RE: Angela DeRiggi's National Same-Sex Law

     In Angela DeRiggi's post National Same-Sex Law, she speaks about how she would like to see same sex marriage legalized from a Christian point of view.  I personally think this actually says a lot about those who are against the legalization of same sex marriage because most would argue that it is Christians who oppose it.  This goes to show you can't generalize a whole group of people-- including ideologies.  It also gets me thinking... Perhaps those who oppose it are actually more likely from a generational gap versus any sort of religious concerns.  

     In 2005, Texas became the 19th state to have an amendment that bans gay marriage.  Fortunately, this was struck down by a federal judge.  I think having this type of ban just would add fuel to the fire and make people stand up more for our individual rights.  In addition to this, something like this can definitely be seen as unconstitutional--as DeRiggi points out-- under "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Sadly, however, the Supreme Court has said it is up to the states on who can get married to who.  If the state favors against gay marriage, then that's the way it would have to be.  Things like this should be of more of a national importance versus letting states meddle in large controversial affairs.

     I agree with DeRiggi in her statements that many seem to forget that gay marriage is not a big as they make it seem.  They are like just like anyone else-- just trying to live their lives in peace with someone.  It should not be up to other's how they decide to live their life-- There should be no authority that those who oppose it have against them. 

     I definitely support the gay marriage because everyone has the liberty to the pursuit of happiness. It doesn't matter what people think our nation's ideologies are-- By the Lemon Law, our nation is secular and cannot decide from religious standpoints.  I hope to see gay marriage legalized at the national level rather than have the states decide.  Supreme Court may say it is up to the states, but they are the ones who decide all the huge controversial decisions.  The sooner we get over this and let everyone have their basic equal rights, the sooner we can focus on real issues rather than ones that should be no brainers.

Rest in Peace

The national government's choices puzzle me sometimes. We are taught from the beginning that it exists to rule us and ensures that it may know what is best for us and society even though it sometimes chooses oddities that rule in the favor of something unpopular and unwanted...

Well, what about certain civil liberties guaranteed after death? Does the government protect those? Not really. You may be surprised to hear that the Supreme Court ruled in the favor of the Westboro Baptist Church on March 2, 2011 against a fellow soldier, Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq in the line of duty. Now the Westboro Baptist Church has been known to picket numerous military funerals with signs saying outrageous and offensive remarks like "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" and "God Hates Fags" like they had at this soldier's funeral. However, even though the popular opinion is that this is highly unacceptable, the Supreme Court-- and by extension, the national government, had ruled in favor for the Westboro Baptist Church because of our first amendment granting freedom of speech.

Although we are granted the freedom of speech, there should be something passed by the national government that will guaranteed some sort of respect after death. Shouldn't we receive some civil liberties after death, like perhaps, not having our own funerals protested by the WBC? This puzzles me as it seems like something that should be only natural. Everyone would want their death to be at least respected. I extremely disagree the national government's choice in ruling for the Westboro Baptist Church because everyone deserves a moment of silence out of respect--especially for fellow soldiers and urge them to consider giving us a right to at least rest in peace.

RE: "Blog Bless America": U.S. National Government

Jocelyn Puga, author of the blog "Blog Bless America", writes that a problem we have with our national government is with "transparency" because the government hides so much information from the public and that our President needs to "show that he is the right choice". I agree completely with these statements because the government spies on us yet won't let us know any information about the shady things they are conducting that will affect us and our liberties. The President is supposed to be like our daddy, protecting us from the evils of the world. In this case, we are dependent on our President to bring a stop to the unfair practices the government is going about. Unfortunately, it seems like this isn't going to happen any time soon, but hopefully it will. President Obama needs to hear what the American people are saying. It is just like Jocelyn said, the President needs to show that he is the right choice.

Representative "Democrazy": Take It or Leave It

Have you ever thought to yourself, "Does my vote really even matter? Does it even count?"
Well, it kind of does. Kind of, but mostly does not. Why is this? You may hear from time to time people say that the United States of America is a pure democracy. This is not completely accurate-- we are actually a representative democracy, which means we elect people who would "represent" the public as a whole. We vote for them, then they decide every thing for us because they would reflect most of the public's aspirations, dreams, thoughts, and feelings... at least in theory they should but often that is a luck of the draw. Considering most of the public that votes is older, higher class and white, it will reflect mainly their's rather than what everyone feels, which in a way that is our own fault for not taking the time to vote.
But besides that, I personally would prefer a different type of democracy, one where we can choose everything ourselves and each vote is one count. Not towards a representative, but us choosing and doing our own research of everything. I realize most of the public isn't politically educated, which is fine, if we implement some sort of easy education that would sort each issue into categories and list who stands for what and the intent/consequences of each. This way each voice is heard rather than bunching up the entire public into one large group and assuming they all think the same way. In that way the vote actually DOES count and doesn't die in vain.
You can call me "democrazy", but maybe I dream a little too big of change. Take it or leave it.

Lammily: Possibly the Doll of the Future?

It is a well known fact that many girls (and guys) have trouble with body image. Where this originally stems from could be a variety of things, but Nickolay Lamm suggests we should start with the dolls little girls play with saying, "Average is beautiful".
"Meet Lammily, a toy doll with realistic proportions", is about Nickolay Lamm redefining the image of Barbie and high fashion dolls. He took the average measurements from the "average" 19-year-old girl listed on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and created a 3D model out of it as a statement  against what is defined as beautiful and ideal. The feedback and support has been amazing for Lamm's project and if you wanted to get one yourself, you may have to jump in line! They ship out in November!
Now, do toy dolls really affect how children see body image? I would say so. Even if this margin is very small, the slightest change is a great one. Lamm speaks out to children and parents alike in this like it a sort of movement in his video clip supplied on Salon using a sense of emotion in the music and a little bit of diction to get through. He ends his video saying, "Toy giants aren't going to be changing their designs anytime soon. Rather than waiting for change to happen, let's be the change..." Definitely a change I would like to see happen because no one should define their self-worth based on something society calls "beautiful". Like Lamm said, average is beautiful.

ObamaCare + FoxNews = Does It Really Need Saying?

Today, February 20, 2014, Doug McKelway of FoxNews.com posted an article about healthcare called "Democrats Defensive as CBO Projects Job Loss from ObamaCare, Minimum-wage Hike" that was clearly geared towards a Republican audience in just the title itself. According to the article and video, ObamaCare's impact on workforce may turn out to be a net negative. The video repeats this a few times, but never really explains HOW it would be a net negative-- just that "it will result" in one. The reporters say in the video that the freedom of choice may affect how Americans see the value of work. Let's think about this for a second. When does having independent healthcare affect American's view towards the value of work? Jason Furman in the article says, "This has to do with the choices the workers are making in the face of new options afforded to them... not something about firms destroying jobs." This is brushed off quickly in the video, however. The male reporter seems to disagree with the democrats' view that the "self-reliant, independent" American should be able to get health care without the workforce. I personally got the impression that he seemed to think that they are freeloaders or people not willing to work. He basically says that because of the sacrifice others, they are able to gain their healthcare. Overall, I don't agree with this argument. It lacks real substance because they are not stating any sources or statistics of any sort of facts to show where they got their original information (logic) from. It is more based on assumptions than anything for all we know. Furthermore, Fox fails to describe any real reason on how or why this would be the net negative he is claiming that will potentially result in job loss from ObamaCare. All in all, a weak argument with no real solution provided, but I almost expected this in the first place.

Death Penalty Morality

Brief summary:
On February 5, 2014, BBC News published an article called, "Texas Executes Female Murderer Suzanne Basso". It was about a woman who brutally murdered a mentally disabled man she was going to marry in an effort to steal his insurance benefits. Basso had a long history of physical and sexual abuse and her daughter even made the claim that she would be a killer. On the other hand, Basso's lawyer thought the ruling was unfair and that Basso was being "singled out" due to her unattractive appearance. Either way, it is rare for women to be put to death versus men, but she was in this minority.

Why do I bring up this article?
There are many parts of me that are completely against the death penalty. "No! It's inhumane," my little inner voice cries. But reading an article like this got me thinking. This person does not seem like a good person. This person did not seem to emit "excellence" like Aristotle would put it in his philosophy about virtue and perfection. Does it still seem right to put her to death? Do we still have that right? What do we know about justice? The death penalty is such a controversial thing. On one hand, we have these questions that would be almost wrong to answer, but on the other, it can almost be surely assumed that this person was possibly a terrible human being for murdering an innocent mentally impaired man for his benefits. She had a long history of already abusing her daughter in terrible ways. Call me sensationalist, but articles like these get my gears turning. Did she really deserve to be put to death still? Ultimately, I would say, in a whole lot of hesitation, it is entirely possible for the actions she had done.