as she and Shayla Thomas of the D.C. Delegation present “A Proposal to Chemically Castrate Violent Sex Offenders.” The two deliver their ideas hoping to gain support. In their opening they inform delegates of the sad reality that “a woman gets raped every two minutes” in America, and in 2000 “96% of male citizens were said to have committed this crime.” Debate was focused on the fact that only males would be subject to castration. Several delegates labeled the act as cruel and unusual punishment, a violation of procreation, and unfair to males because the method would not pertain to females. Delegate Matthew Roberts from Tennessee sees the proposal as a useful one, however, because he “believes that it will reduce sex crime and trim the federal budget. In closing Shayla and Cayla express the feelings of a former sex offender, Joseph Frank Smith who claims that “the drug made me feel free.” The authors also state that, because in rape, or sexual assault, violates the rights of the victim, therefore they no longer deserve the opportunity to procreate, and the protection of the 8th Amendment.
International Adoption equals human trafficking. Emily Michael of the California Delegation recognizes such a problem, and proposes the ban of international adoption. For one, “people in other countries are exploiting children, because of the industry,” claims Michael. She goes on to say, “22,607 children were adopted from countries outside of the US last year, while 129,000 children were eligible for adoption in America.” She believes that United States children should be helped at home before children from overseas are considered, “we can regulate America, but not what’s going on abroad.” The opposing argument deals with the idea that banning international adoption may ruin America’s ties with foreign countries. Michellay Cole of the D.C. delegation believes that, “the proposal is so debatable that I felt very ambivalent.” Her first instinct was to agree with the proposal, however, after the extended debate, she could not wholeheartedly agree with what Michael was proposing. Emily Michael urges delegates to consider the lives of those children who live in poverty here in America, or simply those who just don’t have a proper home, and, therefore, consider the contents of her proposal.
The finish line is two laps away; the ribbon, three good presentations and a vote away. CONA will be over in 3 days. Let’s see which delegate has the last say.
In 1968, delegates of the first Conference on National Affairs joined together to create a forum that would allow for debate and discussion of important national issues. Forty-two years later, in 2009, the situation is quite similar. Although the spectrum of viewpoints and topics may have changed, the central purpose of this conference has not. Proposals may rise or fall deep in the sea of debate, but each delegate walks away with new information and viewpoints on an issue.
David John, a resource advisor in his 11th year at the conference, discussed the “3 types” of proposals that he often sees annually amongst the week of debate. The “Golden Oldies” are known as reoccurring issues that do not disintegrate in the heat of debate, such as abortion, death penalty, and states’ rights. They seek new solutions to these old problems, and although these problems may have originated long ago, they’ve yet to die.
There are “specific, timely” proposals that relate to the pressing topics of the current time period. In 2009, these issues include disputes over Iran, health care, and the environment.
John also mentioned proposals that deal with issues “ahead of their time.” These specific proposals are fresh, cutting-edge, and may not have had much exposure on a national stage. They often open many doors for the future. In the early 2000s, this was strongly observed when the topic of stem cell research was born in the debate.
Conference Director Bob McGaughey added that this very conference often foresees the future of our nation. He elaborated that this foresight can reflect political trends of the future. “The consensus of the conference often predicts the future majority shifts in liberal, moderate, and conservative views of the country”,adds McGaughey.
However similar or different proposals through the years may be, the purpose of the Conference remains, as McGaughey eloquently stated, “to bring together young minds that will make a difference in the future.”
Armed with enthusiasm, energy and the staple “Spirit Cow” mascot, the Wisconsin delegation arrived to the Conference on National Affairs on Saturday with an optimistic attitude about the week to come. After a long but lively bus ride to Black Mountain, North Carolina, the 28 delegates were noticeably excited about the experiences and memories that undoubtedly occur within the week span of the conference.
The YMCA Youth in Government program has been in Wisconsin since 1952, growing a reputation as a quality leadership development program for teens. When asked about the strengths of the program, State Director Julie Cotter cited the “commitment from the program participants, volunteers and YMCA staff” as a strong point. Although an overall decrease in membership has been a concern, those involved in the program are hopeful about recruitment, making it one of the main focuses for next year.
The 2009 Model Government session was held at the Wisconsin State Capitol, where an overwhelming number of bills passed through the Assembly and the Senate. The Supreme Court was involved in an impeachment trial of Youth Governor Troy Tauber, as well as reviewing several important cases. The Press Corps was productive in publishing newspapers twice a day and creating nightly newscasts. 2010 Youth Governor and CONA delegate Maria Peeples said of the Wisconsin program, “Every delegate involved carries so much compassion and commitment for the program and that is what makes it so exemplary.”
This year’s Wisconsin delegation for CONA is the largest group to have made the trip to the Mountain thus far, and it is our hope that this is a sign of greater commitment and retention for the future.