Prop 8 = Hate

The issue of gay rights has been controversial for the last few decades. Many fight for gay marriage laws while others oppose them. Conservatives and religious forces fight for no legal recognition of unions between same sex couples. Liberals and civil rights activists fight for a clear recognition of this basic right of union. Proposition 8 is an excellent example of a current event that demonstrates this battle over same sex marriage. Proposition 8 is funded by both religious forces, such as the Roman Catholic Church, and conservative republicans, like John McCain. Proposition 8 fights for an amendment to the constitution that eliminates the rights of gay marriage.   

                Proposition 8 is a good example of why there should be a separation of church and state. Anyone can clearly see that religious motives are behind the proposition. These religious forces, predominantly the Catholic Church, invest much time and effort ensuring that gay people do not have the right to have a legal union and marriage. This seems like such a trivial issue; the government should not be allowed to take sides with any religion or discriminate against homosexual couples. Although Catholics dislike the union of gay couples, they do not have the right to dictate the way other people live their lives. In America, individuals should be free to make personal decisions without government or religion impeding on those choices.

                A poll taken by the Fox Network aimed to study people’s ideas about gay marriage. They discovered that there has been a continuous increase in the number of people who are supportive of gay marriage. More and more people are beginning to agree with the idea that people should be free to marry despite sexual orientation. It seems as though many people are straying from their previously-held, conservative views for the first time. If we look to the many cases of meaningless discrimination throughout the past, we can see a pattern of uprising and finally, the oppressed people are given the rights they deserve. Eventually, gay marriage will be broadly accepted and we will wonder why it was ever opposed in the first place.

U.S. Government with a Cup of Joe

The "Super" Plan for the Future

Lately in Washington D.C, eyes and ears have been focusing on the one group that can help us in this time of need. The group that will hand us the answers we all have been waiting for. The “super committee” has truly been an attention spotlight for the media lately. Even John Stewart of “The Daily Show” has reported on this committee and its obligation of budget salvation. The “super committee” was created 2 months ago, and met for the first time on September thirteenth. The “super committee” is supposed to be forming a plan to straighten out the U.S. government budget cuts along with revising its revenue. However, I would like to ask, what makes this committee “super?”

The committee’s plan has become greatly anticipated in the past few months. However, within ten days of their dead line the “super committee” has thus far been unable to agree on a plan. Not so surprisingly, the opposing Republicans and Democrats within the “super committee” have not been able to put their ideas aside and come to a compromise. The Republicans want permanent tax breaks on the wealthy because their current tax breaks are going to expire soon. On the other hand, Democrats fight for a plan balanced with spending cuts, increased tax revenues, and entitlement reforms.

This is a pattern shown in every other part of the United States government, the two party system is making a difficult puzzle even harder to solve. Granted, our system of government was created in such a way as to make it difficult to create, abolish, or change laws and policies. However, the useless struggle for dominance that defines the two party system needlessly slows the process. Clearly, there are multiple views that need representation and this is why we have the two party system. These differing views and political ideas eventually need to come together to create a compromise; otherwise they will continue to battle over nothing with no true point. In order for the “super committee” to be “super”, they must offer a solution to our nation’s economic crisis.

CNN
L.A. Times

Blaming the Gaming

Video game violence has been a topic of arguments and discussion for as long as I can remember. My fellow classmate blogged about this understated issue making interesting points on the subject.  Growing up, I remember being told I couldn’t play certain games, similar to the restrictions of movies. As a little kid I didn’t understand these restrictions, and thought they were unfair. However, with age comes a certain realization. I now agree that little kids should not play or experience certain overly dramatized graphic content. I also agree it makes things easier to categorize and control if there is some type of system or scale that can be referred to.

 However, I think that the government worries too much about public entertainment. Things start to sound kind of like, “Big Brother” when talk of government controlled entertainment comes up. If a game is too violent for a child, chances are the mother/father /guardian of that child will remove the extreme content from that child’s possession.  It is not the role of the government to determine what we do for entertainment, as much as it has no right to decide what we eat.  Entertainment time is recreational time; its time reserved for doing whatever a person wants to do.

Pointing blame is another action that I disagree with in full. Blaming others does nothing in the solving of problems. I think the reference that the author makes to Freddic  Wertham’s accusation of batman causing homosexuality  is hilarious and effectively makes a  point about needless accusations.  I am also in agreement with the author that being aggressive is in human nature; look at the multitude of wars that have occurred throughout history. Where was blamed placed for human aggression before all of the modern forms of entertainment came in to existence?  Where ancient people aggressive because they watched animals fighting for food and territories?

Authors blog

To Occupy?

The occupy Wall Street protests that began in September are well into its second month now. What began as a demonstration against Wall Street for bank bailouts and its strangling hold on society has evolved into much more. This political movement has had a ripple effect across the globe and expanded to include many causes which are all dependent on the location of the occupation.  In cities across America, citizens are speaking out against displeasing government regulations.

However, these occupations are not supported by everyone. Critics of these protests have said they are the radical left parallel to the tea party. Some predict that the protests will become a type of party that will persist through time similar to the tea party. Yet, the occupy protesters say that this is not the case at all. Unlike the tea party, the protesters do not have only one issue of focus and no central leader. These protests are simply the general public using their freedom of speech and right to protest to show dissatisfaction for certain government actions and inactions.  Some observers note that the tea parties were brought to light through the fox network, an openly conservative network, while the occupy protests are authentic movement spurred by displeased citizens.  The generally liberal protesters have claimed no party association, also unlike the tea parties, and have stated their anger towards Obama and his administration for their passivism while the economy is in such poor condition.  

Having no political association has advantages that the protesters have noticed. By holding no party associations the protesters are not limited to the issues that party has on their platform. Elizabeth Warren tried to link herself to the protests by claiming, “I created much of the intellectual foundation for what they do.” This claim was quickly discredited by many of the protesters. Union association is another situation of which protesters must be wary. Although being backed by unions could mean funding for these protests, it could also limit them by influencing the focus primarily on labor issues. Hindering this movement’s openness to a variety of issues would be counterproductive.

These protests are powerful because they express democratic ideals through average citizens voicing their concerns and ideas.  This is a great demonstration of political mobilization and use of freedom of speech to bring attention to issues that concern everyday people. With these protests comes hope of political participation of citizens on a large scale. With increased political activity comes the increased ability to bring change to displeasing government actions.

Religion in Politics

In the GOP’s presidential election primaries, many petty issues about different candidates’ personal lives have been thrown around. One of the more recent topics that candidates and their supporters have enjoyed drawing negative attention to is Mitt Romney’s Mormonism. The Huffington post’s Jon Ward wrote an editorial, Romney Advisor: Perry's Campaign Encouraging Anti-Mormon Message, over this issue. Mormonism has recently been cast in a poor light with many people commenting about its unchristian ideas and believes. GOP’s Rick Perry and Robert Jeffress, a supporter of Perry’s, have been some of the main people criticizing Romney for his faith.  

Romney believes that Governor Rick Perry is purposely entering the issue of Romney’s Mormon believes into the presidential primaries. Perhaps Perry hopes to scare off voters by demonizing Romney’s Mormon faith in order to keep ahead of him in the polls. Mick Miner, Perry’s spokesperson, has said that the Perry campaign is not trying to encourage an anti-Mormon sentiment. Perry’s campaign said that he does not believe that Mormonism is a cult. However, they still have yet to renounce Jeffress for his anti-Mormon sentiments as Romney had asked. Perry defends his actions by saying that we are in a country of free expression, and that he has no right to tell Jeffress what he can or cannot say.

In my opinion, a candidate’s religious outlook or beliefs should not hold any weight in the question of possible presidential competency. One of the main founding ideas of this country was the right to have freedom of religion. If this idea of freedom is so integral to American values, then why do many people still believe religion is an important issue when it comes to politics? The hypocrisy of the ideas of religious freedom is ever so apparent in political America. Although Romney’s religion has been demonized, Romney himself has openly spoken against the Muslim religion. Romney presents a double standard on religion. He seems to be fine with intolerance when his religion is not the one on trial. Religion is such a diverse spectrum in today’s society and I do not understand how the country founded on freedom and diversity still holds judgments and prejudice towards religion.

While author Jon Ward does not deeply express his ideas of religion in politics, he also does not side with either Romney or Perry and his followers. He writes his editorial with little political or religious biased. Instead, he works to inform the reader about the issue of religion in politics.       

EPA regulation: issue or non-issue?

With the upcoming 2012 election, a lot of questions pertaining to the economy and foreign policies are being thrown at the republican candidates. There are many news articles and editorials covering different views and beliefs of these and other “hot button” issues. However, very few of these reports and editorials focus on the possible change in environmental regulation after the upcoming election. In an editorial posted by the L.A. Times, titled A GOP assault on environmental regulation, the author argues that environmental regulation is heading for change. The author claims that Congress, which is currently run by republicans, is the “most anti-environmental it has been in history.” He proves this point by bringing up the fact that the GOP is in united opposition of environmental regulation. Currently, the democratically controlled senate and President Obama are ready to strike down any of the more extreme ideas presented by the “anti-environmental” Congress. The author points out that the house has approved HR 2401 and HR 2681.

HR 2401 forces the Environmental Protection Agency, or the EPA, to examine the impact of its regulations on the economy. It puts the issue of cost above the economic benefit from improving public health, and scientific evidence of hurtful health effects of emissions on humans. HR2401 indefinitely blocks the EPA’s effort to remove or reduce deadly pollution from mercury and soot among others. HR 2681 stops the EPA’s efforts to crack down on the emissions created by cement kilns. Cement kilns are a major source of the pollution of mercury which has serious health effects especially in pregnant women and children. The author also mentions, HR 2250, which is expected to be approved by the House. HR 2250 blocks the EPA from putting industrial boilers up to tougher standards. Industrial boilers are a large source of the mercury, arsenic, and lead pollutions.  

Although the author shows some democratic values and loyalties by the way he refers to republicans in a negative tone, he never is radically democratic or over the top with his arguments. This makes the article easier to read and relate to. His values and beliefs would be popular among the environmentally conscious and people who are leaning, even slightly, towards the democratic side of the spectrum. While the author’s name is not displayed, his descriptions and evaluations accurately compare to other sources. The author also uses logic and promotes a sense of environmental responsibility to connect with the readers.

I agree with many of the author’s statements and can understand the point of view that this author presents. I share his concern with preserving the environment and keeping pollution at minimal levels. I do not believe that the EPA should be on the GOP’s list of issues to address. Protection of the environment, which is our home, is vital and getting rid of or altering it could be detrimental. There are many other issues today that actually need to be addressed such as bank bailouts and taxation.

Whats up with Capital Gains Tax

I was reading editorials, trying to expand my knowledge of government and politics, when i stumbled across an editorial titled "Why cut taxes for wealthy investors?". This editorial discussed the capital gains tax, and what the plans for the future of this tax could hold. My first question was, "what is a capital gains tax?" Capital gains tax is the taxation for the difference or "profit" made from selling an asset for more than it was originally purchased. The second question that arose for me was, “How does this capital gains tax affect the wealthy investors of this country?” Well, it happens to be that 76% of the capital gains tax is paid by the households that have a salary of at least $250,000 a year. Whereas households that bring in $100,000 a year or less pay only 12%.  What could be gained from eliminating this type of tax? Well first off, eliminating the capital gains tax would mean that the wealthy keep more of their money, which in effect would widen the gap between wealthy Americans and the middle and lower classes. This lets the wealthy increase their fortune while keeping the lower and middle classes in a stationary position. This would be deepening the class warfare that is currently raging through our nation. If this is the case, why are election hopefuls such as Ron Paul and Herman Cain proposing the elimination of this form of taxation? There is one simple explanation. If they offer to remove this tax more well-to-do individuals will support the candidate and possibly donate to their campaign fundraisers.