Prop 8 Trial

When Proposition 8, a bill intended to end the  right of homosexuals to marry, was passed, many LGBTQ couples, like Kristin Perry, were enraged. As a result, the Perry vs. Schwarzenneger case became a historical uproar in the nation today.The nation's first trial on same-sex couples' right to marry - and the voters' power to forbid those marriages - is held in a San Francisco federal courtroom that will serve as a forum for two diametrically opposed world views. This trial's goal is to repeal Prop 8 by proving that the intentions of the bill is unconstitutional in terms of violating the fourteenth amendment by discriminating against a minority group (homosexuals/gays/lesbians) and robbing this minority group of their freedom of expression. Moreover, the nation is divided by this predicament, with the pro-Prop 8 group saying that the state of California has already decided that gay marriage is not allowed with the bill passed with more than half of the people's vote. 

The gay community seeks to prove Prop 8 as a discriminative inequality towards them by showing how the media and advertisements portray them as a negative figure in the society, people who are harmful towards children and the morality of the people. In reality, the gay community does not pose any threat to anyone, given that being gay is not a crime; therefore, they should not have their rights, such as the right to marry, because they are not convicts or criminals. 

For Prop. 8's sponsors, a religious coalition called Protect Marriage, anti-gay bias is no longer significant in California, where legislators have legalized domestic partnerships and twice voted to authorize same-sex marriage. Numerous people say that religion has to do a lot with the ban of gay marriage. However, not everyone practices the same religion and has the right of the Free exercise clause in the fourteenth amendment to decide whether or not they want to engage in a certain religion. Some people may consider gay marriages wrong, but it does not mean that it's completely wrong to everyone. The government say they have a separation of church and state, but the passage of Proposition 8 prove it contradictory. 

Prop 8 must be repealed because it censors the implied power of the first amendment, the right of expression. Who can say that homosexual marriages are wrong? Prop. 8 is discriminatory contract that must be change in order to bring justice to the gay community and to the overall moral of the nation.

 

http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-01-11/news/17823941_1_same-sex-marriage-couples-court-ruling

National Security Policy: Freedom Of Information Act

The National Security Agency(NSA) has passed an act whose goal is to release as much information to the nation by the United States Government, with the exceptions of case sensitive information.The Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) generally provides that any person (with the exception of another federal agency, a fugitive from the law, or a representative of a foreign government) has a right, enforceable in court, to request access to federal agency records,except to some degree of disclosure. It was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on September 6, 1966  and went into effect the following year. With the tensions rising between the US government and its American constituents during the age of War and terrorism, many citizens thought it was necessary to be informed of all the actions of their country, even to the point of close meticulousness.

Further elaborating the FOIA was the Privacy Act of 1974 , which protects an individual's privacy by putting controls on federal agencies in the collection, use, maintenance, and dissemination of personal information. This was created so that all persons in the nation will not have the privilege to attain the individuals private information. The Privacy Act also requires that agency records be accurate, relevant, timely, and complete, and amendments are limited to these criteria.

http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/foia/index.shtml

Political Cartoon: Barack Obama

This political cartoon criticizes President Obama's action plans in different fields: the war in Afghanistan, the New Health Care Reform, the increase in taxes, and  his attitude as President. The artist depicts this concept by illustrating four different situations involving the President in four different issues. In addition, the artist conveys President Obama with ignorance and naiveness in his expressions. The artist also use ironic diction and oxymoron to express the absurd contradiction of the President's plans.

In the war of Afghanistan, the artist presents the irony by using the quote "The only way to get out is to go in." This refers to the current President's plans to send more troops to Afghanistan, believing that it is the only way to defeat the corruption in Afghanistan, and withdrawing the US troops by 2011.

Numerous Americans oppose Obama's new single-player universal Health  Care plan because billions of dollars are going to be spent on it. However, Obama believes that this type of health care plan would appease and benefit today's poor economic situation.

Furthermore, the Obama administrative government is raising the taxes on many fields of the industry, in order to get the economy flowing. However, this artist depicts this action as hurtful to the lower, middle, and even the high class, given that the taxes are raised even more for them.

Lastly, the artist conveys the government as inattentive and  not vigilant of the nation by presenting it with the satirical quote above, "The only way to watch is to cover your eyes."

http://cartoonbox.slate.com/walthandelsman/

More troops to Afghanistan?

7,000 more troops are promised to be sent to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban and al Qaeda extremists and train Afghan forces, according to Nato. "At least 25 countries will send more forces to the mission in 2010," Anders Fogh Rasmussen told reporters after holding talks with NATO foreign ministers. "They have offered around 7,000 forces with more to come."

 Despite President Obama’s priority plan to withdraw the troops from the Afghanistan war in his presidential campaign by July 2011, more troops are needed to defeat corruption in Afghanistan. "ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) will have at least 37,000 more soldiers in 2010 than it did this year," Rasmussen said. "That is solidarity in action." Currently, there are 68,000 U.S. troops operating under both NATO and U.S. commands, and around 42,000 non-U.S. forces under NATO.

The US has also reaffirmed ISAF to be an ally and a partner in defeating the Afghan war and coordinate civilian and development assistance in increasing the troops. "We have come together in NATO and in ISAF because we recognize that our security is shared -- that we have a collective responsibility." 

Even though more troops are deemed to be sent in Afghanistan, hopefully, Obama's plan of withdrawing troops by July 2011 will be attained by this upcoming input of troops.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/12/04/afghan.nato.troops/index.html?section=cnn_latest 

Push for a health Care debate

One of the major issues facing the US is our Health Care system. Recently a bill for a single-player universal Health has been a focal topic of the House and the Senate. The bill has passed the house of representatives by a 220-215 vote. Now, it is being processed by the senate. The conflict now is whether the debate for the health care bill should happen sooner, specifically the saturday preceding Thanksgiving. It would need to have 60 senate votes to approve this debate, which will eliminate filibusters who want to delay the historic health care bill, most of whom are Republican.

Two final holdouts, Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, announced in speeches a few hours apart on the Senate floor they would vote to clear the way for what is expected to be a bruising, conflicting debate.
"It is clear to me that doing nothing is not an option," said Landrieu, who noted the legislation includes $100 million to help her state pay the costs of health care for the poor."

"This bill would require most Americans to carry insurance, and large firms would be liable for large costs if they did not provide it to their workforce and employees. Moreover, Congressional budget analysts put the legislation's cost at $979 billion over a decade and said it would reduce deficits over the same period while extending coverage to 94 percent of the eligible population."

"Senators who support this bill have a lot of explaining to do," said the Republican leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. "Americans know that a vote to proceed on this bill is a vote for higher premiums, higher taxes and massive cuts to Medicare. That's a pretty hard thing to justify supporting."

Filibusters, mostly republicans in the senate, are delaying this health care bill, believing that time will solve their problems. In my opinion, they are running away from a conflict that they could express in the debate for this bill.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091121/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul;_ylt=Aguc0BHYgIG9Mtnpj7EuZGayFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTJvdWoxNzl0BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMTIxL3VzX2hlYWx0aF9jYXJlX292ZXJoYXVsBGNwb3MDMQRwb3MDMwRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNmdWxsbmJzcHN0b3I-

US Supreme Court: Should minors get life sentences?

Supreme Court Judges are torn on the issue of sentencing minors (people under the age of 18) to life without parole. Some argue that life sentencing is almost to the same degree of the Death penalty on minors, which is "cruel and unsual punishment." The two judges who favor life sentencing without the possibility of parole are Justice Alito and Justice Roberts, claiming that "death is different." Thus it cannot be compared to the degree of life sentencing. “The worst case you can possibly imagine, that person must at some point be made eligible for parole, that’s your argument?”argues Alito.

However some judges like Justices Kennedy are opposed to giving minors such a harsh degree of life sentencing. “What is the state’s interest in keeping the defendant in custody for the rest of his life if he has been rehabilitated and is no longer a real danger?” said Justice Kennedy. He believes that minors, who are more susceptible to peer pressure and immature choices, are not the worst offenders.

On the contrary, the court is considering appeals by Joe Harris Sullivan, who was convicted of raping an elderly woman when he was 13, and Terrance Jamar Graham, who was found to have violated his probation by taking part in an armed robbery at the age of 17.

Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, on the case of life sentencing with the possibility of parole, suggest to compromise with the concept of case-by-case basis.

In my perspective, people are different; some criminals may change and some may not. If the death penalty and life sentences were abolished, more criminals would be encouraged to commit more crimes. However, sentencing a minor, a person who has yet to learn from the reality of the world, should not be given life sentences without parole. It's a whole life wasted, just like the concept of the death penalty.



http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=azXT0bzvWHWU&pos=9

Congress expands FBI power in Patriot Act

Congress approved the bill that will allow the FBI to subpoena business documents and transactions from a broader range of businesses -- everything from libraries to travel agencies to eBay -- without first seeking approval from a judge. The FBI, under this bill that expands the Patriot Act, will be allowed to get bank records and Internet or phone logs just by issuing a letter that doesn't even need to be consulted by a judge. Basically, the the balance of power will be altered as power will shift more to the FBI, and will take some away from the judicial court.

Some officials believe that this bill will strenghten US's national security. "This provision brings the definition of 'financial institution' up to date with the reality of the financial industry," Goss said on the House floor. "This provision will allow those tracking terrorists and spies to 'follow the money' more effectively and thereby protect the people of the United States more effectively(Wired.com © 2009 Condé Nast Digital)."

Nonetheless, some people believe that the expansion of power in a certain group, like the FBI, will create an imbalance of power in the government, and therefore, creating more corruption or abuse of power in the nation.

In my perspective, there should be a line between national security and invasion of Privacy. Giving the FBI the power to search and acquire anyone's personal records, without even a warrant, or consent of other higher officials, will put the the privacy and identity of everyone at risk.
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2003/11/61341