The Fourth Wall
page 3
ANGELIC SINOVA
With the 2012 presiden-
tial election just around the cor-
ner, everyone’s question is the
same: “Which Republican will
Massachusetts Governor - Mitt
Romney took an early lead in
the polls with much support
from the Republican establish-
ment. The Associated Press even
deemed him the “man to beat” in
the Republican primary. Though
with the Iowa, New Hampshire,
South Carolina, and Florida pri-
maries already over, the question
still remains unanswered.
According to
FoxNews.com, “Iowa matters so
much this year because the big-
gest unanswered question for
Republicans is who will be the
standard bearer for the conserva-
tive wing of the party”. Original-
ly Iowa, which participated in
the primary election Jan. 3rd,
had Romney winning the Iowa
caucuses with over 30,000 votes.
Rick Santorum, who followed
Romney by 8 votes, was second.
Ron Paul was third, followed by
Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry,
Michele Bachmann and Jon
Huntsman. After a recent re-
count, the Iowa Republican Par-
ty has now stated that Rick San-
torum was the actual winner of
the Iowa caucuses. Santorum
was found to actually have
29,839 votes to Romney's
29,805.
The second primary
election, held in New Hamp-
shire, took place Jan. 10th. Un-
like Towa, where the candidates
were neck and neck, New
Hampshire cast a clear winner.
Romney became victorious with
a whopping 40 percent of the
votes that day. “Tonight we
made history,” Romney said as
he graced the stage for his se-
cond primary win. Ron Paul,
who came in second with over
52,000 votes, stated in his
speech that even though Rom-
ney had a “clear cut victory”, he
was now “nibbling at
(Romney’s) heels”. Jon Hunts-
man found himself in third with
16.9% of the votes, while Newt
Gingrich (9.4%), Rick Santorum
(also 9.4%), and Rick Perry (a
dismal 0.7%) brought up the rear
at the New Hampshire primary.
South Carolina and
Florida (who casted their prima-
ry votes the 21* and 31%) con-
cluded the January Republican
primaries. The hopes of the re-
publican candidates shifted im-
mediately to South Carolina,
which has, according to
FoxNews.com, “proved the cru-
cial test in many Republican
nominating contests. It's a con-
servative, southern state in a
party dominated by conserva-
tive, southern voters”.
Since 1980, South Caro-
lina Republicans have picked the
eventual nominee in every presi-
dential election. This made the
South Carolina primary win vital
to all participating candidates.
Jan. 21st, Newt Gingrich swept
to victory stripping Mitt Rom-
ney of the front-runner title.
Romney, however, returned to
the front of the race, winning
Florida’s primary with 46% of
the vote to Gingrich’s 32%.
What does this mean for
the upcoming primaries? With
Santorum winning Iowa, Rom-
ney winning New Hampshire
and Gingrich winning South
Carolina, the upcoming Republi-
can primaries could go in any
direction.
MICHAEL GARRETT
The Supreme Court is
currently hearing a case regard-
ing the constitutionality of the
FCC’s regulations regarding the
use of expletives on broadcast
television. This case, Federal
Communications Commission V.
Fox Television Stations, is a
continuation of a 2009 case in-
volving the same parties.
This issue was first
caused by the use of expletives
in speeches by celebrities Cher
and Nicole Ritchie on the Bill-
board Music Awards broadcast
live on Fox in 2002 and 2003.
This led to the FCC expanding
their policy on indecent lan-
guage to include the ability to
fine broadcasting companies for
“fleeting expletives” on live
television.
Fox consequently sued,
leading to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit to rule against the FCC
in 2007. The New York Times
summarized the decision as: “If
President Bush and Vice Presi-
dent Cheney can blurt out vul-
gar language, then the govern-
ment cannot punish broadcast
television stations for broadcast-
ing the same words in similarly
fleeting contexts.”
The FCC appealed, and
the Court of Appeals ruling was
overturned by the Supreme
Court. A lawyer for Fox stated
that the new FCC decision was
“the end of truly live television
and a gross expansion of the
FCC's intrusion into the creative
and editorial process”, accord-
ing to the USA Today.
The Supreme Court is
expected to reach its decision
later this year.
ALEX WYPIJEWSKI
America’s need for natu-
ral gas to fuel our industries is
growing every day, and with that
comes a need to know how to
safely and effectively procure that
gas from the earth. Right now,
the big word in the United States
for gas drilling is hydraulic frac-
turing, or “fracking”. Fracking is a
way to collect natural gas from the
earth by boring a drill through the
layers of rock and into shale de-
posits that hold natural gas. The
drill then turns sideways and
blasts a mixture of sand, water,
and various amounts of chemicals,
some of which are toxic. The
pressure from this blasting frac-
tures the shale and releases the gas
within. According to Hydrau-
licfracturing.com, the sand then
fills the gaps to allow the frac-
tured shale to remain open while
the gas and oil seep through the
cracks. The gas is then pumped
back up to the surface via the drill
pipe.
Proponents of fracking
claim that it provides a large
amount of jobs in a time of eco-
nomic woes, greatly cuts Ameri-
ca’s overseas dependence on gas
and oil, and provides fuel on
home soil. In fact, The Marcellus
Devonian shale deposit (the larg-
est deposit in America) holds
enough natural gas to provide
power to the East coast of Ameri-
ca for fifty years.
However, fracking is the
cause of much controversy. Big
name drilling companies like the
Chesapeake Energy Company are
not releasing the names of certain
chemicals that are used in the pro-
cess of hydraulic fracturing. Hy-
draulicfracturing.com gives an
example called “Typical Deep
Shale Hydraulic Fracturing Mix-
ture Makeup,” in which 98% of
fracturing fluids are composed of
water and sand, and 2% are differ-
ent mixtures of chemicals that are
named in a way as to elude suspi-
cions. With names like “acid,
breaker, crosslinker, and surfac-
tant,” it is unclear what exactly
these chemicals are.
Another downside is the
blistering pace that the drilling
operations are being held at. With
this frantic pace to get things done
comes the inevitable slip-up. Ac-
cording to Thedailyreview.com,
on April 19, 2011, a gas well
erupted in Bradford County, PA in
which amounts of hydraulic fluids
spilled into a field, and into the
adjacent Towanda Creek, causing
concern for the safety of the coun-
ty’s drinking water.
A peer review study by
Duke University scientists also
8160 Anthony
Highway
Quincy, PA
WW
We deliver to campus!
Sun - Thur
Fri & Sat
11-10
11-11
showed a direct correlation be-
tween areas with hydraulic frac-
turing and the frequent claims of
flammable tap water. According
to ProPublica, “they were alarmed
by what they described as a clear
correlation between drilling activ-
ity and the seepage of gas contam-
inants underground, a danger in
itself and evidence that pathways
do exist for contaminants to mi-
grate deep within the earth.”
On Nov. 2, 2011 The
EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson,
was quoted in an interview with
energyNOW saying, “We have no
data right now that lead us to be-
lieve one way or the other that
cess.”
Act. :
However, on Dec. 8,
2011, MSNBC reported that “the
EPA last month said it had found
compounds associated with chem-
icals used in the drilling process
known as hydraulic fracturing, or
fracking, in the groundwater be-
neath Pavilion (a city in Wyo-
ming). Many residents say their
well water has reeked of chemi-
cals since the drilling began there
and first complained to the EPA in
2008.”
The
controversy over
Dear Reservoir Dogs,
Let’s go to work.
Happy Valentine's Day,
Mr. Orange
fessesssesssessesseeessessennssasnnsras