The Last Blog

As I went through all of my classmate’s blogs to see which one I wanted to comment on, I was surprised to find Lucy’s about an obese man who wanted his execution stayed “until he is at a safe weight for the execution.”  This sounds like a way to avoid execution altogether. He no doubt made the same argument in 1997, and I’m willing to bet he weighed less then. If weight became the cause to delay execution, everyone on death row would be eating their way to obesity to avoid the needle. I began to wonder where he got all the food necessary to reach 480 pounds; no doubt my tax dollars at work since they do support the prison system. This brings up other questions: should prisons be a place where people can eat so much they reach obese stature while so many law abiding citizens are going hungry in this country? Should children give up free school lunches and breakfasts so prisoners can eat their way out of their sentence? Should the already overburdened courts spend even one minute considering this mans “painful” end? What bothers me the most is the fact he has been in prison for thirty years and should have been executed long ago. That tax dollars have not only paid for his abuse of his own body but is no doubt paying for medical treatment required (like to treat diabetes and high blood pressure) when someone weighs that much is something that screams abuse of the system. Medical science has done their best to come up with the most humane way to execute convicted criminals, and since it is legal in 37 (more than half) of the states including his own, there is no reason to delay the process and every reason to proceed. Let’s face it; it’s not supposed to be a good time. He is a murderer and according to the jury of his peers, deserves to die. He should be glad we no longer practice “such [things] as being stretched on the rack and/or disemboweled.” Do it and be done with it.

www.feedingamerica.org

www.obesityinamerica.org/understandingObesity/diseases.cfm

Losco, Joseph and Ralph Baker. AM Gov2012 12/11

 

The Court Blog

The Supreme Court will be attempting to determine when to make a ruling on whether or not same sex marriage is constitutional. They will not be deciding the issue in this closed door meeting but they will be trying to decide on when to decide. Apparently this is crucial in how their decisions affect public opinion.

 

For instance, a Supreme Court ruling in 1967 struck down bans on interracial marriage, however at the time there were only 16 states that still had laws against it, and it was 13 years after segregation had been ruled unconstitutional. When the Court ruled in 1973 on a woman’s right to an abortion, it triggered the “right to life” movement.  More recently in 2003, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy stuck down a Texas law making gay sex illegal in his majority opinion regarding Lawrence v. Texas. This ruling was cited a few months later in Massachusetts in support of same sex marriage.

 

Currently, nine states have given same sex marriage legal status as of the last election; Maine, Maryland and Washington being the most recent.  Most states (41) still do not recognize same sex marriage. When the Supreme Court looks at this issue or any constitutionality issue, there can be an impact on public reaction. The question for the Supreme Court is do they rule on the question now while public opinion is in favor or do they wait for more the states to catch up with their own legislation.

 

Usually my opinion would be that it seems like the Supreme Court is ruling on issues that should not be an issue. This is a “bedroom” issue that I don’t feel is the Supreme Court’s (or any other court’s)  business; however, it does spill over into rights to access services such health insurance and the ability to invest together without having to go through extreme legal maneuvering.

 

The Justices will no doubt be making a ruling that could very well be overturned sometime in the future but just as their 1896 “separate but equal” facilities was deemed constitutional for its time; it was still overturned in a 1954 decision. This too will reflect our current trends as do most of their decisions.

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-gay-marriage-20121125,0,511659.story

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/us/supreme-court-to-begin-weighing-gay-marriage-cases.html

 

 

 

The Electoral Blog

I would like to address Clay Patterson’s editorial about the Electoral College. In it he states he has issues with this system because he believes it is outdated and was used only to protect us from electing the “wrong president due to incompetence.”  However, technology does not remove our incompetence. I believe that it may even increase it. In today’s technological society there is so much information and so many opinions posted on the internet, for instance, that you can find just about anyone to agree with any statement made. Technology does not make us smarter; it is still hard to know what are truths and what are fibs.

Our nation began during the Age of Enlightenment; we were not a nation of illiterate bumpkins. Most people were either fresh off the boat coming from the repressive regime of England or the first (maybe second) generation born on American soil. These people saw an opportunity to create a new government that truly was for the people, and by the people. They fought and died for this concept.

The fact is the United States is not a democracy, it is a republic. This means we elect representatives to represent our interests. A republic is a limited, representative-type government that follows a Constitution which is changeable by the people through amendments. A democracy, on the other hand, is basically rule by majority which is omnipotent. Individuals and any group of minority individuals would have no protection against the unlimited power of the majority. It has, in some cases such as the ancient Greeks, degenerated into mob rule. The Framers of the Constitution condemned the “excesses of democracy” and prevented the majority from getting too much power by allowing for the unalienable rights of the individual in the Constitution.

It is actually pretty amazing that people over 250 years ago had the foresight and presence of mind to consider that as time went by, society would change in ways they had yet to even imagine, and yet the government they established is still in the position to give all individuals, minorities and majorities alike, the same protection and rights. This is proven in the Amendments that gave black men, and then later women, the right to vote. Both of these occurrences were not foreseen by the Framers and yet when the time came, we were able to enact these Constitutional changes. That is the power of a Republic. If we were truly a democracy, the “white, male, Anglo-Saxon, and Protestant” majority would have over-ruled the amendments that gave blacks and women the vote.

www.politifeist.com/Definition_for_Republic

Losco, Joseph and Ralph Baker. AM GOV 2012. 12/11

 

The Numbers Blog

I thought about something I read (I think it was in the textbook) about when we have Election Day, and I wondered why we would have it in the late fall when a good part of the country is dealing with foul and often dangerous weather conditions. It makes you wonder why we don’t have our election during the time of year, like say spring, when people don’t mind standing in a line for a couple of hours to do their patriotic duty. The weather is nicer then; most voting places are at schools, so you can take the kids and make an afternoon of it. And why have it on Tuesday? That’s the middle of the week (practically) and most people have to be at work (except the 12+% of us who are unemployed). So I wondered who picked these dates.

I learned that when our Framers first set up our voting schedule they had to consider the agrarian society they were dealing with. Most people lived on farms and had to travel some distance to get to their polling places. They couldn’t leave during planting or harvest time so November was the best time before the heavy snows hit. It also meant they couldn’t hold it on Monday since no one could travel on Sunday (a day of rest and all). So that meant everyone traveled on Monday and could vote on Tuesday. They would probably then spend the evening in the pub after the polls closed while the votes were tallied, celebrated or consoled themselves with ale on Wednesday, slept off the ale on Thursday, traveled home on Friday, caught up on the farm chores on Saturday to be ready to sit in the pew on Sunday. Realistically speaking, it could take a whole week for someone to cast a vote in the 1800’s.

Fortunately for us, it’s not that challenging anymore. Most of us have a polling place within a few blocks of our home, and can stop by on the way home from work. Sure there might be a bit of a line but it’s an opportunity to get to know your neighbors. Many of us have the option of mailing in an early ballot as well. In any case it doesn’t take nearly as long as it did in the early years of our Republic. I would say we are truly blessed with the technologically advanced system of we have for casting our vote, hanging chads and all.

And yet according to ABC news, who got their information from the Center for the Study of the American Electorate, “2012 voter turnout (was) at 57.5% of all eligible voters, compared to 62.3% who voted in 2008 and 60.4% who cast ballots in 2004.” One hundred twenty-six million people did vote and a whopping ninety-three million eligible voters did not! Shame on them!

http://www.infoplease.com/askeds/election-day-first-tuesday-november.html

http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/national/election-results-2012-voter-turnout-lower-than-2008-and-2004-report-says

The Opinionated Blog

To be honest, this blog caught my attention because of the title, “What Do (Suburban) Women Want” by Marty Kaplan on The Smirking Chimp website.  I thought it would be about the comments Romney made about notebooks full of women. It was, instead, about an extremely small focus group with rating meters somewhere in Ohio that CNN used to gather and instantly broadcast opinions to the nation in the form of graphs on the bottom of the screen. The author described the graphs as worms or caterpillars which was apparently quite distracting to him. These graphs were meant to show the reactions of 35 people who were somewhat undecided as they watched the debates. According to the author they were actually split in their opinion but stated they could change their minds. They were also half men and half women. The sarcasm used describing the make-up of the focus group was actually rather over done but he did make a point. The author does hold the Norman Lear Chair in Entertainment, Media and Society, and has many other credible notations next to his name including White House speechwriter, Washington journalist, and Disney studio executive.

Mr. Kaplan made an interesting point in the overall idea that we are getting “real-time tabulation of the sentiments of various audience segments,” an instant opinion from Middle America if you will. The question is do we actually form our own opinions from reading news coverage and researching the issues, or are we getting our opinions from sources like Twitter because that is what it “trending” right now. In this fast paced, complex world, where so much information is at the fingertip of just about everyone, it’s hard to know all of it, and very easy just to see how many agree/disagree on an issue and go along with the majority, especially if it is an issue that does not affect us specifically. This is where Mr. Kaplan makes his strongest point:

 

“But when technology puts a finger on the civic scale, when it skews what we esteem in political discourse, when it privileges popularity over other criteria for worth, an instant reaction gizmo isn't just fun, it's potentially as subversive as the Electoral College, Citizens United or the ascendance of post-truth politics.”

I think the question is once again: is technology out-pacing our understanding of all the consequences of having and using it? Will we lose our ability exercise our own personal choice because we are so overly influenced by instantly knowing the opinions of others? Will checking to see what the opinions of others are affect the ratings of what opinions are? I don’t have an opinion on all that just yet. What a vicious circle this can become!

The Pot Blog

 

I imagine this is playing out much the same way prohibition in the 20’s did; it’s just taking longer. They have been trying to make marijuana legal for as long as I can remember (a really long time). The arguments pro and con are considerable and rather transparent. Legalize it and tax it and control it (and we can probably balance the national budget from the revenue). Or we can continue to criminalize it and see many lives ruined by a momentary weak judgment call. The article in the New York Times  on October 11, 2012 by Timothy Egan entitled "Lawmen Against the Law" scratched the surface of one state’s proposal of this issue. Oddly, he is covering the chief federal prosecutor of Washington State speaking to a room full of police officers, and they agreed with him that marijuana should be legalized. The point he makes about personal liberty is a strong one as far as I am concerned. I have always believed if it harms no one, then it shouldn’t be against the law. Now granted, there are those that will argue that smoking marijuana does harm, but I don’t think it causes as much harm as drinking alcohol. Personal choice should count for something.

There is also much to be said about the way legalization has been handled in other states. Mr. Egan points out that in the states that have legal marijuana laws, the “legal” dispensaries have replaced the drug cartels and street gangs, and they don’t want to give up their lucrative business to extensive government controls. I believe their lack of regulation is why there is so much controversy about this. Alcohol was once thought of as the downfall of “man” kind. In the early twentieth century women took to the streets and proclaimed loudly “lips that touch liquor will never touch mine.” They managed to change a law that started the rebellious “Roaring 20’s”, one of America's first lost generations.

 

Marijuana is not new; in fact it’s been around for thousands of years; longer than alcohol. Uses for it range from tea to relieve nausea to making rope from the hemp. Marijuana should be treated the same as alcohol with similar restrictions on age and public use.

 

It’s odd that the generation that once sat in parks protesting (and getting high!!) is now the “establishment.” I guess everything goes full circle. What really drives home the whole idea of legalization is the statement Mr. Egan makes that over 30 million people in the United States smoked pot last year. That’s about 10% of all the people in this country, and those are just the ones that admitted to it.

The Combat Blog

Women in combat has always been a very contentious subject in this country, but that has not stopped women from stepping up when needed to fight for their country or their beliefs. Even as far back as the Revolutionary War, women such as Molly Pitcher have not hesitated to pick up arms and defend what was being threatened.

Today, according to the article in the LA Times written by David Zucchino, women are confronted with the “good old boys” club that fears women in combat situations. They use toilet accommodations and strength requirements as an excuse to restrict women from positions that they (women) are well qualified for in every other aspect.

A law suit has been filed charging that “the Pentagon’s exclusion of women in combat positions is unconstitutional.” The article goes on to highlight the fact that out of the over 150,000 positions open in the military, only 14,000 are open to women. The army’s position is that they are committed to removing these barriers, but they move at a snail’s pace in doing so.

This article highlights the barriers that women face daily in trying to pursue their own dreams. Being successful in a military career no longer takes brute strength as it did in the past, and yet even that has never stopped women from serving their country or their cause. It also highlights the “second-class” stature that still exists for women today.

You can read this article in the LA Times