LANSING—Republican Gov. Rick Snyder has signed controversial right-to-work legislation into law, significantly curbing the activities of the state’s public and private sector unions.

Two bills were pushed through state House votes on Tuesday. House Bill 4003 — which applies to public sector unions — was passed at about noon in a 58-51 vote, and Senate Bill 116 — which applies similar regulations to private sector unions — passed 58-52 shortly after. Both bills consolidate legislation that passed through the House and Senate last week.

House Republicans invoked a motion to reconsider the private-sector bill in order to prevent Democrats from doing the same, but rescinded that motion later in the day.

Right-to-work legislation would prohibit the requirement of union membership in any job and outlaw mandatory fees associated with membership for most public and private-sector employees, excluding police and firefighters. Currently, 23 states have similar policies. During the November election, Michigan voters turned down a ballot proposal that would have enshrined collective bargaining into the state constitution.

Proponents testified that the legislation would increase workers’ options and freedom of speech. Opponents believe the legislation is an attack on Michigan’s unions, which have played an important role in decades of national organized labor debates.

East Lansing Police Officer Todd Quick said the ELPD was prepared for unruly behavior, such as protesters rushing the doors of the Capitol building, but he found it unlikely that dangerous situations would arise.

“Once it’s voted yay or nay, it’s basically done,” Quick said. “Nobody’s been unruly, out of hand, nobody has bothered us … everybody’s been friendly.”

However, protesters did knock down and vandalize a tent owned by Americans for Prosperity — a conservative group that came to support the legislation — situated on a reserved space of the Capitol building’s front lawn. Police were concerned about the incident because two people and a propane tank were caught under the canvas.

Law enforcement officials on horseback kept the crowd at bay while they retrieved the tank and trapped people. Once the risk was removed, police vacated the area and protesters went back to chanting.

“Down with the Snyder regime. One dumb turd,” read a union member’s sign.

Alex Neitzke, a second-year graduate student and Teaching Assistant at Michigan State University, said he thinks the passage of right-to-work will disintegrate unions, and he can’t imagine unions not being around.

Although from Chicago, Neitzke said he doesn’t think the decisions made by Snyder in the past two years have Michigan’s best interests in mind.

“He’s always centrist in rhetoric, but very conservative in actions, and so I think Snyder should be judged by his actions, and thus negatively,” Neitzke said.

Lame duck legislators — those who are nearing the end of their term and generally have successors named — were a prevelent topic of discussion at the rally.

Barb Fuller, a volunteer with Planned Parenthood, said term limits increase the turnover rate of legislators, decreasing their personal responsibility.

“So between term limits and lame duck, there are people who can cast any vote they want to without any accountability or repercussions,” Fuller said. “So what you’re seeing is some pretty radical legislation.”

Jeanne Hummel, an employee at the Monroe Department of Human Services and Chief Steward for UAW 6000, said she was at the protest to support middle class families who need the unions in order to make a living.

“The thing that’s really sad is that the governor flip-flopped,” Hummel said. The governer initially stated right-to-work was not high on his agenda before eventually pledging support.

Earlier in the day, Marica Close, who also works at the Monroe Department of Human Services, said there is only one thing that she hopes to happen if right-to-work legislation passes: “Recall Governor Snyder.”

Members of the Graduate Employees Organization and the University of Michigan Professional Nurse Council were in the capitol to protest the legislation, along with thousands of members of other unions. They could not be reached for comment Tuesday afternoon.

On Monday at the Detroit Diesel plant in Redford, Mich., President Barack Obama criticized the legislation.

“What we shouldn’t be doing is trying to take away your rights to bargain for better wages,” the president said. “These so called right-to-work laws have nothing to do with economics, they have everything to do with politics.”

On the heels of the announcement that the Supreme Court will hear two cases regarding gay marriage, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia defended some of his more controversial decisions concerning gay rights in a lecture Monday afternoon.

Scalia came to Princeton U. to discuss his recent book and share his thoughts on interpreting the Constitution. Scalia, the longest-serving justice on the current Court, has been described as the intellectual anchor of the Court’s conservative wing.

When questioned by Duncan Hosie, who identified as gay, on his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas — which struck down a Texas anti-sodomy law — Scalia stood behind his decision. Hosie questioned Scalia’s comparison between having a moral objection to sodomy and having a moral objection toward things like bestiality or murder. Scalia defended his comparison as a form of argument.

“If we cannot have moral feelings against or objections to homosexuality, can we have it against anything?” Scalia asked, explaining his dissent. “It’s a reduction to the absurd … I don’t think it’s necessary but I think it’s effective,” Scalia said, adding dryly, “I’m surprised you weren’t persuaded.”

Born in nearby Trenton, N.J., Scalia applied, but was not accepted, to Princeton. He instead attended Georgetown where he graduated summa cum laude as valedictorian in 1957. He later graduated from Harvard Law School.

Scalia was notably plain-spoken during both the lecture and the Q-and-A.

“For those of you who have been to some of our previous lectures, you’ll notice it was a little different this time,” said politics professor Robert George, the campus conservative leader who introduced Scalia and offered closing remarks.

Scalia declined to discuss issues related to active cases or potential future cases during the Q-and-A, instead directing the conversation back to the general arguments he made during the lecture.

During his lecture, he defended his view that focusing on the text and the original meaning of the Constitution are the best interpretive measures to protect the Constitution and democratic ideals.

“The text is what governs,” said Scalia, explaining that it would be wrong to bring in the historical circumstances at the time of the Constitution’s signing or to attempt to interpret the intent of those who wrote the document.

“I don’t care what their intent was. We are a government of laws, not of men,” he explained.

Scalia lamented that the trend has moved toward viewing the Constitution as a living document that is open to new interpretations. He explained that the most common argument for this approach is flexibility, explaining that his opponents argue that as society changes, the Constitution must grow with the society it governs.

“The Constitution is not an organism; it’s a legal text for Pete’s sake,” Scalia said.

He argued that while viewing it as a living document can guarantee new freedoms, it can also eliminate old ones. That is in part why Scalia said he views the structure of the Constitution as more important than the enumerated rights contained within it.

“Every tinhorned dictator in the world has a bill of rights,” Scalia said. He explained that the Founders rightly spent most of their time debating the structure and treated the Bill of Rights as an “afterthought.”

He explained that unless the structure prevents the centralization of power and provides for adequate checks and balances, any protection of freedoms could be ignored. Scalia acknowledged that this same structure, which impedes rights from being taken away, also has a tendency to slow down the process of change.

“God bless gridlock,” he said. “It’s the principal protection of minorities.”

He explained that despite his continued warnings, the idea of a “living constitution is incredibly seductive.” Scalia added that the idea is especially “seductive” to his fellow justices, and it is hard to talk someone out of such a viewpoint.

“I don’t know how we got to this stage,” he added, explaining that the approach he defends is rarely taught in law schools anymore.

“At the end of the road is the destruction of the Constitution,” Scalia said. “Unless you give [the laws] the meaning of those who enacted them, you’re destroying democracy.”

REDFORD, Mich. — With thousands of protesters expected to descend on the State Capitol on Tuesday, President Barack Obama entered into the fray surrounding Michigan’s contentious battle over right-to-work legislation during remarks at the Detroit Diesel Plant here on Monday.

Obama, speaking before several hundred UAW workers as well as many members of the Michigan Democratic Congressional delegation, chastised Republican Gov. Rick Snyder and other Michigan Republicans for championing the recent right-to-work bills. If signed by Snyder — which is expected to occur on Tuesday — the legislation would make union due payments voluntary for private and most public-sector unions.

“What we shouldn’t be doing is trying to take away your rights to bargain for better wages,” Obama said to enthusiastic applause. “These so called right-to-work laws have nothing to do with economics, they have everything to do with politics.”

Obama pointed to Michigan’s automotive unions as representative of the importance of collective bargaining in the formation of the middle class and the success of the larger United States, and he said state and national representatives should be fighting to preserve the process.

“What they’re really talking about is giving you the right to work for less money,” the president said. “America’s not going to compete based on low-skill, low-wage, no worker’s rights — that’s not our competitive advantage.”
that right now.”

“Tell it to Snyder,” a UAW worker yelled to an approving crowd as Obama described how America would be better off when workers were able to afford the products they produced.

Obama toured the plant before his speech, during which he discussed the rebirth of the auto industry and the necessity of a strong middle class.

His remarks were intended to address the looming fiscal cliff and the possible tax increases Americans family may face should he and Congress not come to a consensus on the spending cuts and additional budget deficit measures needed before the end of the year. The President said Congress must pass a law to prevent a tax increase on the first $250,000 of every American’s income.

“That means 98 percent of Americans … and 97 percent of small businesses wouldn’t see their income taxes go up a single dime,” the president said. “Congress can do

He said he is willing to work with Republicans in Congress on a plan to reduce the deficit, but is not willing to forfeit investments in education, infrastructure improvements, or research and development.

“Our success as a country in this century will be defined by how well we educate our kids, how well we train our workers, how well we invent, how well we innovate,” he said. “That’s how you bring good jobs back to Detroit.”

After the speech, State Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D–Detroit) said the president’s remarks about unions and the right-to-work legislation was “on-point.” She said the actions taken — or not taken — by her Republican colleagues in the Legislature to pass the laws so quickly seemed undemocratic.

“It’s absolutely destructive,” Tlaib said of the legislation. “To think that some of the reasons that they’re using to pass this through so quickly is absolutely unbelievable.”

Maxine Graff-Goodman, a resident of Farmington Hills, Mich., said though she and her husband are not union members, they came to show support for the President and the rest of the UAW.

“We think that we won the election, it’s time for the Republicans to realize that,” Graff-Goodman said. “If we’re going to move this economy forward, we need to take steps in the right direction to do that.”

Seventy-five names, all of them striking: Davey O’Brien, Earl Campbell, Tim Tebow, John David Crow, Charles Woodson, Roger Staubach, Cam Newton, Archie Griffin and now, Johnny Manziel. On Saturday, the most exclusive fraternity in American athletics grew by one, College Station made its mark on Manhattan, and Manziel bulled his way into the pantheon of college football. There’s another Heisman trophy in Aggieland.

We’re underestimating this award. We’ve spent too much time looking at this shortsightedly. Imagine the recruiting boost, we say. Imagine the national championships and program revenue and national branding. Imagine the t-shirts. Just imagine. First we need to come to terms with what the Heisman trophy means.

“Johnny Heisman.” “Heismanziel.” We’ve heard all the nicknames. Here’s the good news, Aggies: you can’t oversell that, because no matter how big a conception you have in your mind of the Heisman, it’s always going to be bigger than that.

Find a computer and look at a list of all the former Heisman winners. Because of the flaws in the bowl system, the fallibility in the polls and the ambiguity of the national championship, the Heisman trophy is the most iconic symbol of college football. It’s the purest thing in the purest incarnation of football. It would be hard to say that a Heisman trophy is more important than a national championship, but it’s certainly more permanent, more recognizable. Words like “fraternity,” “club” and “brotherhood” surround the group of Heisman winners. They genuinely seem to care about the sanctity of their roll call. Johnny will always be a part of that.

John David Crow’s Heisman came well before the era of around-the-clock jabber from the sports punditry, so he’s had more buzz surrounding him in the past weeks than when he won the Heisman trophy in 1957. For more than half a century, he was the first and only Aggie to do so. Current students don’t know Crow. How could they? I respect his accomplishments, but the usual things bother me. It was a different mode of football in those days, and it always felt a little sad that our University had to scrounge so far back into the narrative of A&M football to find something worth marketing. Crow has his face all over spirit videos and Kyle Field banners, and he should.

So what does that say about Johnny? Johnny’s face isn’t displayed most prominently in College Station at the moment. In Times Square, the most noticeable face among the lights, signs and passersby is that of a small town kid from Kerrville Tivy High School. New York is a fast city; they’ll forget about Johnny. But at A&M, we’re looking at fifty-plus years of Johnny Football. He has three more years on the field, sure, assuming all the things football fans are usually wrong in assuming. He has the rest of his life as the face of A&M.

Because that’s what he is. He’s not just the most popular entity within the most popular institution of A&M. He’s the University. He’s the access point to A&M for everyone outside the College Station zip code. It’s almost hilarious how much work the University marketing guys have done, tossing around things like traditions and the SEC logo, only to have Johnny “Scooby-Heisman-Football” Manziel fall into their laps.

I expect a Manziel statue. I expect the quote from his speech about the 12th Man in every spirit video for the next century. I expect every non-Aggie we know to hate us for how many highlight videos we watch and re-watch and I expect us not to care.

He ended his acceptance speech with a “Gig ‘Em.” For all the Aggies who have flashed a thumbs-up over the years, Johnny’s might have been the most important. Down the line, Manziel will lead the next great Aggie up the steps before the Heisman is awarded, just as Crow did for him.

Baylor officials reported this week that Robert Griffin III’s 2011 Heisman nod was worth $250 million to the school. It seems logical that A&M will reap similar benefits. But for the 12th Man, Saturday night was worth a whole lot more.

During the American presidential race, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made little secret of his support for Mitt Romney. They were old friends. They shared the same deep-pocketed donors. Netanyahu was even featured in Romney campaign ads targeted at Jewish voters in Florida. Israeli parliamentary elections are scheduled for January 22, two days after Barack Obama’s second inauguration, and it’s time for the president to repay the prime minister’s favor. Of course, Obama’s hostility to Netanyahu would have purer motives—to save Israel from a government that has turned that country into a pariah state and is destroying any prospect of a just and durable peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

The recent Palestinian bid for statehood at the United Nations General Assembly encapsulates everything wrong with Netanyahu’s government, a coalition of religious nationalists and out-and-out racists led by his right-wing Likud Party. With significant European backing, the resolution to make Palestine a non-member observer state passed overwhelming despite objections from the United States, Israel, and seven other countries. The Jewish state had a right to be angry: The UN bid arguably violated the Oslo Accords, which prohibit unilateral action by either Israelis or Palestinians. That said, this was an avoidable embarrassment. Last year, the Palestinians attempted the same thing at the UN Security Council, a request nixed by the U.S. Between then and now, the Netanyahu government could have returned in earnest to the negotiating table, if it only had agreed to a halt to settlement-building, an offer that Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, made repeatedly.

In remarks at the Begin Center in Jerusalem, Bibi Netanyahu struck a sanctimonious tone. “It doesn’t matter how many hands will be raised against it,” he said, “there is no force in the world that would cause me to compromise Israel’s security.” Writing off the international community wasn’t enough. He had to double down on the behavior that has paralyzed the peace process, announcing plans the next day to build 3,000 new housing units in the E1 corridor between Jerusalem and the settlement of Ma’ale Adumim, which would bifurcate the West Bank between north and south, further entrenching the Israeli occupation. As the left-leaning daily Haaretz wrote, this was “a step that, first and foremost, punishe[d] Israel.” The U.S., which had proven itself a true friend to Israel, issued a stinging condemnation. Five European nations summoned Israeli ambassadors to protest the Jewish state’s actions. Further recriminations are in the offing.

Some commentators conjectured that Bibi’s move was designed to gin up his base ahead of the election, after which he would cut a deal. This runs deeper than that, though. Bibi is heir to an expansionist and exclusivist Zionist vision of a Greater Israel that encompasses the occupied territories—and perhaps other lands. While he endorsed a two-state solution three years ago, his government’s settlement binge and legitimization of arguably illegal outposts indicate that he is not a true convert. An ability to overcome the past is the mark of the peacemaker. Menachen Begin and Anwar Sadat had it. Abbas might have it. Bibi probably doesn’t.

And that’s where the election comes in. Right now, Likud, which merged with the Arab-hating Yisrael Beiteinu party, is poised to rout a dispirited left beset by infighting. For its part, the Israeli electorate has grown more hawkish since the second intifada. But voters could be won over to the left if Netanyahu is seen as having damaged American-Israeli relations, a matter that bears heavily on their minds.

Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert accused Bibi of hurting Israel by breaking for Romney. Former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, the peace camp’s last, best hope, said Netanyahu “poked Obama in the eye” by approving settlement construction in E1. President Obama could give credence to both those arguments, and it would be just deserts for a government that thinks friendship is a one-way street.

U.S. action should be targeted at settlement-building, the biggest roadblock to peace. In 2010, The New York Times reported that $200 million in tax-deductible donations were funneled to the settlements by American charities. Removing that deduction would not make a big dent monetarily, but it would send a powerful signal. To ratchet things up, America could condition its loan guarantees to the Jewish state, $3.8 billion of which will be disbursed through 2016, on a cessation of settlement activity, subtracting the amount Israel spends on building from the sum of its guarantees, an idea occasionally floated. Finally, Obama could announce that military aid to Israel—in excess of $3 billion annually—is under review because of E1 construction, a development that would earn Netanyahu brickbats from across the political spectrum.

Such a decision would ignite a firestorm in America, but it might be the only way to rescue the Israeli left and win the peace. Plus, Obama’s already been re-elected.

The hit movie “Skyfall” is as good of a spy thriller as you can make today. It is captivating in its simplicity, the characters are a blast, and the cinematography is gorgeous. Without a doubt, it topped a great movie in “Casino Royale” for the best of the Daniel Craig Bond films so far, and it probably will hold that title for a long time.

“Skyfall” is a major turnaround from the last Bond movie, “Quantum of Solace” (2008), because, unlike Quantum, “Skyfall” is an extremely simple movie. There is never any question as to where Bond is and what he is doing. There is a clearly established bad guy, and there is no question what his motivation is: to get revenge for being cast out by M from MI6. It is as basic as a Star Wars movie. At the end of “Skyfall,” good prevails over evil in the simplest and, consequently, the most powerful fashion.

First-time Bond director Sam Mendes tested the series’ waters with a bold story line: a villain has gained access to the identities of MI6’s undercover agents and bombs their headquarters. It gives the film a greater urgency than your run-of-the-mill Bond movie.

MI6 is seriously endangered. This makes the viewer feel like “Skyfall” matters in the 007 series. This is not a typical day for Bond, where he just needs to shoot a few goons and save the girl. When a massive explosion goes off at MI6 headquarters and six Union Jacks are draped over their respective coffins, it becomes apparent that this story matters.

The biggest reason this movie is so fun, though, is that Bond and the characters surrounding him look and feel extremely lively. The audience doesn’t have to assume anything about them.

“Skyfall” successfully demonstrates Bond’s macho nature and super villain Silva’s (Javier Bardem) devilishly evil charm.

The script, pacing and acting all work together to do so. When Bond is shot from an explosion and into a train car, he doesn’t fall to his hands and knees. Rather, he lands on his feet, props himself up swiftly, and walks down the car, past the camera, fixing his cuffs as if he were walking into a ballroom.

When Silva makes his grand entrance at the end of the movie, he does so in a grand fashion, blasting “Boom Boom” by the Animals through the speakers attached to his massive gunship, adding a bit of comic appeal as he flies in to finish off the protagonist. These moments have borderline cartoonish charm, but they are so well done that they leave audiences thinking to themselves that, yes, Bond and his nemesis really can be that cool. It is very easy to buy into what “Skyfall” is portraying in the Bond universe.

Mendes managed to make “Skyfall” a very physical film while still keeping the audience engaged in nearly every frame. Whether Bond is flying across rooftops on a motorcycle or clinging to the bottom of an elevator in a skyscraper, every shot has something unique to offer, and the action is always surrounded by fantastic scenery, from the night skyline of Shanghai to the cloud covered hills of Scotland.

Even the most casual Bond fan will enjoy “Skyfall.” Its perfectly paced, and the characters are wellwritten and fantastically played. After seeing it once, it is worth seeing again. Even the second time through, it is difficult to look away.