Blog Stage: 8

stuff

Blog Stage : 7

To preface this commentary, I must impart a phrase pertinent to the subsequent discussion: 

or in layman's terms, "Haters gonna hate."

The recent debates and proposed legislation revolving around gay-rights have me asking myself "when will people learn?" Looking back in history at times when black people could legally be enslaved, or when women couldn't vote, doesn't it all seem a bit archaic? Okay, that was a rhetorical question; of course it seems archaic! This country was founded on  "American exceptional-ism," the ideal that as a nation, we would serve as a symbol of freedom; but look at us: we're acting out the same dog and pony show on the gay and lesbian population that we had on the marquee when the liberties of women, minorities and disabled people were in question. Discrimination is simply against the doctrine of this country, and though it might take time, those who are being denied their liberties will come forth to remind us the meaning of "freedom," that is, until society chooses another group to hate.

This week in Washington, a group of Republican senators proposed a bill that would allow businesses to deny service to various groups, including the transgender, bisexual, lesbian, and gay populations, based on religious and philosophical differences or even the painstakingly vague classification of "matters of conscious."  
This legislation was set in motion by a lawsuit earlier this year against a florist who explained that she couldn't offer her services to a gay couple who were getting married,  "because of my[her] relationship with Jesus Christ."

Woah, woah, woah, let's backtrack a couple thousand years. A disciple of Jesus wrote, "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them who despitefully use you and persecute you." Matthew 5:44.  If I might be so bold, this woman is quite obviously doing exactly the opposite of what Jesus' message was trying to convey. What causes a business to deny service to someone? Hatred  Jesus doesn't seem like much of a 'hater' to me, his message was one of acceptance, love, forgiveness, and I don't know how much he would appreciate his teachings being used as a hypocritical shield against change, when they were intended to serve as a reminder to "love thy neighbor." Mark 12:31

Blog Stage: 6

One Nation for All

Blog Stage : 5

In 2007, the New York publication Time Out posted this quote by New- Yorker, David Hodorowski, in their "Joke of The Week" column:

"I don’t understand why people are against gay marriage. Their main argument is that it’s tearing away at our social fabric. You really think gays would do anything to harm fabric?" 

That was six years ago. Gay marriage has been one of the most controversial debates in current American history, and Tuesday and Wednesday of this week, the Supreme Court heard arguments that might finally catalyze a decision.Thousands gathered to support marriage equality, taking part in the largest demonstration the high court has seen in decades.

 Over at the National Mall, those in opposition of gay marriage held their own separate demonstration. Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone begged the question "What could be more beautiful or even more sacred than a man and a woman coming together to create new life?" In the court house, Attorney Charles Cooper raising his concern that "re-defining marriage as a genderless institution will sever its abiding connection to its historic, traditional procreative purposes. And it will re-focus the purpose of marriage and the definition of marriage away from the raising of children and to the emotional needs and desires of adults." And this is where I myself, and Justice Elena Kagan have to call 'bullshit.' 

In Response to Cooper, Kagan offers this scenario: "Suppose a state said “because we think that the focus of marriage should be on procreation, we’re not going to give marriage licenses any more to any couple where both people are over the age of fifty-five.” Would that be constitutional? Because that’s the same state interest, I would think. You know, if you’re over 55, you don’t help us serve the government’s interest in regulating procreation through marriage." The logic behind Cooper's claim is flawed to say the absolute least. It's not as if America is facing some under-population problem; if anything, overpopulation is the problem. Are more kids what America really needs when so many are without homes?  Maybe if marriage rights were allowed to gay couples, they could adopt some of the orphans that were given up after pregnant teen girls' bible-waving parents wouldn't let them get an abortion. But alas, I digress...

Other than the obvious inconsistencies discussed previously, the legal ground upon which opposers of gay marriage stand, is crumbling. If the Constitution is the document we base our laws from, and that document states that we are all created equal, then shouldn't that be reflected in our legislature?  If this is so, then Proposition 8 must be found unconstitutional. Attorney, Theodore Olsen explained to the Supreme Court that "It is not consistent with the ideals, and the laws and the Constitution of this country to take our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters and put them in a class, and deny them rights that we give to everyone else."  

This situation really boils down to is the fact that The Constitution is what makes the laws in this country, not the Bible. Let us review the 1st amendment; we have the freedom of religion, therefore a religion cannot dictate the legislature. And why would the Supreme Court base their decisions off a book that tells us that not only is being gay a sin, but eating shellfish, pork, and wearing certain fabrics will also render you damned? While I'm at it, I'll go ahead and also remind everyone that the bible not only defines marriage as between man and woman, but between man and many wives, man and wife and concubines, rapist and victim, and conquering soldier and female prisoner of war -let me point out that four out of five of those examples are illegal in this country. 

Blog Stage : 4

Scrolling down Ann Coulter's blog-page (who although she does not know it, is in fact my arch-nemesis),  I was looking for a fight; However, this was not exactly the case. As nauseated as it might make me to say (or maybe that's just the 3-day old leftover Chinese take-out I ate for dinner), I actually agree with some of the points made in her blog post Guns Don't Kill People, The Mentally Ill Do. Yes, I cringed while typing that sentence; even at first glance, her utterly abrasive title choice is enough to turn my stomach.Ah, but there is solace to be found within my qualm of ideological doubt. Although I must shamefully admit that Coulter makes decent points regarding how focus needs to be shifted from gun-control to the mentally ill in order to prevent shootings, it is those very points that allow me to contradict some of Coulter's more ridiculous proposals about health-care.

Her post begins by examining the psychological history of Seung-Hui Cho, the 2007 Virginia Tech shooter, Jared Loughner, the 2011 Tucson, Arizona mall shooter, and James Holmes, the alleged Aurora, Colorado shooter. Coulter reveals how each of the three shooters were either institutionalized for mental care at some point, had committed crimes that were obviously the result of some psychological abnormality, behaved in odd, violent, or offensive ways, or were noted by their peers, teachers or families to seem like they had a few screws loose. The text states that "studies have found a correlation between severe mental illness and violent behavior. Thirty-one to 61 percent of all homicides committed by disturbed individuals occur during their first psychotic episode;" this statistic reinforces Coulter's assertion (which I actually agree with) that the ability to receive psychiatric care is what will prevent these tragedies from re-occuring, not increasing gun control. 


 In 2010, Ann Coulter wrote the article "My Healthcare Plan," in which she suggests her plan of creating a "one-page bill creating a free market in health insurance." Coulter's primary audience happens to be hard-core Conservatives (who, might I add, probably still have Confederate flags billowing from their flag poles), that hear "free-market" and instantaneously and without much deliberation, feel like a kid in a candy store. This proposal makes health-care seem more like choosing between buying a Volkswagen, Honda, or simply taking the bus to work, than the real necessity that it is. Coulter targets her grievances on privacy laws and how they affect how a patient is treated, but the problem is not 'how,' the patient receives treatment, it's 'if' the patient can even receive treatment in the first place. 

Jenny Gold, editorial columnist for Kaiser Health News, the independent, nonprofit, nonpartisan health policy research and communication organization, reports in her 2010 article "After Newtown shooting, questions about mental health insurance coverage," on government official's responses to the incident. 
The President proclaimed, "I will use whatever power this office holds to engage my fellow citizens--from law enforcement to mental health professionals... in an effort aimed at preventing more tragedies like this." Other than that she's a bully and does what she has to do to get that lunch money, Coulter has no reason to try and characterize Obama as a useless hack, who mindlessly is focusing his time on a solution that wont fix the problem. Obama clearly states that he wishes to extend his power to not only gun control, but mental-health coverage as well, which he has proven by the passing of the Affordable Care act of 2010 and the Mental Health Parity Act of 2008.

Stage 3

With gas prices quickly approaching that of the three post-recession peaks, it is inevitable that when brought up, this topic will ignite at least one bitter, whiny monologue centered around how gas prices are not only leaving cars running on empty, but American wallets as well. Throughout history, we've seen how well the people of our country react to publicly deemed "unfair" Government taxing; raising the gas taxes in order to push the American populace into buying a Smart car will be completely counter-productive if enraged civilians decide to dump them all into the Boston Harbor.

The Case for a Higher Gasoline Tax

Despite the fact that "going-green" is currently all the rage, money talks. Valerie J. Karplus, research scientist in the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change at M.I.T., suggests that if the goal is to become more environmentally-friendly, gas prices should be increased. Karplus' argument might be scientifically accurate, but how much weight will it hold in the realm of the Government? In politics, it's the vote that counts; although it might be trendy in society to save the planet, increasing the tax on a product that is non-negotiable for most Americans is politically irrational.

Karplus argues that "gasoline tax is a tool of energy and transportation policy, not social policy," however, this clearly illustrates why she is a scientist, not a politician. Although it might be scientifically sound to assert that the government should make gas more expensive to reduce consumption in order to help the environment, this is politically irrelevant. Taxes on gas are undoubtedly a matter of social policy, based on the criteria that they affect the lifestyle and social welfare of the population.  Karplus blithely suggests that "with a clear explanation to the public" everyone will agree that raising the gas tax to forty-five cents is the best option for saving the environment. Try explaining to a struggling American that barely has enough in their tank to get to work, that they shouldn't question the gas prices because they are a matter of energy and transportation policy and not social policy.Yeah Right. If saving the environment was as simple as just hiking up the gas tax, it would have already been done.

 Being an environmental activist myself, I would like to believe that there can be change in our country to help preserve our planet, but I am also a Realist. American political knowledge is at an all time low, and most civilians would likely miss the purpose of the tax entirely and simply jump to cursing Obama and his insidious magic wand that makes the numbers on the Shell Station marquee skyrocket. Although environmental awareness is growing within society, the economy remains in shambles; most citizens probably wont check the ballot for a candidate who's trying to raise gas prices, even if that candidate is Captain Planet. In a perfect world, Karplus' proposal might theoretically be effective, and civilians might elect representatives that were willing to make tough policy decisions for the benefit of a greater cause, but this world is not perfect, and politicians know that.

Blog: Stage 2

On Thursday, February 7th, John O. Brennan, President Obama's nominee for director of the  Central Intelligence Agency , faced members of the Senate Intelligence Committee to discuss the usage of drone strikes. The Senators raised concerns regarding the level of covertness of these operations, the legal repercussions associated, as well as the pandemonium the strikes have brought about in Pakistan and Yemen. 

New York Times: Drones Are Focus as C.I.A. Nominee Goes Before Senators

Brennan was pummeled for hours by the Senators, who used the opening of dialogue with Brennan to not only discuss the previously mentioned drone strikes, but to address many long-standing afflictions that had been held against the C.I.A. and the President. Through Brennan's opening statement, it seems that he was aware of what he was in for, as he relates his understanding that there is a "true deficit" in the lines of communication between the Senate and C.I.A., that he later deemed "wholly unacceptable." This article is exemplifies the state of the government when those involved are not informed. The animosity between different governmental groups can be solely attributed to the feeling of being left in the dark and having pertinent information withheld. The main grievance of the Senators seemed to be not so much about the drones themselves, but the "lack of transparency" that the C.I.A. and President maintained against the Intelligence Committee. The article is worth reading, as it not only is informative about the recent discussion between Brennan and the Senate, but sheds light at the internal turmoil within the government and raises important questions about what should and should not be classified information.