Final Comment on Proposition 8 and Equality

I strongly agree with what Katrina has to say about same sex marriage in her post on her blog. She supports the fact that proposition 8 was overturned, believing that the action protects the rights of many citizens. I particularly like how she states that “Many are enraged that one judge was given the right to overturn the votes of millions of people. I feel like the judge simply gave to millions of people the right they should have already been given a long time ago.”

She also points out how the founding fathers meant for the constitution (which some believe does not support same sex marriage) to be able to be amended to keep up with the times. In my opinion, she is spot on about this issue. Lets face it, as smart and well intentioned the founding fathers were, there is no way we could possibly base all of our laws and rights on what they said over 200 years ago. Sure they covered the basics that will last for ages to come, but do you really think they had same sex marriage on their mind when then decided this country’s laws? I wouldn’t think so. As homosexuality continues to become more prevalent in our society as it has been doing over the past 50 years, our laws will naturally have to adapt to protect the rights of this growing population.

On a slightly different note, I will end by saying what I have said for many years about how discrimination can only honestly be eliminated from a society and equality among everyone is truly achieved. Such methods as affirmative action for minorities and overturning a proposition like proposition 8 are helpful, but does it truly help everyone be viewed as equal? In my opinion, no, these things only reinforce the fact that minorities and homosexuals are existent, and that they are indeed different in the eyes of society. Only the day when these facts become completely meaningless to people, so meaningless that race is not asked on job or school applications and sexual orientation not a thought in the military or on anyone else’s mind, will true equality be achieved. 

Final Thoughts on Politics

As I look back at all I’ve read, thought about, and wrote this past month studying national government, I realize that there have been three constant things present in each issue: disagreement, argument, and controversy. Each topic always seems to have two, and only two sides arguing, and seemingly fighting to the death, over what they think should be decided. These sides consistently trace back to one of the first things we were asked to determine in this course: our political ideology and party.

It has become apparent to me that the existence of two dominant ideologies and a bipartisanship has torn our country’s national government in two, both sides seemingly destined to disagree on everything they possibly can. Both politicians and citizens are constantly judged, favored, or disliked purely by which side of the spectrum they claim to identify with. Furthermore, I think these people also feel much pressure to stay in line with their particular ideology. Even since the start of this course less than a month ago, I have felt confused and unsure when I learned that my first gut instinct on an issue was not in agreement with my determined and supported ideology and party affiliation. It is very hard to come to grips with the fact that you may agree with the opposing party on an issue, particularly when loyalty is such a prevalent characteristic in politicians.

For example, recently New York representative Anthony Wiener gave a speech in which he scolded his fellow representatives for voting a certain way regardless of how they felt about the issue, but because they felt the procedure of the legislation was wrong. Behind the scene, political party undoubtedly played a huge role here. The pressure on politicians to vote within the line of those of their fellow party often makes them lose site of what their gut tells them is truly right.

What I am about to suggest may be one of the most uneducated suggestions that could easily be rejected by anyone with more knowledge of the subject of political parties, but is it possible that the US would have been better off without the creation of a bipartisanship? In such a government people would have no choice but to agree with what they think is right, and they would have no predetermined party that they might feel pressure to side with against their better judgment. Instead of their only being two sides of the argument, there could potentially be many more that just two opinions. But just maybe the opportunity could arise for people realize that they all actually want the same changes and decisions to be made, without controversy. Sure, it could be very farfetched, but it could also possibly limit the disagreement and argument that currently persists in the government every day. 

Colleague Response

I completely agree with Kmearite in her article Setting Stage 5 for Right v. Wrong. She argues that politicians these days are much too concerned with procedure, and that because of this they often lose site of what they think is right. As a result, they will vote one direction on a bill when in their hearts they feel the other direction would be in the better interest of the country.

Many things could possibly attribute to why some politicians don’t follow their heart and what they think is right. However, I think the primary reason people vote a certain way against their gut is to stay in line with their particular political party. In some ways, parties have become an obstacle in our political system as the ties to those within their party have made some politicians, and possibly citizens, forget what Government’s role as a whole is. The existence of different parties and ideologies puts pressure on people to choose a side. Once a side is chosen, they receive further pressure to stay in line with that side. Even since the start of this course less than a month ago, I have felt confused and unsure when I learned that my first gut instinct on an issue was not in agreement with my determined and supported ideology and party affiliation. It is very hard to come to grips with the fact that you may agree with the opposing party on an issue, particularly when loyalty is such a prevalent characteristic in politicians, if not the human race.

I cannot offer much of a solution to the problem, only encourage people not to worry when they think outside the lines of their party. They should indeed just do what they think is right. We really cannot ask for much more than that.

Oil Drilling Legislation

Today, the House passed a new legislation that will impose new safeguards for offshore drilling, remove a liability cap for spill damages, and hit energy producers with a new tax to fund conservation measures. It also gave the oil industries a new standard for the blowout preventer, the device that malfunctioned in the oil spill. Being 102 days after the deepwater horizon explosion, my first thought was its about time! But then after further thought, I began to question whether this truly is a good idea.

Firstly, it made me feel somewhat sorry for the energy producing companies that will be affected financially by one rig’s seemingly isolated freak accident that happened to become one of the worst disasters in the country’s history. The legislation removes 75 million dollars worth of liability for spills, and gives them a 2 dollar tax on every barrel produced that will go toward conservation efforts.

These legislatures are absolutely in the best interest for the prevention of future accidents and aim more efforts toward critical environmental conservation and reservation, which I am all for. However, I think the democrats, who proposed and passed this bill may not have foreseen other effects of this action, particularly the fact that this will most surely raise the costs of domestic energy prices, eventually emerging in the public’s energy and gas bills. The American people are unlikely to be on congress’ side for this one. But at the same time, who would disagree that such measures must be taken to ensure the safety of the environment? Like most, I am completely torn when it comes to how I think the government should react to this incident. Such conflicts between what is best for the country and what will make people happy show why it is just so hard to find a balance with these issues. Time will tell if this one may achieve that balance, or open up a completely new set of frustrations. 

The True Wish of the NOM

Gay marriage is an issue that has been making some serious headlines this past year, meaning that the strong supporters and true haters are slowly being forced to reveal themselves. In the process, the NOM (National Organization for Marriage) has organized a bus tour this summer to protest against gay marriage throughout the USA, and most recently it seems that they have taken their message to the next level.

Joe Sudbay writes in his post The Anti-Gay Agenda Exposed in Indianapolis on AMERICAblog.com about how we have been wondering what the true goal of the gay haters has been, and reveals that they are not afraid to display their support for the execution of the gay community. He describes their trip as “a bus tour of hate” consisting of them convincing people that gays are lesser humans and should not be treated equally. In the mix of the tour, signs of hanging nueces and expressions of life and death and heaven and hell have been thrown around during their protests, sparking Joe’s belief that they do indeed want gays to be executed and sent to hell as proclaimed by the bible.

Mr. Sudbay, being a DC based political consultant for over 25 years and having managed political operations for numerous candidates, has quite the resume and experience in all sorts of political issues. In my opinion, when someone of his stature writes, you know he means business. And I couldn’t agree more with his tone of disgust regarding the NOM protesters. The evidence of their hope for the execution of gays could not be expressed more clearly in their posters and words as heard in an interview with a NOM protester on site in Indianapolis which Mr. Sudbay posted next to his original post. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but these people have taken it too far as such expressions of hate will surely escalade to acts of violence.

To my satisfaction, each stop on the NOM’s tour has been met by those who protest for equality and human rights, and they usually outnumber the NOM. My stance on the issue of gay marriage is fairly obvious at this point, but I would hope that anyone, regardless of their position, is as horrified as I am at the magnitude of prejudice and hate that can persists in our country.

Oil Drilling Gambles

The Author of the LATimes editorial Deepwater Drilling Moratorium: The Legal Fight discusses the federal court’s recent rejection of president Obama’s deep water drilling moratorium. My guess is he is targeting the opinion of the general public along with officials in the federal court seeing as he accuses them of being at fault and given their power in the ultimatum. If anything, they are at least trying to reach out to Obama and his administration to reassure them that some people think they are taking the right course of action in proposing the halt on deep sea oil production.

The author claims that the federal courts are wrong to order the immediate end to Obama’s proposed six month halt on oil drilling of 33 rigs in the gulf that drill below 500 feet, citing that the technology for preventing blowouts at those depths is not reliable. They also note that this week, the Obama administration has since refined their argument, now banning drilling not by depth, but by the sort of blowout preventers the rig uses. This targets the same 33 rigs all of which have the same blowout preventer that malfunctioned in the BP spill. The author then claims that the industries have not figured out how to secure wells at these depths or respond to major emergencies. They proceed to acknowledge the counterargument that 11,000 jobs would be affected by this drilling ban, but says it would be in the nations best interests to find newer, safer technologies before oil operations can resume.

I think the author puts forth strong logic in his support of the drilling ban and certainly displays his hope for the recovery and necessary preservation of the environment. However, I personally think that many of his claims were not justified with the evidence provided solely in the editorial, or lack of. As a result I have come to disagree with his position after careful consideration. His tone when talking about “very high-risk” oil operations implies, without evidence, that another disaster looms in our immediate future if restrictions are not put in place. I don’t believe this is the case. From what I’ve gathered, the BP spill was an isolated freak accident that the country has never seen the likes of in its history. And to think that the only solution in the nations best interests is to completely stop oil drilling on other problem free rigs may be a bit premature.

Fix the problem, don’t through it away. If problems have been found with a particular blowout preventer, then modify it to reduce the risk as soon as possible. But perhaps the more pressing matter is not the preventer, but the effective preparedness and response to such an accident if need be. The level of preparedness after the BP oil spill was absolutely horrendous, but at the same time shows just how rare and unlikely these disasters really are. We all agree that the BP spill is the worst environmental disaster we’ve seen in a long time, if not in all American history, but it is naïve to think that oil drilling can simply cease for such a period of time provided its fundamental role in our economy. Yes, lets not forget about that other national disaster, the Economic recession. Given the current condition of the economy and all the efforts that have been put forth to relieve it, an order that would directly affect the jobs of 11,000 individuals (lord knows how many more indirectly) is the last thing this country needs. Finding safer technologies and improving accident preparedness while continuing profitable and stimulating oil drilling on rigs is indeed a gamble. But given the current economic conditions and the fact that history has shown that the odds are on our side, I think it’s a gamble that our nation must be willing to take. 

Immigration in America

Immigration is something that has raised eyebrows in the United States for over 100 years, but most recently the issue of immigration is gaining much more popularity, along with much more restriction. This is anything but surprising given the tough economic times we are facing. As more illegal immigrants enter the country, its citizens feel that deserved opportunities are being taken away by the growing population.

In the LATimes article Arizona's Immigration Law isn't the only one explains that many states along with Arizona are creating laws against immigrants. Some of these laws target their in-state school tuition rates, consequences for false identification, while others are similar to Arizona's law of police authority to check the immigration status of anyone arrested.

This article is of value because it displays individual state's actions in the absence of federal government action. Furthermore, it raises the question of whether immigration laws should be under the state's responsibility or the federal government's if a partnership between the two cannot be reached. I am certainly no expert (yet) but I could see arguments for both sides to assume responsibility. Border states could understandably have stricter laws given their proximity and easy access to immigrants, yet this could also have an effect of pulling immigrants to other parts of the country with less strict laws. This could be avoided if the government would pass a federal law nation wide. The possibilities grow..