Blog Stage Six

Response to "Gay Marriage Being Counted in the Census Bureau" by Danielle Zamora

When viewing the world of politics and law, it is imperative for an individual to leave their own personal convictions and values at the door. The individual must base their choices solely on an interpretation based on how the laws are written, the constitution that this nation is founded upon and remember to always place the greater good of the nation and others above what your own values and beliefs may be telling you to do.

I recently read the blog commentary written by Danielle Zamora titled “Gay Marriage Being Counted in the Census Bureau” and I feel that she has failed to keep this in mind. The final outcome of her article is against the legalization of same sex marriage. I agree with that final outcome but I believe that the logic that led her to that conclusion is flawed and my view on why the definition should be untouched at this time comes from a different prospective.

The majority of the article uses religion as a basis of decision for argument against same sex marriage. Her commentary even states that we are a Christian nation. The United States was founded as being ambiguous towards religion. We do not have a state religion and have purposely separated state from religion and cannot let religion define our interpretation and creation of law.

The author is correct in that the definition of marriage as being between a “man and woman” was defined as coming from religious interpretation. If we open up marriage to interpretation and change where is the end point or stoppage to change. If we open up and allow same sex marriages then we should open up to the idea of polygamy. If marriage is no longer between man and woman who is to say that a man cannot claim that he is now married to his goat or an inanimate object? Doesn’t that individual have as much as a right as the same sex couple that want to change the definition of marriage to what they deem fit as being proper or what a valid marriage is in todays world?

If claiming that holding onto the definition of marriage as being between man and woman is discrimination and imposes upon the freedom and rights of others then I ask who is to set the boundary or deny the rights of all other groups other then just same sex couples?

If you are to base your decision solely on religion then you have now crossed the line of separating religion from state and are allowing religion to dictate policies. You are basing an interpretation on a personal belief. You also crossed the line of denying the rights of and infringing upon the rights of other citizens of this nation.

I believe strongly that there is no problem unless there is a solution. The solution to this issue? I believe that the governments involvement in using marriage as a defining characteristic of an individual should be removed. Being defined or given different treatment based on your marriage status creates a society of division and inequality. Citizens are taxed differently, given different rights and treated differently based on this one characteristic.

Since marriage is a definition and institution created by religion it should stay within the confines of religion itself and out of national state matters and policies. If same sex couples or other citizens of this nation want recognition of their unions as official marriages then it is up to the religion they follow who defined marriage to discuss the topic of same sex marriages and whether or not they are authorized or deemed “moral” in their eyes. Yes it would require reworking of current laws but the establishment of an unbiased nation of equality would be worth the time and effort.

Through this choice everyone is equal and the same in the eyes of the law. There is no discrimination, nobody is forced to abide by a law they do not believe in or was written based on a personal biased view of the world. It is up to the individuals religion to decide the moral and ethnical implications of their lifestyle choices and whether or not to recognize those individuals choices.

Blog Stage Five

New Abortion Laws in Ohio by Scott Cameron

Imagine. You are hungry and so you enter a restaurant to have a cheeseburger. After you place an order you are escorted outside where you are forced against your choice and will to first met and become familiar with the cow you are about to digest in the burger. You ask why you have to do this. The reply of the staff state it is now policy due to a change in law that granted an interest group, Vegans, power over and control of a portion of your civil liberties and privacy.

Sound like a far fetched idea? In the state of Ohio it can soon may become a reality. Recently a series of laws were passed dealing with the issue of abortion with some of those laws as intrusive and trampling of your personal freedoms as the idea posed involving the vegan group. In one instance, before you receive an abortion you are required to undergo an ultrasound and listen to the heartbeat of the unborn fetus.

The founding fathers of our nation based the development of this country on the idea of the Law of Nature by Locke. The belief is that everyone has a law of reason in which individuals will reframe from causing harm to another individuals own life, liberty, or property. Locke also was strong in the separation of the church and state. In this nation, with its founding, some rights are extended to the government for protection of others and to prevent the rule of the tyranny of the majority/minority over others as laws passed for a special interest or group may be good for one but not the other and the focus is of the greater good of the nation and its citizens.

In the instance of Ohio the law of nature and the position of the government in those citizens life have failed. The rule of a special interest group has overruled and infringed upon the rights and liberties of another group of individuals. The law makers that passed this law were influenced upon their own beliefs with many coming from their religious beliefs and passed the law due to personal interest over the interests of their constituents and the better of the nation.

I see the future. When you go to use a piece of paper you must first be escorted outside where you sit under the shade of a tree and look at it five minutes prior to your use of paper to appease new laws passed in the interest of environmental groups concerned with the life and death of plant life in the world. This future is the direction this nation is heading thanks, in part, to the recent law passed by Ohio and the framework it has provided for future laws to deprive individuals of their liberties and rights.

Assignment # 5

Blog Stage Five: Original editorial or commentary #1

Stage Five: Original editorial or commentary #1

Deadline: April 5, 2010

Write a substantial (250-500 words) and original editorial or commentary about U.S. national government. Post this article to your blog.

Send me the direct link to the post you’ve written using Blackboard’s Assignment feature before the deadline.

>> View/Complete Assignment: Blog Stage Five: Original editorial or commentary #1

Blog Stage Four

FROM THE EDITOR: Why do newspapers endorse candidates? Because they should

Recently the primaries were held on March 2nd here in the state of Texas. Leading up to the primaries. Several newspapers and other media outlets announced who had their support. Up until this point in time I never thought much of the practice but after taking American Government now for several weeks I began to question the practice.

On October 25, 2009 an editor named Bob Unger wrote an editorial piece for the Standards-Times newspaper based on the east cost titled “Why Do Newspapers Endorse Candidates? Because They Should.” Bob Unger has been the editor in cheif at the Standards Times now for five years. Unfortunately I have not been able to find any other qualifications on the individual but know that for an individual to achieve that position he must be a well respected experienced individual.

In the article “Why Do Newspapers Endorse Candidates? Because They Should” Bob Unger makes the argument on why his newspaper makes a choice to endorse a candidate that is running for an elected position. He also continues on to point out not just why they chose a candidate but the criteria and how they make their selection. This article is written so that any everyday reader can pick up the article and understand the newspapers position and the choices that they make. The article helped me to better understand this practice but even with the information I still have to question the practice and how it is carried out.

Most individuals give a level of trust to the media and what information is being disseminated. Unfortunately, newspapers are written by men which have a proven track record through history of being incorrect or corrupt time and time again. There is a history of Bob Unger and his newspaper being incorrect in their stories or information distributed to the public such as, for example, an episode dealing with a “Little Red Book Hoax.”If Bob Unger and his media have a track record of being incorrect then how do you know they are correct in the candidate they endorse? Bob wrote that they interview each candidate for an hour as part of the selection process. What questions do they ask? Who chooses these questions? What were their responses? Bob Unger fails to make any mention of this in the article. He states that it is up to himself and one other individual to make the choice. That places a tremendous power in two individuals hand, more power then their should be. What if these individuals chose a candidate for other then what they feel is best for their readers? With their position, there is a large possibility or temptation for corruption to rear its ugly head into the process.

The main issue I have with the process is it defeats the democratic process. It is up to the voters to decide if the candidate best represents their interests. The public is very persuasive and easily influenced by outside sources. How many voters would of voted for a candidate other then what the newspaper endorsed or how many voters that were undecided made up their minds for the endorsed candidate drawing votes from what may of been the opposition? Even up to election day, depending upon surveys and studies, there may be between 5%-10% or more voters undecided. The newspaper just influenced the outcome of the election.

I understand the medias freedom of speech and the right to express their opinion but I believe that newspapers and other media outlets should hold themselves to a higher standard and only report just factual information and leave it up to the voters to decide who, in their own view best represents their interests. Voters gain confidence in their choice and decision. If an external factor makes their decision they may end up unhappy with their voting choice and gain cynicism about their governmental system and withdrawal from the democratic process which undermines and destroys the foundation of what allows our nation to function.

Blog Stage Three

Analysis: Untruths have consequences in Politics

Ron Fournier is the acting bureau chief for the Associated Press formally working as the AP’s chief political writer and online political editor. His background is extensive in the field of politics and, at one point in 2006, was asked to fill an “advisory role” in communications for John McCains presidential campaign. Ron Fournier is a knowledgeable and well respected individual in his field.(source: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ron_Fournier)

Recently Ron Fournier wrote the Opinion Article Analysis: Untruths have Consequences in Politics for the Associated Press on Sat, Feb 20th, 2010. (source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100220/ap_on_an/us_consequences_of_untruths_analysis) The main portion of the article written discusses Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney and the truth, or lack there of, in several speeches given recently including highlights of a speech given this week at the Conservative Political Action Conference

The target audience upon first reading felt aimed at democrats as it had a majority of the article dedicated to a Republican who is a possible candidate for a presidential run in 2012 but upon further analysis the article appeals to all voters as a whole.

The articles main focus is on a speech given by Mitt Romney at the Conservative Political Action Conference this week. The author felt that the speech was filled with incorrect factual information when Mitt Romney was addressing Democrats and their political figureheads. The article, though, I feel lacks any concrete scientific data. Most of the bullet points brought up by the author can be viewed as being subjective or his interpretation of the points that Mitt Romney was trying to make. To combat this, the author could of included specific quotes by Mitt Romney or specific dates and events to back up his evidence or opinion that Mitt Romney was incorrect in the information he was disseminating during his speech. These items would of helped in a better side by side comparison on the search for the “real truth”.

Unfortunately, even though Mitt Romney is a large portion of the article, I believe the point of the article is to point out the inconsistencies that all politicians in todays current political climate are committing.

Ron Fournier stated, in reference to the inconsistencies of politicians the following:

“Such distortion and dishonesty cause Americans to be increasingly skeptical of — even cynical about — their political institutions and leaders. Once people lose faith in the political system, they're less likely to vote, less willing to pay taxes to support government-run programs, less motivated to run for office themselves and — sociologists say — they're even less likely to get involved in their own communities.”

This statement captures my feeling and the feeling of other voters perfectly. This article does not point out the incorrect factual information that Mitt Romney gave but it is using Mitt Romeny as an example of politicians overall that are in power right now in Washington, DC. It does not matter if the politician is a Republican or Democrat but all politicians are the same and we are given a choice between the better of “two evils” and, in this instance, I believe the article is successful in proving its point to the reader.

Assignment

Name
Blog Stage Three: Substantial commentary or criticism #1
Instructions
Stage Three: Critique an editorial or commentary from a national newspaper

Deadline: March 1, 2010

Write a substantial (250-500 words) critique of an editorial or commentary (NOT a pure news article, but an article where the author is making an argument) about U.S. national government from the opinion/editorial/commentary section of one of the national newspapers listed in the suggested sources. Provide an embedded link to the work you are critiquing. Evaluate the author’s intended audience, the author’s credibility, and their argument (including their claim, evidence, and logic). You may agree or disagree with the author. A guide to critical thinking is available under the Handouts link in Blackboard. Post your critique to your blog.

Send me the direct link to the post you’ve written (not a general link to your blog) using Blackboard’s Assignment feature before the deadline.

Blog Stage Two

Health Care Reform

Currently our nations elected officials are in the midst of a battle over the reform of the nations health care system. Bills containing two different versions of health care reform has passed both the houses of congress but were mainly created and passed along partisan lines. If health care reform is not passed then this country will face even more woes then those if the bills do pass.

Health care spending hit over $2.5 trillion alone last year while growing faster a share of the economy then any other time in half a century. If a health care reform is not pushed forward these numbers will become unchecked and continue their spiral climb. Medical costs are rising in this weak economy causing healthy people to drop coverage causing rates to increase for those left on the plans.

If no bill is passed “More employers will drop coverage. More consumers will get increased co-payments and deductibles,” said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore. By 2019, it is estimated the number of uninsured will rise to 54 million americans. Insurers would be able to continue to deny coverage individuals with medical problems or drastically increase their premiums. Something needs to be done. A something is better then a nothing which is what we are currently facing.

This article and the passage of some version of health care reform is important to every citizen of this nation. Health care is a bipartisan issue affecting everyone. It is time for the parties to put aside their differences and come together. The two parties have in the past united to pass important pieces of legislation such as the Civil Rights. Its time for them to unite once again. Health Care reform is also a set up for the future as both parties face other large bipartisan issues such as Social Security and Immigration.

Source Article:

Fox News: Failure of Health Care Overhaul Will Add More Woes