Category Archives: Civic Issues

The Gay Elephant in the Room

Posted on by
3

So, this week’s CI post may be a little bit of a stretch, however, seeing as how it is all anyone is talking about in the political sphere at the moment, I am going to discuss the current decision of our Supreme Court concerning gay marriage.

Now I am not going to just shout my opinions on the topic here, nor will I try to defend or defeat the opinions of others, I simply want to point out a problem with how the country is reacting, make sure everyone knows what is being decided on, and to pose a few questions on the issue.

First, although I totally support people expressing their opinions on the issue, I don’t like to see how it polarizes some people. Students, and adults alike, are divided and defined based on their views of this one topic. In addition, this rapid reaction to the possibility of a decision on such a may not be entirely merited. The court won’t like make any kind of a decision, if it reaches one until June. By then, I doubt the equals sign profile pictures will still be rampant, or the God Hates America protestors will still have paid time off to go stand outside all day.

Second, I am not sure that everyone understands the cases before the supreme court, and what they can even achieve with a decision. The first case, is Proposition 8, a law in California making same-sex marriage illegal. The court is to rule on whether this law is unconstitutional or not, which may not be the same thing as whether or not it is right or wrong. In addition, they are ruling on a federal act from 1996 that denies federal benefits to same-sex couples. The same issue of limited ability of the court to act is found in this case as well. Even with a decision supporting the gay marriage cause, it would not legalize gay marriage nationally, and finally put same-sex couples on equal ground, but it would certainly be a start.

Finally, I have a lot to question on the idea. First of all, I don’t think it is fair to question one’s opinion either way in this case. Many people believe in same-sex marriage, many do not. Many of those who oppose do so because of their basic moral values, rooted in their religion. Even if I do not see eye to eye with everyone, I think that their opinion should be respected.

That being said, there is another point to be made. Just because something may be seen as wrong to some, or goes against the religious values of certain groups, that does not mean that the Government has the power to outlaw it. This is not an issue where you can cry “separation of church and state” and end it there. This has to do with the Government controlling the lives of its constituents in one way or another. It has to do with social discrimination, and denying equality to all.

This is a deep issue, that requires the utmost attention by our highest judicial body.

Civic Issues: State of the Union

Posted on by
2

While I had the unfortunate luck of being the only one in our group to have to post the week of THON, I was fortunate enough to have the week of the annual Presidential idealist stump speech: The State of the Union.

Like every SOTU, the President began with a history lecture, then said the same words, repeated every year since JFK, “the state of our union is strong.”

But how strong is it, really? I mean, our country is torn into a contentious dichotomy over immigration, gun control, women’s rights, gay marriage, abortion, Medicare, defense spending, the national deficit, foreign policy, weapons policy, assisting the needy, and international trade. It seems like party contention and debate is at an all time high, even spurring the inception of new political movements (read: The Tea Party).

As for the content of the speech, I will speak briefly on a few subjects.

The first is the most important, our economy. The “fiscal cliff” aversion caused a serious reduction in our 4 trillion dollar deficit, but we are still well over a trillion dollars in the hole for this year, provided that Congress will stand by cutting all they pledged to (they won’t). The president said that the continued reduction of this deficit must come from balanced cuts across the board in spending, coupled with rewriting the tax law, and increasing revenue. Now, closing up loopholes in taxes will save the Government 100 billion annually, sadly this action is almost negligible. When he said that the Government would need to increase revenue, he said it would need to be balanced by all Americans. I may be wrong, but it sounds like the President just hinted at increasing everyone’s taxes.

The problem, now, is that he went on to describe advances the United States needs to make in many areas: energy independence, alternative fuels, biomedical advances, education, the environment, helping citizens refinance, etc. All of these require increases in funding. But we have to cut funding.

And then the President goes on to say how our economic policy must have the sole purpose of creating jobs in mind. Unfortunately, for the Government to create jobs (increase GDP) with fiscal policy, it has to increase spending (GDP = Gov. spending + consumption + private investment + net exports). This is the exact opposite of reducing the deficit.

Look, I totally agree with him that all these things have to happen, but my logic says that they cannot. So, as president, he has to decide which route the country needs to take.

Another topic he spoke on was immigration reform. A measure that received ovations from both sides of the chamber, he proposed strengthening border security as well as influencing immigrants to learn English. Jaanki recently posted about bringing the best and the brightest to the United States, so I will play devil’s advocate here.

The problem with immigrants coming to the United States is that they drive population increases faster than the economy can create jobs. In a word, some people would say that they are taking American’s jobs. A couple of times President Obama referenced the creation of a million American jobs, except with influxes of immigrants, and policies of affirmative action, along with basic microeconomics, those jobs will go to immigrants before they go to established struggling families.

Finally, he touched on some foreign policy. First, everyone should be reminded that John Kerry is our new Secretary of State, and we should send our best wishes to HC, she was a great Secretary. Now, Obama mentioned “making sure Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon.” I sometimes (often) have misgivings about the United States being the police of the world. Iran is an independent, sovereign nation, who are we to impose sanctions other than a member of the UN council? Is it feasible that the country that is struggling to sustain a nuclear program will launch a missile knowing that the response would be 100 back into their face?

In addition, he discussed supporting democracy and human rights in the middle east. I agree with the human rights portion, and I love my country, but at the same time, I don’t think that our democracy will work everywhere. I think that we should fight for the basic human rights of people through Diplomacy, and allow them to form their own power structure. The Constitution is ours and ours only, let these other nations have that same beauty.

To finish, he said simply that the gun control measures proposed recently “deserve a vote.” Though we may disagree on what the results of that vote should be, I totally agree with him, it’s time for a referendum on the debate gripping the country right now.

So there’s my entirely disjointed, uncensored, opinionated, probably a little misinformed take on the SOTU.

PS I didn’t watch the Republican Response, or the Tea Party Response. The latter would be a complete waste of time.

Civic Issues Post #1: The Ignorance of the Gun Control Debate

Posted on by
5

As an economic conservative and social liberal, it is not uncommon for me to agree with members of both parties at once. But it is rife for me to loathe members of both parties, and find ignorance in both sides of a debate. With the proposal of new laws this week by the President, I feel that it is a fitting time to talk about the debate.

I should warn you now that this post may sound like a rant. This is because this post is a rant.

Notice I said this is a fitting time because of the proposed laws, NOT because of the recent tragedy at Sandy Hook. I equate gun control measures solving heinous acts like the one in CT to shutting down Boeing to prevent a repeat of 9/11. Making laws against the legal possession of guns to do illegal things doesn’t solve anything. The issue of increased mass murders in this country is one of a different color; it requires a change in society to increase safety in schools, improve our detection of warning signs, and work to understand why psychopaths exist.

This brings me to my issue with what the president signed today. He proposed measures to increase regulations on high powered assault weapons and large magazines, both excellent ideas, as the laws used to be stricter before 2004. There is simply no reason for a citizen of the free world to require an assault weapon. I have no problem with the proposition. I have many problems with the manner in which it was done.

First, he held a press conference to watch him sign a bill, as if he was changing laws from the oval office. This is not what happened, he simply proposed a bill for Congress to debate about for six months before they decide to continue to do nothing (like they always do). Second, he did this with four young children standing behind him, sending the message to the American people that he was there to save these kids, and the children all across the country. Today was not about the principle of the laws for Obama, it was about the image he wanted to send the American people: The President is solving all of our gun problems and signing into law the safety of our children.

However, concerning the principle of the gun control debate, I cannot stand the ignorance of some people’s views on their rights involving guns. Though I believe that private citizens in a free nation have the right to bear arms, it must be admitted that the second amendment is outdated. Written in the Bill of Rights, the second amendment was added to give the people of the United States the right to protect themselves from a tyrannical Government, and was essential to the existence of a standing militia. Nowadays, even the word militia is outdated, and no gun in your home will protect you from an attack by the US Government. They have drones that roam the skies; not a fair fight.

Yet, there are some narrow-minded individuals who vehemently fight for their ability to own entirely unnecessary arsenal of weaponry and have this fabricated belief that Obama is “after their guns.” And I’m not calling the NRA ignorant or gun owners foolish, I own one myself. Gun control laws are not unconstitutional, as they claim. They are a necessity. Guns are a man-made object. We created guns, so we must do whatever we can to control their immense power.

So, what do you guys think? How do the politics of gun control relate to those of tragedies such as Aurora, CO and Sandy Hook, CT? Is the president playing politics? And the ultimate question: do guns kill people, or do people kill people?

I used article content and comments from a CNN article here:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/16/politics/guns-congress/index.html?hpt=po_c1