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