For One and All

In regards to Dana's post about legalizing gay marriage, I agree with most of the of the points she brings up to support her position. With only 16 states having legalized same-sex marriage, gay couples do indeed face limitations on their lives that at present will be very hard to get through. However, I feel as though our society and its values does same-sex couples no favors, for being gay in society has always been taboo.

Dana says that liberals and conservatives constantly argue about gay marriage, there are people out there that don't identify with either group that have differing opinions on that sex issue. Having said that, I agree with her that conservatives such as Rick Santorum have a very skewed view on marriage and whether gays are allowed to marry. Santorum says that marriage has evolved into just a romantic relationship, but in his logic is bizarre, for most people develop romantic that lead to the marriage itself. Without romance, most people would not marry, making his argument null and void, As for adoption, I feel as though society places restrictions on gay couples due to the unjustified fear of the couple possibly influencing a straight child with through exposure to their lifestyle, which is completely ridiculous. One's sexual orientation should not inhibit their parental skills, regardless of what most people think. I have no problem with gay people raising children, because it should be based on their character and principles.
Everyone deserves a chances to be happy, gay or straight.

Fiction Vs. Reality

The topic I've chosen to discuss is the idea that the President of the United States believes that violent movies or other forms of entertainment negatively impact people. For starters, I believe this idea is absolutely ridiculous. In an article posted by this site, Obama encourages film makers and others in entertainment to take responsibility for their products and announces the detrimental value of online violence to the lives of children. I find this to be a joke.

The president goes to stress that those in Hollywood don't "glorify violence", while implying his belief that tragedies such as the shooting at Sandy Hook were caused by on-screen violence. Plenty of my friends, as well as myself, have been exposed to numerous violent movies and video games..and yet, we all lead fairly normal, healthy lives. Why? Because the problem isn't with the content, it's with the PEOPLE who get access to it. The difference between reality and virtual reality is very clear to most of the general population. The large majority of us aren't going to watch Die Hard and suddenly have the urge to hunt cyber terrorists. Or finish playing Call of Duty and say "Hey, that looks like fun. Let's try it out on the street." If such were the case, tragedies such as Columbine, Sandy Hook, and others would happen on a more frequent basis as the entertainment our society enjoys becomes more violent.

You could argue that the majority of violent crimes happen for several reasons unrelated to video games. Most robbers are thinking of video games when they rob people. They're doing it for money. There are crimes of passion, which isn't exactly something movie producers are advertising people to do. Speaking of advertisement, a lot of violent games or movies come with a warning tell viewers not to reenact what they see. If Obama doesn't see that as taking responsibility for your product, I'm not surely exactly what he is looking for.

Violent entertainment isn't responsible for atrocities committed by those in the general public. It's just a convenient scapegoat.

A fork in the Educational Road?

I have decided to use Maria's post about the government profiting off student loans as the post to analyze. She brings up numerous points that I am in agreement with, such as the rising interest rates on student loans, the increasingly heavy debts students face, and the idea that the federal government  shouldn't profit off students. However, while I favor Maria's opinion, I can see the other side of it too.

With the nation trillions of dollars in debt, one can expect the government to look for revenue in any areas that they can find. Charging interest on student loans is a quick way to bring in much needed money, whether it be in the best interest of our society or not. Also, I do believe that schools are inviting towards students. With all the ads and commercials on television and in newspapers these days, colleges are practically begging students to attend their campus. Plus, almost all colleges offer grants or scholarships of some kind, with some even offering full funding for a potential student. While scholarships are based on grades athletic merits, or any other form of achievement, many students still have the opportunity earn this "free money" through hard work. Also, many students choose to attend colleges knowing that they will be forced to apply for loan(s). A simply solution to avoiding loans is to simply narrow your field of colleges to those that fit your budget.

I feel that with the economy the way it is that the government is basically tempted to raise interest on student loans, but they aren't entirely at fault for student debts. If one was to responsibly manage their financial accounts and overstep their financial bounds by attending a modest school, debts really won't be as big of a deal.

Slow Change

I can honestly say that before this class started I never really questioned how the national government was run. To me, our system seemed exactly as it appeared; organized, strong, honest, and unified. Accepting that the United States' national government may have flaws seemed like a foreign concept. Yet, this semester has been an eye opener for a young citizen such as myself. Some information over the duration of the course has been repeat, but the discussions have given me reason to really take another look at what goes on in Washington.

Until this semester, I knew nothing of the expansion of executive powers that enabled spying on citizens without a warrant. Such an idea seemed like something out of a movie, yet it actually apparently does happen, with approval from those who are supposed to be representing the public. The repeated clashes between the two parties over such programs as Obama-care never really seemed important until the repercussions of a victory for either side were explained through discussion and lectures. It really empowered the idea that for all the talk of us being a democracy, the fate of the nation is really not with the people. The amount of leverage interest groups apparently have on representatives also does not bode well for our long term future, as more politicians make deals to satisfy their own personal ambitions.  I also never truly understood just how involved America was in global events and situations, like those in Syria and Israel. If those in Congress would focus more on domestic matters instead of meddling in areas that do not concern the well being of America, the country as a whole would be much better off. In spite of all its' flaws, however, Congress still has plenty of opportunity and time to become the kind of system the general public deserves.

Radiating Changes

If there was one constant element of the national government we as citizens could point out rather easily, it would be the seemingly endless gamesmanship between the two national parties; the Republicans and the Democrats. When one party momentarily gains an edge over the other, the latter party retaliates in a fashion that sees a shift of power in their favor. A recent post by Jon Walker on the liberal political blog Firedoglake reiterates exactly that point.

In Walker's post, he describes Democratic reaction to the Republicans attempts to an appointment of any Obama supporter to the Circuit Court of Appeals by way of filibuster in the Senate. The Republican's goal in doing so was to maintain the conservative edge they had among the judges of that particular court. However, the Democrats broke up the filibuster using a political maneuver that the author refers to as the "nuclear option", which alters the voting process in terms of the Senate. Instead of requiring the usual 60 majority votes, the Democrats only needed the basic majority, which is this particular case was 52 votes. 

Jon Walker believes that this "nuking" of a filibuster signals a change forthcoming in how things are run when it comes to decision making votes and that the threat of obstruction has been greatly reduced. I however believe that this is just a temporary solution to a insolvable problem. As Walker himself alludes to, now that everyone has seen how the traditional filibuster can  be broken down, the opposing party of the next issue will now begin looking for new ways to halt the ideas and desires of their opponents. In contrast to Walker, I believe that things will soon return to status quo. 

Refueling the Burnt Out Fire

After initially struggling to find a story that interested me, I stumbled upon this story written on Friday by the LA Times' editorial board. Titled "Beware the Clear Cutters", the article is about a new logging law developed by Republicans in response to the massive forest fire that recently blazed through Yosemite National Park and the surrounding areas. The writer(s) go on to criticize the proposed bill, listing various flaws in its' approach to preventing future fires while suggesting their own ideas on how to improve the bill.

The author's first problem with the Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act is that it would more double logging quotas without regard as to whether loggers are cutting down trees in national forests or if the cutting process would disrupt natural habits for endangered or threatened animal species. The writer goes on to also dispute the bills' claim that more logging would reduce wildfires by pointing out that the fire in Yosemite was caused by years of fire suppression, which caused a build-up of vegetation that in turn helped to fuel the massive fire. However, while the writer criticizes the bill, they come up with a few suggestions to improve it while also protecting the environment.

One idea the author brings up is for timber companies to log in the areas where trees are being killed off by insects pests instead of logging in healthy forests. Although the trees are dying, the author argues that the wood from them still retains value. The only problem is that rules currently prevent timber companies from being able to log in such areas before the trees lose value. Another suggestion presented is to cut down thinner, less fire resistant trees as opposed to the bigger trees. Having the timber companies clean up the unused tree tops and other parts usually left to dry out on the forest floor is another suggestion for preventing fires.

To me, this article is written by in a very liberal tone and is meant to appeal to environmentalists. While the author cannot by identified as a single person, I feel as though his(hers or their) ideas are supported with enough evidence to suggest that the argument presented is a credible one.    

       

More Trouble in "Paradise"?

Once again, the White House is engaged in a tug-of-war. However, thankfully this issue centers on internal affairs here at home. As reported in a nice little article posted by USA Today, the House of Representatives has passed through a stopgap spending bill that will be responsible for funding the national government almost until the end of the year. So what, you might ask? Well, it's worth the read because the House of Representatives is controlled by Republicans, while the bill in question includes a provision that will defund the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). This bill may have passed the House on a vote of 230-189, but it is extremely unlikely to get through the Democratic Senate. If by some miracle that happened, Obama would quickly veto the bill, as Obamacare is the cornerstone of his tenure. The problem with this impending stalemate in Congress is that if no resolution can be met by September 30th, the government will shut down October 1st. While not catastrophic, it would still slow agency operations and close national museums and parks. This is a fascinating article because it really underlines the ongoing power struggle between the two parties, which according to this article may indeed be coming to a boiling point.