As the first class of my junior year of college began bright and early at eight o’clock this morning, my Professor addressed what he referred to as the “wildlife gene,” almost as if he knew I was already pondering Matthew Lifson’s column this week on genetics and politics.  For a Wildlife Conservation and Ecology class, this served as a great way to engage all of his students.  He explained that at a young age he had realized that he possessed this gene and therefore, immediately took to wildlife observation and recording, a hobby which proved useful as he later received his Doctorate in the field.  After listening to his spiel, I asked myself a related question: was I born with an Environmentalist gene? And, if so, do all of Americas need to possess this trait in order for us as a whole to reduce our carbon footprint?

As I look back on my childhood, I remember my mother was always interested in the phases of the moon and my father was frequently working outside.  Did their influence during my upbringing help to foster my interest in earth science?  I would like to think that it definitely had an effect.  By second grade, I had begun checking books out of my grade school’s library on common New Jersey mammals like the raccoon.  In fifth grade, I had taken an interest in catching insects and identifying them with my field guides – my first one was a college textbook of my mother’s.  Throughout high school, I went on nature walks, experimented with wildlife photography and began to formally educate myself on the planet by taking classes like AP Environmental Science.  Four years later, I found myself employed by the Parks Department for the summer working as a Nature Camp Counselor.  All of this, in retrospect, falls into place; my curiosity fostered my interest and desire to learn about, and ultimately care for, the world around me. I realize, however, that not every child growing up in the United States took such a liking to all things outdoors (in fact, I realize I am a member of the small minority of our population that enjoy nerdy activities like bird watching).  If environmentalism truly is a “gene,” how are those who do not possess this trait going to help conservationists, like myself, in the fight against climate change?  Is all hope lost?  Can the appreciation that I have for the planet, which seemed to develop naturally, be taught to those who spent their childhoods inside playing video games, oblivious to the ecosystems in their own backyards?

Offering tax breaks for electric cars or for powering homes with alternative forms of energy may be the answer.  After all, the most effective way to change human behavior involves monetary gain…or perhaps loss.  The United States is devastatingly behind on the fight against plastic bags, but is implementing a two cent reward for each reusable bag brought to the grocery store a way to answer the paper vs. plastic dilemma?  Or would a five cent charge for each plastic bag, which is done at the University of Delaware, have a more promising result?  Pollution permits, Piguvian taxes, legal restrictions and fines; do these tools of public policy create any green spark for those without the environmentalist gene?  Or do they just push them farther away, creating instead loopholes and ways around the restrictions so that more harm is caused to the environment than good?  If only a small minority of the American people have an “environmentalist gene,” what progress can be made toward a cleaner and greener United States?

As I read No Impact Man, a novel by Colin Beavan, I believe progress can be made by those without a green gene.  Beavan began his environmentalist journey as a New York City resident with a fur coat-wearing, consumerist wife and a half-ass liberal attitude toward environmental politics.  With his reusable bags buried in the back of a closet and take out containers creating a mountain of waste, Beavan decided that he was going to take individual action to save the planet.   Through producing no waste, while also getting involved in environmentally related service projects that positively impact the planet and taking his wife and toddler along for the ride, Beavan successfully completes his mission of having no net impact on the environment for one year.  The novel highlights many philosophical concepts, like the idea of individual vs. collective action and the idea of human selfishness and our desire to live a convenient lifestyle with instant gratification and (what we think) no ramifications.  Beavan was not born with the “green gene” but through his own motivation became a spokesperson for learned environmentalism vs. possessing a green gene at birth, like I believe I have.  He helped to show the general public that, despite starting from the very bottom and knowing nothing about living a sustainable lifestyle, change can be made to help a greater cause.  Can this conclusion be reached through tax breaks or pollution restrictions?  Are we, as human beings, too selfish to care for a greater cause?  Will those born with an environmentalist gene be trumped by the majority that is indifferent to our planet’s degradation?  Or can we learn to appreciate and conserve like Colin Beavan?

Pride is the high or inordinate opinion of one’s own dignity, importance, merit, or superiority, whether as cherished in the mind or as displayed in bearing, conduct, etc. Pride is both a blessing and a curse in that as much as we need to be a prideful people, an equal amount of humility and honor is required in return. Having just come home from a whirlwind couple of days in Washington D.C., which concluded with my attending the Restoring Honor Rally, I believe that this country has finally reached the zenith at which we must choose whether or not we are willing to work for the peaceful coexistence of this honor and pride, for if are not willing to work towards this unity I honestly believe that our demise is imminent.

I have been working on the Restoring Honor Rally since late May, and watched as it transformed from a fledgling Facebook page with 10,000 fans to a well-regarded juggernaut of nearly 175,000. I called organization after organization asking people to believe in and support a little known rally that hoped to pay respect to our service men and women through our partnership with the truly wonderful Special Operations Warrior Foundation, while simultaneously exercising our First Amendment rights. I recruited volunteers from across the country to come to the Lincoln Memorial on August 28 and assist the sleep-deprived, caffeine-addicted, highly zealous team of superheroes Glenn Beck and the SOWF had assembled to turn their tiny mission into an enormous success. We laughed, we cried, but ultimately we let out a collective sigh of relief when Saturday rolled around and we had the opportunity to look out at a crowd of hundreds of thousands of people who believed in the work we had done and the mission we hoped to accomplish. Suddenly the 45 minutes of sleep, the lack of sufficient nutrition, and the disbelievers and naysayers no longer mattered. Surrounded by hundreds of thousands of our newfound friends we all realized that we are not alone.

The resistance to this Rally was strong, with the opposition most concerned about the date on which it was set to occur. On August 28, 1963 at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his “I have a dream” speech to a crowd of about 200,000. Today we remember this speech for its message of unity and hope for a brighter tomorrow. Dr. King delivered this speech to a crowd that was in need of hope, that was in need of invigoration, that was in need of a dream. The people gathered this past Saturday, 47 years later, were looking for a very similar message of hope. We once again needed to be reminded that we are not a black race and white race; we are not Christians and Muslims and Jews; we are one human race that needs to begin to work together because the prideful politics and stereotypical divisors are what is keeping this county back.

Several news outlets reported that Clarence B. Jones, who served as King’s personal attorney and speechwriter, said he believes Dr. King would not be offended by the Restoring Honor Rally, but rather “pleased and honored” that a diverse group of people would come together to discuss the future of America. For those of you who watched or attended, you saw first hand that the Rally held true to its promise of being apolitical and peaceful. The attendees respected Beck’s request to leave their signs at home, and the opposition managed to keep their distance. After being a part of the day and witnessing what occurred, it will be difficult to disparage the day’s moderate and unifying message. Ultimately the day asked that we once again join together as a cohesive group, willing to put our differences aside for the good of our country. We must demand truth and accountability from ourselves first and foremost, before we can ask it from those around us. We must judge a person based on the content of their character, not the color of their skin. And, finally, we must work towards brining God back to the center of our lives and our nation.

We find ourselves at a place where we have become too prideful in ourselves and not prideful enough in our country. What does it mean to “restore honor?” How can we possibly return to the founding principles when we have strayed so far from them? Is there a way for all of us to begin to take accountability for ourselves and look for the truths in our own lives so that we may begin to expect this of others as well? These are questions that will take time to answer and one man or one rally can really only begin to scratch the surface, but clearly this message of responsibility and humble pride and honor is slowly but surely making a come back, for hundreds of thousands of hard working people do not just descend on Washington on a blistering August day for no reason. “For too long, this country has wandered in darkness,” Beck said during his keynote address “…Today we are going to concentrate on the good things in America, the things that we have accomplished — and the things that we can do tomorrow.” Lets take this moderate message of hope and remove the ideology that consumes our political and social lives, so that we may all come together as one race, as one country, as one people and begin to bring back the honor in our own lives, so that we may begin to demand that others do the same.

Ms. Storm is an intern on Glenn Beck’s television program.

Amidst the endless chatter surrounding global warming, predictions of more extreme storms like Hurricane Katrina on the horizon, endless rainforest destruction and animal species extinction, there is some hope.  Liberals turned Environmentalists like Colin Beavan, also known as “No Impact Man,” are experimenting with individual action in the fight against climate change.  Concerned stewards of our planet are coming up with ingenious and creative ideas and policies to help save our Earth. Here my favorite five for this week:

1. Every year, plastic bags kill thousands and thousands of seabirds and animals, specifically sea turtles.  The Leatherback turtle, an endangered species, mistakes plastic bags floating in the ocean for jellyfish (a main staple in its diet) causing death for these wonderfully rare and slowly dwindling creatures.  Countries like China, South Africa, Ireland, Bangladesh, Taiwan, Uganda, and Tanzania have all taxed or restricted plastic bags, which take up to one thousand years to decompose, into basically extinction.  Of course, the United States is quite far behind in this endeavor.  But, some artistic and resourceful individuals have thought of a fantastic way to keep plastic bags out of the ocean and put to good use.  Plastic bag purses are made by weaving a bunch of plastic bags together into patterns.
2. While in Cape May, New Jersey vacationing with my family, I stumbled upon Butterfly Artworks jewelry.  Bracelets, earrings and necklace pendants made from insect and butterfly wings are sold through this company.  The jewelry is eco-friendly and sustainable because the insects are raised on butterfly farms.  These farms employ locals, while simultaneously saving the rainforests from being cut down.  The farmers are provided with income, while the rainforest gains monetary practicality, which encourages individuals to leave the forest untouched.  All of the butterflies live out their lives and their wings are harvested only after their natural death.  Butterfly Artworks is licensed by the United States Department of the Interior to import insects.  Many celebrities have found the beauty of these pieces, including: Nicholas Cage, Claudia Schiffer, Johnny Depp, Bruce Willis, Robin Williams, Jonathan Demme, Peter Jackson, and Harry Connick Jr.
3. The classic board game Monopoly has gone green!  EarthOpoly is a new board game that teaches players to appreciate the Earth with each roll of the die.  Buying properties, collecting Carbon Credits and trading them in for Clean Air are all main parts of the game.  As players travel across the game board, they will learn about the planet and how to care for it, as they pick up Go Green tips from each deed card.  The game pieces themselves are also eco-friendly: the paper is recyclable, the ink is soy based and the game pieces are either entirely recyclable or from nature.  Environmental education has never been so easy.
4. TheGreenLoop.com offers organic cotton clothing for men, women and children, along with shoes and accessories.  Shoppers can browse by brand, concern, or location and purchase t-shirts with environmental messages, ranging from soft/cute to more edgy and political.  Websites like TheGreenLoop.com are pioneers in the area of sustainable fashion.  Organic cotton is grown in a way that has a low impact on the environment.  Organic production systems maintain soil fertility, reduce the use of toxic pesticides and fertilizers, and promote biodiversity in agriculture.  Much to conservationists’ happiness across the nation, acreage of organic cotton plantings increased by 26 percent from 2008 to 2009, according to the Organic Trade Association (OTA).  Even better news, organic fiber sales in the US grew by 10.4 percent from 2008 to 2009, reaching over $520 million.  The future of natural materials in clothing looks bright for the United States, as organic cotton becomes more and more mainstream.
5. Last but not least, New York City, in an attempt to reverse its’ reputation as our country’s number one buyer of endangered rainforest wood, is looking into replacing 11,000 tropical wood planks on the Brooklyn Bridge with more sustainably harvested materials, according to The New York Times.  Scott Francisco, with Pilot Projects, has begun working on the “Brooklyn Bridge Forest”, a sustainably harvested section of rainforest, specifically allocated for growing wood to restore the 127 year old Brooklyn Bridge boardwalk.  The exact location of this area is yet to be determined, but 5,000 acres in Guyana’s troubled Iwokrama Forest is in consideration, according to Treehugger.com.  The project’s website describes the effort as, “a landmark preservation model on the world stage, as well as an actual geographic destination supporting continuous research and ecotourism alongside social, economic and environmental cultivation.”

Environmentally friendly jewelry, clothing, board games and major city renovations are among five of the many efforts going into effect to help preserve natural resources.  Although some news reports seem bleak, we must always remember that with innovative ideas and dedicated individuals, there is light at the end of the tunnel.

Ideology: Republican | Writing from: Connecticut

It happened first in the UK. In May, Brits went to their local polling stations with a distinct distaste for the three major parties, particularly the then-ruling Labour Party. After 13 years at the helm, which produced the controversial decision to join in on the U.S.’s War on Terror as well as the largest economic downturn since the Second World War, the public had tired of Prime Minister Gordon Brown and his cohorts. However, neither were they overwhelmingly in favor of the other options. The result: the first “hung parliament” since the 1970s, with the three national parties splitting the vote and no one party winning a majority of seats in Parliament. The Conservative Party, under David Cameron, reached out to the third-place Liberal Democrat Party, under Nick Clegg, and the two agreed to form a coalition government. In a recent article in the Economist, editor Walter Bagehot writes of the synergies and potential for internal strife of the UK’s new government. So far, it seems to be going relatively well for two parties that few saw coming together amicably before this year.

Now in Australia, where politics has always been a bit less refined than the Queen would prefer, things have taken a similar turn. How they arrived in their current situation requires brief exposition. In 2007, Labour leader Kevin Rudd and his deputy leader, Julia Gillard, swept into power with a large majority in the Australian Parliament. The former government had met an untimely end over its decision to involve Australian forces in the Iraq War. With a considerable mandate, the Rudd/Gillard team carried Australia through the global economic crisis nearly unscathed and sustained their popularity with a broad base of voters. Since the start of 2010, however, Rudd increasingly came under fire from both the opposition and inside his own party over decisions relating to climate change, mining taxes and immigration legislation—three historical political hot potatoes down under. Attempting to save her party’s government from a vote of no confidence in Parliament, Ms. Gillard persuaded Mr. Rudd to step down from his position. In June, she was appointed Australia’s first female Prime Minister, and her Labour Party’s standing in polls recovered some lost ground as she rescinded portions of Mr. Rudd’s policy proposals. Seeing an opportunity to capitalize on her initial popularity, Ms. Gillard called for a national election to consolidate Labour’s position in Parliament. As is turns out, the people of Australia are just as unforgiving as their British cousins, as the elections votes were split among the four largest Australian political parties. Now, Ms. Gillard and her Conservative counterpart,Tony Abbott of the Liberal-National Party, are both courting the newly popular Green Party to construct a coalition government. An outcome is not yet certain, though a coalition government of some construct is surely the future of Australia’s government.

One can not help but think of the similarities between these two English-speaking countries and the U.S.’s own upcoming national election. Despite the structural differences between the Parliamentary and Presidential government systems, there is a distinct possibility that a “hung Congress” may be the outcome of November’s election. By this it is meant that the Republicans look likely to take back control of the U.S. House and Senate but not with a large enough majority to be effective under a sitting Democrat in the White House without a little cooperation.

According to Real Clear Politics (RCP), an independent political website, polling suggests Republicans have a held a slight edge over Democrats in terms of public approval for the entire month of August. The RCP aggregate poll shows Americans approval of Congressional Republicans is 4.3 percentage points higher than for Democrats as of this past week. RCP also forecasts that Republicans could take back the House of Representatives with up to a 23 seat majority in November if they win all of the 35 “toss up seats” where voters are least consistent in their party preferences. They are more likely to win much closer to the 218 seats needed for a majority in the chamber. This would lead to smaller possible margins of error when voting along partisan lines on legislation in the upcoming Congressional session. Blue-dog Democrats and moderate Republicans would need to be constantly accommodated, though when acting in a seamlessly coordinated manor, Republicans could stand and deliver against the Obama policy agenda.

The likely Republican majority looks even narrower in the Senate chamber, where Democrats have more “safe” seats and fewer members up for election. Were Republicans to win a simple majority in the Senate, it would fall short of the 60-vote filibuster threshold, which seems to be the only rule still effective in the draconian upper-chamber these days. Democrats and Republicans would be forced consistently to debate and compromise over even the most simple of bills.

In effect, a “hung Congress” would be delivered by the American voters, who have quickly re-centered after the Democrats’ boisterous two-year stint in Washington but retain graphic memories of Congress run by Republicans as well. As the economy’s fledging recovery has ground to a crawl in the past quarter and employment has remained stubbornly high despite unprecedented stimulus measures to jump start activity, Americans have become increasingly displeased with those in charge. They also remember who was in power when the economic downturn began. Polling shows that the share of Americans who believe the country is on the “wrong track” has reached its highest level since the start of 2009—at 61.2 percent in August.

A “throw the bums out” mentality, much like the one that cleared out the Labour governments in both the UK and Australia, seems to still be resonating in the U.S. However, is it strong enough to deliver the Republicans a clear majority in both chambers? This week’s primaries suggest it may not be, with incumbents securing a spot on the November ballot in many districts. When the chips fall on election day, it may yield a Congress that is forced to work together and with the White House to get anything done, let alone produce results on controversial issues like immigration and what to do about the economy. Yet, forced bi-partisanship by way of a “hung Congress” may be better than the years of bickering that has pushed nearly two-thirds of Americans to believe the country is on the wrong track.

Primary election night in Florida has come and gone, and in typical Florida fashion, it went out with a bang.

The Republican nominee for Governor is the former CEO of Columbia Health Care Associates, Rick Scott. Scott inched ahead of establishment favorite and long-time public servant Bill McCollum. McCollum’s experience in government ranges from Congress to the Board of Governors of the Florida state university system to the Attorney General’s office. His most prominent “accomplishment,” however, was that he’s guilty of perpetrating the largest Medicare fraud in history, and he was that “attractive bald guy” in those anti-Obamacare commercials.

On the Democratic side, establishment candidate and veteran member of Congress Kendrick Meek pulled off a huge landslide against billionaire Jeff Greene after trailing the polls for weeks. Greene is a real estate investor who made his fortune hedging bets against the housing market. Meek, apparently effectively, branded this as “betting against poor people.” But that’s only the beginning. Greene’s best man? Mike Tyson. His preferred party-mate? Lindsay Lohan. His favorite port of call in his oft vomit-caked and orgy-laden yacht? Havana, Cuba.

For months, talking heads in Florida predicted that Scott and Greene, given their similar entrances into their respective races, predicated that their victory of defeat would come as a package. If elections were truly about how much money a candidate could pour into plastering himself around a state with multiple media markets, then surely what worked for one would work for both. Well, they were wrong.

In both races, there were significant changes in momentum going into election day. Scott was given a boost by the controversy surrounding the Park 51 Mosque project, while Greene was hurt by more and more stories of his utter debauchery. But why were either in the race to begin with?

There’s a significant outsider sentiment this election cycle, we all know that. It’s caused John McCain to pronounce that he’s never called himself a maverick, turned Charlie Crist into an Independent and allowed radicals like Rand Paul and Sharron Angle to win primaries. This is bad not only for our politics, but for our national soul as well.

If we continue to demonize our politicians — though many of them certainly merit it — then we will very soon cross the line into demonizing government itself. In fact, this has already started happening with the plethora of Tea Party candidates who are popping up from all over the place: people with no experience, even less grounding in history, public policy and economics. What have we come to?

Those we elevate to elected office should be the smartest of the smart, the most visionary among us and those who do not disdain complexity, but rather seek it out. I’m not saying we should begin electing our professors, but we’ve got to start electing people with a sense of purpose in what they’re doing as a smaller piece in the grander scheme of human history. There’s an episode of the West Wing where Tobey and President Bartlett are plotting his reelection against the white haired, populist governor of Florida. He tells Bartlett, “this election needs to be about smart and not smart, qualified and not qualified.” We need more of that. Now, the “average American” certainly disdains the idea that a president may be intellectually superior to them as snobbery. But I for one am not a fan of picking just any random person off the street and making him leader of the free world.

We haven’t descended this low just yet. In our last election, both candidates were incredibly smart men (save the wisdom of choosing Sarah Palin as anything) with far reaching visions of the future. But if we continue down this path of demonizing incumbent politicians simply because they are incumbent politicians, then we’re in for a group of leaders who will drop us off a cliff. Plenty of career politicians are awful, on both sides. But that doesn’t mean the remedy is electing globetrotting billionaires and “attractive bald guys”. The remedy is elevating politics and government back to a place where those who should be serving actually want to.

Ideology:  Liberal Democrat | Writing from: Washington, D.C.

This past week, we’ve seen another former President of the United States accomplish quite a lot on a private humanitarian mission. Last year former President Bill Clinton aided in successfully freeing Laura Ling and Euna Lee, two American journalists, from North Korea. Last Friday, former President Jimmy Carter returned from North Korea after also helping to free an American, Aijalon Mahli Gomes.

The United States State Department emphasized last week that Mr. Carter was on a “private humanitarian mission” and was not a representative of the Obama Administration. Both trips to North Korea were personal trips, not on behalf of the U.S. government, in order to bring the Americans home successfully. Due to the current tension between the North Korean and U.S. governments an unofficial representative of the United States is the best way for any talks, even those off the record, to take place.  Choe Sang-Hun wrote about these private humanitarian missions in an article titled “Jimmy Carter Tries to Free American in North Korea,” published in The New York Times. Sang-Hun mentioned,

“But as with Mr. Clinton’s visit, Mr. Carter’s has deeper diplomatic undercurrents. The North Koreans have used the captive Americans as bargaining chips, promising to release them in exchange for visits from specific high-profile Americans. North Korea can portray the meetings domestically as evidence of its international importance, while the United States has a high-level direct encounter that it cannot officially engage in.”

There is a reason that these two former presidents have been more successful in a mission with North Korea than the current one. It is because they are not Presidents anymore, but they are powerful private American citizens. Former President Bill Clinton serves as the U.N. Special Envoy to Haiti and is helping restore democracy in the country. Former President George Herbert-Walker Bush fundraised for the Bush-Clinton Tsunami Relief Fund in the devastated Asian areas. And former President Jimmy Carter founded The Carter Center, a foundation committed to solving world peace and fighting diseases, these men seem be keeping active in the private sector.

There is potential strategy in the success of post-presidency initiatives. Former presidents, while no longer official U.S. agents, have arguably more power as civilian national representatives, and if their initiatives work in North Korea, it might be applicable in other countries and situations.

Why is it that these former Presidents can accomplish as much, if not more than they did while they were in office?  Mr. Carter sat down with PBS’ “American Experience” and talked about life after the White House, where “the stubbornness and sense of moral purpose that disabled Carter during his presidency has served him well in these post-presidential cruisades.” In the private sector, where partisanship and the bloodthirstiness of Washington are not nearly as intense as in the political arena, sometimes more things can get done. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham-Clinton told Tavis Smiley in an interview that she will not serve a second term as Secretary of State and is “interested in going back to private life…just focusing on issues of women, girls, families, the kind of intersection between what’s considered ‘real politique’ and real life politics.”

While it is nice to have private humanitarian missions go so smoothly, I hope we can go back to our government being the one to broker such deals. Such an example to look to is what happened last week with New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. He went to Cuba on a weeklong trade mission were he pressed the release of an American prisoner, Alan Gross. Governor Richardson told CNN that, “he believes he made ‘inroads’ with the Cuban government toward securing Gross’ freedom, but is also facing a sensitive investigatory process surrounding his arrest.” Whether Gross is released could indicate future U.S. diplomatic relations.

U.S. State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley commented on last week’s release of Aijalon Mahli Gomes and such private humanitarian trips. He said, “Americans should heed our travel warning and avoid North Korea. We only have a handful of former presidents.”

Is it possible that we will see former politicians, not exclusively Presidents, succeed more post-public office than while in it? Only time will tell, as more politicians pursue initiatives in the private sector, a place where there’s less politics to deal with.

With under 70 days to go until election day 2010, and virtually every poll showing a Republican surge, one could only assume that GOP has done something remarkably right in the mind of voters. However, just two short years ago, the Conservative movement took a beating like never before. The nation was deeply divided and distraught about the current administration, unhappy with the current economic times and looking for something different. They voted for hope, they voted for change and now many of them are suffering from buyer’s remorse.

Barack Obama’s historic election brought many new voter’s from different demographics to the polls. He energized the electorate on so many different levels, drawings crowds in the tens of thousands to his speeches. In 2008 people went to the polls because of him, so to vote in favor and some to vote against. Senator McCain on the other hand struggled to energize and inspire his supporters until Sarah Palin came along and even with her the Republican brand seemed to be fading. Unlike today, Republicans were outnumbered and unpopular.

People aren’t necessarily turning out to the GOP because of anything its leaders have done, but are more so discovering conservative views on their own.  With a few exceptions, many Republicans have been able to capitalize on anti Obama rhetoric, but that can only go so far.  You could argue that the Obama administration has indirectly energized people to rally against his own policies, which is true to some extent. And you could argue that Republican policies have had a small part in energizing the electorate but when it comes down to it, the people most responsible for this year’s election out come will be the people themselves. There is no massive movement centered around one man or one movement strong enough to carry into this election. The protests and activism around this country are founded in the people that participate them and the defense of their individual liberties.

Men and women everywhere are concerned about what is happening in this nation. There have long been complaints about the vast majority of citizens being uninformed, ignorant voters coming from both sides of the aisle and perhaps we are beginning to see that notion slowly fade.  When a dangerous and reckless government intrudes directly into your life, there will is always  a devastating backlash. Micromanaging from Washington has never worked, but it has also never come this far before. They have taken over GM, the healthcare industry and Wall street; one can only wonder what will be next.

It seems each election we are told that this is the most important of our time and honestly this statement becomes truer each election season. This November is not just about Republican or Democrat. It is referendum on America herself. While voters in 2008 certainly wanted change, they are now finding out that they are getting much more than they bargained for.

Liberal elites and the Democratic Party are increasingly showing they are out of touch with everyday Americans. While our President runs around like an international celebrity,  over 9.5% of Americans are unemployed and struggling to feed their families. It’s not that Barack Obama doesn’t care, Barack Obama just doesn’t get it. The same way a family household must budget their money is true for the government as well. If you can’t afford it, don’t buy it. It’s that simple, yet those in Washington seem to be confused as to why their tax and spend policies have yet to rejuvenate the economy. Vice-President Biden said himself that, “We have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt.” This administration is clueless and this time around the American people won’t be so easily fooled.

America is rising. The people have long grown weary of the failed policies of Washington politicians. They have risen up, of their own accord, and decided this is not how they see America. November 2, 2010 is more of a proverbial battle, than just another election. Americans are fighting to keep control of their lives and to stabilize the economy. Their government has failed them time and time again’ but it is the people who know best and it is the people who can govern their own affairs.  I am reminded of the solemn words of President Lincoln, “…that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.  That is what this November is all about.

What’s the best way to predict Mary-Kate Olsen’s position on nuclear proliferation? Ask Ashley the same question. In another blow to the illusion of rational politics, an evolving body of research built on surveys of twins reveals that our opinions are in our DNA.

We have long known that peoples’ political beliefs are heavily influenced by their parents, but that relationship had been assumed to be a product of nurture rather than nature. An emerging consensus, however, holds that genetic factors are at least as significant as environmental ones.

This conclusion hinges on a basic fact about the biology of twins: identical twins, because they developed from one zygote that split, share 100% of their DNA, while fraternal twins, which develop from two separate zygotes, share 50% on average of their DNA.

The heritability, or the proportion of variance attributable to genetics, of a trait is estimated by comparing concordance among identical twins to concordance among fraternal ones. Autism, for example, has been found to be highly heritable because a child with an autistic identical twin has a greater than 60% chance of having autism, compared to a less than 10% chance if the autistic twin is only fraternal.

Researchers John Alford, Carolyn Funk, and John Hibbing used this technique to test the heritability of political opinions, examining twins’ positions on 28 issues including property taxes, unions, foreign aid, the draft, and immigration.

They found a .65 correlation in scores between identical twins and a .43 correlation between fraternal ones. Adjusting for assortive mating (the tendency of people to marry like-minded spouses), that translates into a heritability of 53%. Broken down by issue, the most heritable stances were on cohabitation before marriage (67%), school prayer (66%), abortion (64%), X-rated movies (63%), and gay rights (60%).

A more recent study by James Fowler, Laura Baker, and Christopher Dawes found that political participation is similarly genetic. The correlation between voter turnout for fraternal twins was .50, less than the .71 correlation between identical pairs. Their analysis yields a heritability of 53% for turnout and 60% for other types of political engagement such as contributing to a campaign, contacting an elected official, or attending a rally.

While opposition to cap and trade is not literally encoded in anyone’s DNA, political views are genetic because they are byproducts of other heritable traits. All five dimensions of personality (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism) are between 40 and 50% genetic and the correlation between ideology and personality is well documented.

Inherited physiology is another suspected bridge between genes and politics. Higher sensitivity to sudden noises and threatening images (measured through involuntary responses like sweating and blinking) is associated with support for higher defense spending, the death penalty, patriotism, and the Iraq War, while a lower sensitivity to the same stimuli is associated with support for foreign aid, liberal immigration policies, pacifism, and gun control.

Before you drive over to the nearest sperm bank, take note; early efforts to isolate the genetic mechanisms at work demonstrate that nurture is still critical in determining how genes are expressed as political phenotypes. Without the necessary environmental triggers, genetics can become irrelevant.

A team of scientists from the University of California, San Diego and Harvard University found the 7R allele of the DRD4 gene makes people more liberal only when combined with a large number of adolescent friendships. Neither the 7R allele nor adolescent friendships is sufficient to affect political ideology, but together the gene and the environment produce an undeniable liberal lean.

Following up on their aforementioned study on political participation, Fowler and Dawes investigated the MAOA and 5HTT genes responsible for serotonin metabolism in parts of the brain that regulate fear, trust, and social interaction. While a polymorphism of the MAOA is always associated with a 5% increase in likelihood of voting, the long 5HTT allele raises likelihood of voting by 10% only among people active in religious organizations. Without that environmental factor, the gene is politically neutral.

The final nail in the coffin for genetic determinism comes from the study that started it all: when Alford, Funk, and Hibbing discovered the heritability of political attitudes, they specifically noted the conspicuously low heritability of party affiliation. The correlation between identical twins (.55) was barely higher than the correlation between fraternal ones (.48), leading the researchers to peg its heritability at a mere 14%. Regardless of their genetic policy positions, children are led to their political parties by environmental factors.

These caveats provide some comfort, but the findings discussed here are difficult to reconcile with   American ideals. How democratic are we if the our opinions on the most controversial issues of our era  can be settled at conception? How should we think about elections if some citizens are born to vote and others are born to stay home? And should the power of environmental factors be any consolation if, from the perspective of a child, his environment is as immutable as his genes?

Politics is not over, but we should start to think of it as a somewhat passive process. Persuasion is still necessary to win over the large block of voters in the center who inherited a weak or mixed political orientation, yet the political behavior of the rest of America, perhaps the majority, will unknowingly act out scripts finalized before they were eligible to vote.

Ideology: Libertarian Conservative | Writing from: Florida

As I pointed out in my last column, vicious Republican primary battles are hurting our chances to capitalize on the mood of the moment. A quick update: Bill McCollum has refused to endorse Rick Scott, and apparently the two cannot even stand to look at the other. With McCollum being a well-known and generally popular politician, this lack of endorsement is a powerful blow against Scott. Also, Alex Sink is gaining popularity even among Republicans. In fact, the only thing that prevents me from supporting her instead of Scott is the fact that whoever controls the governor’s mansion controls redistricting. 

But Republicans failure to prepare for the giant swing of momentum goes beyond bickering candidates and lies with the voters and donors themselves. In every state voters are also picking candidates that cannot win.

A classic example is the Senate race in Nevada, where in July, any generic Republican was beating Harry Reid in a head-to-head. Now, with the selection of Sharron Angle as the Republican nominee, many who would have voted Republican will stay home. Unlike the norm, in this race and many others, low turnout will actually hurt the Republicans, and they are susceptible to the same enthusiasm gap that Democrats face.

The problem, unlike Democrats claim, is not that the candidates are too conservative. In fact, despite a few positions, most of the candidates are in line with the American people who support an Arizona-type immigration law and disprove of the health care bill. But most of the blame must lie with the Tea Party. An organization that is supposed to be solidly conservative, they endorse the candidate that is more vocal in his conservatism at the expense of the candidate that actually is more conservative. Rejecting career conservatives in favor of the brash nouveau conservatives turns of the center and moves them to the left.  

Not only was this shown in the Scott-McCollum debacle, where a competent Reagan Republican had the base stolen by an outsider who simply declared himself to be more conservative, this scenario is repeated in other races. In the New York gubernatorial race, the Tea Party is supporting fringe candidate Carl Paladino, despite solidly conservative Republican candidate Rick Lazio. In most cases when the Tea Party candidate is not the establishment candidates, there is very little difference between the two.   

In gaining public support, unfortunately sometimes a fiery tongue is more important than a strong conservative , and outsider status is treasured. We don’t need ranting demagogues like Carl Paladino in office. We need real conservatives with real solutions to take the helm. While the Tea Party has invigorated the election season like no other, I only ask that they take a look at the candidate they wish to endorse. While I am not asking that they support liberal Republicans as a compromise, they should at least look at the candidates’ political accomplishments rather than just their rhetoric.

Yesterday was Women’s Equality Day, a day Congress designated to commemorate the ratification of 19^th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote. Many of my foremothers fought long, hard fights for a simple action that takes five minutes at most, and, sadly, some women choose to NOT exercise this right every election year. However, as revolutionary as the ratification of the 19^th amendment was, there are still many ideological battles for women to fight and win in 2010.

The relationship between voting and representation is on its surface an obvious one: You vote for the person who can do the best for your district and who can defend your interests in Washington D.C. However, if we step back, the lack of female representation on Capitol Hill symbolizes America’s distrust of women in power positions. Furthermore, it shows that women are still classified as an “other” for most of Americans.

If we are to talk about women and politics two names that still dominate the conversation are Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton. Although Ms. Clinton has moved on from her presidential aspirations—for now—to the State Department, what other Democratic female legislators have been on the short list for the presidential nomination in 2012? To be fair, President Obama will easily, and rightfully, accept the Democratic nomination; yet, what future female leaders do we envision captivating the American public like President Barack Obama? Infamously, a CBS golf analyst (of all things!) stated that, if a solider had two bullets and was caught in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Osama Bin Laden and Harry Reid, she would get shot twice.

Perhaps my conservative friends would tell me that it’s not so much the gender of these women but their politics.  The meteoric rise of Sarah Palin, in some minds, would showcase that sexism is a dead issue. Ms. Palin’s Election 2008 story silences those harpy voices of the feminazis on the radical left. However, what policies does Sarah Palin support that supports women? We know she is a mama grizzly, but does she support maternity leave? How about expanding health benefits for women in the military?   In addition, other than some token conservative slogans, how would Sarah Palin save our economy? If you said cut our taxes, which wouldn’t help our exploding state budgets, how would she prevent our deficit from increasing with the loss of revenue?

For many women, the choice between Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin is no choice indeed. But how could women not be for a woman leader? Are we past the ridiculous idea that a minority would vote for their own just because their share the same gender or race? Maybe not. Last week, Senate District 56, a faction of the Minnesota GOP, got in some hot water after releasing a video that had a montage comparing conservative and progressive women: The conservative women had the song “She’s a Lady” playing the background, while the Progressive women, detailed in masculine or “butch” looks, had the song “Who Let the Dogs Out” playing in the background. While the conservative women were placed in a great light—pretty pictures, lovely song—what did it illustrate about them? A women’s beauty and sexuality are the first thing that anyone can rip apart to discredit her. Inversely, this section of the GOP is making the case that a women’s beauty is all that she is worth. Moreover, in the video, we do not hear any of the conservative women’s viewpoints; these women are just quite beautiful. Who needs brains when you have a sweet ass?

The progressive women’s sexuality is prominently displayed as well; however, their sexuality is questioned not reaffirmed. It is no accident that the unfavorably masculine pictures of noted progressive Rosie O’Donnell would be used. Her sexuality goes against what most social conservatives find to be normal in women. The highest office in the land could have gone to Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin, two straight, married women with offspring. This video compounds the antiquated idea that a vagina is the only useful thing that a woman possesses.

internet advertising