I don’t agree with my classmate’s article about Roe vs. Wade. I don’t agree that one of the largest crisis’ in our country today is not the war in Iraq or racially prejudicial hatred. I am in agreement with my classmate that nonchalant and frivolous abortions are ridiculous and not something to be taken lightly. But there are instances, I believe, that are not rape or incest, that are not endangering the physical health of the mother, and that I could understand a woman not being ready to have a child. Birth control is a great option, however, birth control is not 100% effective, the pill only promises 99% certainty – which isn’t certainty, and condoms can break.
My classmate states, “Individuals with the help of the current law have to be held accountable for the outright slaughter of their own young.” That, to me, is a frightening statement. Slaughter is an incredibly powerful word, one that implies a complete lack of emotion and basically, pure brutality. Who are you and I to label these women? Who are we to judge and who are we to decide for them? What about the slaughter of a woman’s right to choose what happens to her body? That right may not have tissue or blood running through its veins, but it’s real and it’s alive and it can die, too. We’ve only had the right to stand up and vote for 88 of the 221 years this country has existed. Are we already willing to give back some of the freedoms generations before us fought so hard to get?
As articulate and passionate as some of what your saying is… I, as a liberty-loving and independent person, can never stand behind a belief that limits my rights and potentially puts my future in the hands of Uncle Sam or George Bush. The bill of rights and the constitution was set up to keep larger powers from controlling U.S. citizens, it’s frightening that so many people are willing to give over the right to live their own lives for any reason, least of all in pursuit of telling others how to live theirs.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Superdelegates - Choosing our President
With the whole country and much of the world wondering about the US’s next occupant of the oval office, everyone’s curiosity is peaked about who will be next. After the election in 2000 and the let down to the county of George W. Bush becoming president while the popular vote actually went to Al Gore, we all must wonder how the shining example of a democratic society, which should be more fair… does not actually elect and therefore does not reflect the wishes of it’s citizens.
The Electoral College is the real elector of the President of the United States of America. With many states primaries already finished, the election dangles in the hands of the so-called, “super-delegates.” We hear about them on the news every night, and hear that our nation’s future leadership lies in their hands. So I’m wondering… Who and what are the super-delegates? Why is the decision in their hands versus the hands of the citizens of the United States?
Each party has delegate’s selected based on party primaries and caucuses in each U.S. state, these delegates account for a portion of the Electoral College. Super delegates are selected automatically, based on their status as current or former party leaders and elected officials, while others can be chosen during the primary season. The super delegates are able to support any candidate they choose.
So it seems that the powers-that-be feel that those in leading government positions should have more influence over the next leader of our country. I’m not sure I agree completely, but it does make sense to hope that those with vast experience in leadership situations will help to chose the candidate that holds the most promise… assuming the candidates they select don’t follow in their clumsy footsteps.
The Electoral College is the real elector of the President of the United States of America. With many states primaries already finished, the election dangles in the hands of the so-called, “super-delegates.” We hear about them on the news every night, and hear that our nation’s future leadership lies in their hands. So I’m wondering… Who and what are the super-delegates? Why is the decision in their hands versus the hands of the citizens of the United States?
Each party has delegate’s selected based on party primaries and caucuses in each U.S. state, these delegates account for a portion of the Electoral College. Super delegates are selected automatically, based on their status as current or former party leaders and elected officials, while others can be chosen during the primary season. The super delegates are able to support any candidate they choose.
So it seems that the powers-that-be feel that those in leading government positions should have more influence over the next leader of our country. I’m not sure I agree completely, but it does make sense to hope that those with vast experience in leadership situations will help to chose the candidate that holds the most promise… assuming the candidates they select don’t follow in their clumsy footsteps.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Re: Education Funds for Sex-Offenders
Let me apologize in advance for playing devil's advocate... I agree sex offenders are heinous and have no place in our society. Unfortunately they are Americans too. People slip through cracks, are wrongfully convicted, and at times people can change. Who knows, maybe focusing on education and expanding their mind a person can find a way to become free of the chains holding them into their patterns and keeping them stuck in lives benefiting no one and hurting others. I have never committed a crime, nor do I plan to do so. I have family that I love and would give anything to protect. That being said, anyone you or I know could fall in to a circumstance that seems wrong to us, we don’t always have all the facts, just because it seems that way does not make it a reality. A 17 year-old boy consensually dating a 15 year-old girl doesn’t warrant losing a future to me. I’m not defending rewarding criminals or condoning any hurtful behavior, I am defending each of our individual rights to try and make our lives better. Sex-offenders must register with the government and it is public knowledge where they live. They are and always will be persona non grata to the whole world. And some may waste the money provided to them, but I know a number of students that do the same with their college grants. Yes, I would much rather that $20,000 go to a student that works hard and is motivated and honest and worthy of our tax dollars. But it’s not my decision to determine who is worthy of what. I don’t know the situation of every sex offender, rightly convicted…or wrongly. I prefer to give people opportunity rather than to take it away.
A Government Constant
The US government is an ever-changing, moving, breathing, pliable entity. Laws, people, opinions, and values come and go, change with years and decades and centuries. Prohibition, suffrage… even individual freedom has not been a US constant.
Just a few things have been ever present in our country and government. One of which is the crucial presence of change itself, another is the “personal” lives of our leaders and the effects of those lives on American voters. I would like to briefly discuss the latter, and arguably, the more interesting of the two.
A more recent occurrence on the minds of today’s public would possibly be former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer. Governor Spitzer resigned from his position as governor after his personal escapades were uncovered. For more information take a peek at the article posted on CNN.com in March 2008 here, and you’ll see a little more about this story.
Less recent but on a much larger scale would be former President Bill Clinton and his “non-sexual” affair with Monica Lewinsky. President Clinton, who was the head of the country and a married father, committed adultery. This angered even moderate conservatives and pretty much all Republicans. Truth be told, almost any Republican that was not appalled at Clinton’s behavior at that point, was not really a Republican. I say this only in the sense that any leeway given to the president by a Republican was generally corrected swiftly and sharply by those more passionate about the issue. (This only coming from my personal experience as a former RepublicanJ) Amazingly enough, a large portion of American citizens still hold President Clinton in high regard.
Another example, President John F. Kennedy Jr. and his relationship with Marilyn Monroe, despite being married to Jackie O. at the time, JFK is still thought of as one of the countries favorite presidents. Even first president, George Washington was rumored to father children with a woman other than his wife, Martha. Alexander Hamilton apparently had an affair as well. Which brings up the question– what is the real priority for American citizens? Is it virtue or is it increasing civil liberties and connecting with the American people on a much deeper level? If we take anything from JFK and Bill Clinton, it may be that you may dally all you want in your “personal” life if you strive hard to win over the hearts of the American public. And if you work towards increasing people’s liberties, they won’t mind so much when you take yours. Maybe Governor Spitzer should have increased his work with the people and for the people, and then he might not have had to resign.
Just a few things have been ever present in our country and government. One of which is the crucial presence of change itself, another is the “personal” lives of our leaders and the effects of those lives on American voters. I would like to briefly discuss the latter, and arguably, the more interesting of the two.
A more recent occurrence on the minds of today’s public would possibly be former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer. Governor Spitzer resigned from his position as governor after his personal escapades were uncovered. For more information take a peek at the article posted on CNN.com in March 2008 here, and you’ll see a little more about this story.
Less recent but on a much larger scale would be former President Bill Clinton and his “non-sexual” affair with Monica Lewinsky. President Clinton, who was the head of the country and a married father, committed adultery. This angered even moderate conservatives and pretty much all Republicans. Truth be told, almost any Republican that was not appalled at Clinton’s behavior at that point, was not really a Republican. I say this only in the sense that any leeway given to the president by a Republican was generally corrected swiftly and sharply by those more passionate about the issue. (This only coming from my personal experience as a former RepublicanJ) Amazingly enough, a large portion of American citizens still hold President Clinton in high regard.
Another example, President John F. Kennedy Jr. and his relationship with Marilyn Monroe, despite being married to Jackie O. at the time, JFK is still thought of as one of the countries favorite presidents. Even first president, George Washington was rumored to father children with a woman other than his wife, Martha. Alexander Hamilton apparently had an affair as well. Which brings up the question– what is the real priority for American citizens? Is it virtue or is it increasing civil liberties and connecting with the American people on a much deeper level? If we take anything from JFK and Bill Clinton, it may be that you may dally all you want in your “personal” life if you strive hard to win over the hearts of the American public. And if you work towards increasing people’s liberties, they won’t mind so much when you take yours. Maybe Governor Spitzer should have increased his work with the people and for the people, and then he might not have had to resign.
Bush Approval Rating Hits All Time Low
For our 3rd blog entry I thought one pertaining to polls and the presidency would be pertinent. As we covered in chapter 6, public opinion is only public opinion once it is expressed.
There are many ways this can happen, one of which is via polling. One of the largest polling institutions in the US and abroad is Gallup polling. Gallup is an organization that makes every effort to scientifically develop accurate information on people all over the world, about what they are thinking and feeling about various things, the topic in my blog today is the Government and the public’s approval of the job the government is performing.
In the posting/article I’ve chosen, Bush Approval Rating Hits All Time Low, discussed is President Bush’s approval rating which is sinking lower and lower beginning to creep toward former President Harry Truman’s approval rating of 22 percent in 1952. Truman’s presidency began with the ending of World War II and ended during a period of the Cold War, between the US and the Soviet Union, which was incredibly tense. Truman had his hands full with wars, economic shortages and recessions and foreign policy complications.
It is easy to look back now and empathize with Harry Truman and the US citizens unhappy with his decisions. One must wonder if in 60 years the American public will be able to look back at George Bush’s administration and feel less discontent for the job they did during their time at the helm. It does not, however, ease the burden created by George Bush on the American public today. And the approval rating the Gallup polls have released seem to be very accurate by general public and social discussions. President Bush may not make it to 22% like President Truman, fortunately for him and for us he may run out of time.
There are many ways this can happen, one of which is via polling. One of the largest polling institutions in the US and abroad is Gallup polling. Gallup is an organization that makes every effort to scientifically develop accurate information on people all over the world, about what they are thinking and feeling about various things, the topic in my blog today is the Government and the public’s approval of the job the government is performing.
In the posting/article I’ve chosen, Bush Approval Rating Hits All Time Low, discussed is President Bush’s approval rating which is sinking lower and lower beginning to creep toward former President Harry Truman’s approval rating of 22 percent in 1952. Truman’s presidency began with the ending of World War II and ended during a period of the Cold War, between the US and the Soviet Union, which was incredibly tense. Truman had his hands full with wars, economic shortages and recessions and foreign policy complications.
It is easy to look back now and empathize with Harry Truman and the US citizens unhappy with his decisions. One must wonder if in 60 years the American public will be able to look back at George Bush’s administration and feel less discontent for the job they did during their time at the helm. It does not, however, ease the burden created by George Bush on the American public today. And the approval rating the Gallup polls have released seem to be very accurate by general public and social discussions. President Bush may not make it to 22% like President Truman, fortunately for him and for us he may run out of time.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Q & A With Senator Barack Obama
In discussing an article on Texas Government and local politics, it seems ridiculous to not go into the subject of the coming year's presidential election. With the majority of the states primaries over, Texas is one of the few big states the candidates have left on their lists. I found an article in the San Antonio Express with Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama (Q&A with Senator Barack Obama) which I feel is ideal due to the many Texas-related issues coming under discussion.
In discussing education, Senator Obama refers to the responsibility ultimately belonging with the state government, with the national government being somewhat limited as the constitution does not specifically mention education, it is left up to the states, as a reserved power.
The topic then switches to healthcare, and the fact Texans are the most uninsured Americans in every category. Senator Obama took this opportunity to take this to a national level and briefly address his plan for healthcare, making it more of a priority for the national government and taking some of the strain off the state governments.
Senator Obama also went into the issues of immigration and the war and the impact of both on Texas. Immigration is obviously a large issue here due to the fact that Texas makes up a majority of the border with Mexico, and the war’s role in the country’s national budget.
I was initially afraid articles concerning the presidential election may not delve deeply enough into our local government, but was thrilled to find an article that really hit on so many relevant topics. I would highly encourage anyone to read this article, if not to increase their familiarity with some of Texas government’s responsibilities and current issues, then at least as another facet to learn about Senator Obama’s stance on these issues.
In discussing education, Senator Obama refers to the responsibility ultimately belonging with the state government, with the national government being somewhat limited as the constitution does not specifically mention education, it is left up to the states, as a reserved power.
The topic then switches to healthcare, and the fact Texans are the most uninsured Americans in every category. Senator Obama took this opportunity to take this to a national level and briefly address his plan for healthcare, making it more of a priority for the national government and taking some of the strain off the state governments.
Senator Obama also went into the issues of immigration and the war and the impact of both on Texas. Immigration is obviously a large issue here due to the fact that Texas makes up a majority of the border with Mexico, and the war’s role in the country’s national budget.
I was initially afraid articles concerning the presidential election may not delve deeply enough into our local government, but was thrilled to find an article that really hit on so many relevant topics. I would highly encourage anyone to read this article, if not to increase their familiarity with some of Texas government’s responsibilities and current issues, then at least as another facet to learn about Senator Obama’s stance on these issues.
Friday, February 8, 2008
Bush Threatens Veto in Surveillance Laws
For my initial blog entry I've decided to write about an article involving multiple elements we've studied in our first two chapters. The article I selected is on President Bush's threat to veto new legislation in Surveillance Laws (Bush Threatens Veto in Surveillance Laws). President Bush sent a letter to senate leaders over future legislation regarding the US Surveillance Laws. Current regulation on this issue is still set by a law passed in 1978 and is quite controversial due to alleged violation of privacy rights following the September 11th attacks. The surveillance laws are set to expire mid February. The President and US Intelligence Agencies maintain that if the legislation in discussion does not grant enough leeway and leave the government with the tools necessary to pursue the war on terror, the bill will be vetoed immediately. The power to veto is one way the executive branch can influence legislation. Bills must first pass a majority in the house and senate respectively, once this has happened the bill is moved to the President for a signature to pass the bill into law or the president may decide to veto the bill, sending it back to congress for revisions.
The executive branch of the government insists on leaving room for immunity for those corporations that have aided them in the quest for information on US residents after 9/11. The administration is mostly concerned that if retroactive immunity is banned telecommunication companies will not be as willing to aid them with information requests in the future.
Current law allows the US Government to spy on residents without court oversight -- I find it humorous that our checks and balances is working a bit off kilter, the executive branch has their veto power, but where the judicial branch should be involved to protect our individual rights, specifically our right to privacy, the US Government wants to ensure there is no one that is going to tell them no.
The executive branch of the government insists on leaving room for immunity for those corporations that have aided them in the quest for information on US residents after 9/11. The administration is mostly concerned that if retroactive immunity is banned telecommunication companies will not be as willing to aid them with information requests in the future.
Current law allows the US Government to spy on residents without court oversight -- I find it humorous that our checks and balances is working a bit off kilter, the executive branch has their veto power, but where the judicial branch should be involved to protect our individual rights, specifically our right to privacy, the US Government wants to ensure there is no one that is going to tell them no.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
