America…Let’s Keep it the Land of the Free

One of the most wonderful things about the Country we live in are the freedoms we possess. It never ceases to amaze me when people want to willingly give up those freedoms in the name of “Safety”.

My colleague, Palek Patel, in her blog entitled “Safety Itself" insinuates our country would be a safer place if handguns were banned altogether. In fact she referred to the banning of handguns as a “no brainer”. Several statistics were used to back up her statements as to the danger of owning guns including the homicide and suicide rates of gun use. I would love to know where those figures came from.

While I do agree that owning a gun might give a false sense of safety. I strongly disagree with making a law to ban them. Did we learn nothing from the prohibition? During the Prohibition of Alcohol as mandated by the Eighteenth Amendment, as ratified on January 29, 1919, along with the Volstead Act the sale, barter, possession, transportation, importation and exportation of intoxicating liquors was prohibited except as allowed by the act. These laws are largely accepted as responsible for the enormous illicit power of mobsters like Al Capone of Chicago as production, importation and distribution of alcohol was taken away from legitimate businesses. The Prohibition didn’t make alcohol consumption go away; it just put control squarely in the hands of criminals. It can arguably be said that the consumption of alcohol leads to death both of self and others. The abuse of alcohol is not good for the human body; families are ripped apart and children are often forced to take on the role of parents. But, making it illegal was not the answer. It didn’t stop people from buying, selling or consuming. It didn’t stop intoxicated individuals from hurting themselves or others. All the prohibition did, as previously stated, was criminalize the act and in taking the rights away from legitimate business owners; help bring mob bosses like Al Capone firmly into power.

Making it illegal to own handguns only takes guns away from citizens inclined to follow the laws of the land. Does anyone believe the criminal element will willingly hand over their firearms because a law was passed saying they have to? Can guns be dangerous? Definitely. Do innocent people die? Unfortunately. Will the taking away of individual’s rights to own guns prevent deaths? Probably to some extent. But, the same could be said of banning all knives, axes, ropes, matches and cars. All of the above can deliberately or accidentally cause death. I do not mean to be flippant, but the idea of a prohibition on guns as a safety measure seems to fall into a category of overzealousness and naivety. Currently, marijuana, cocaine, heroine and crack are illegal, dangerous drugs that most people can get their hands on easily should they so desire.

As with any of our freedoms, the ownership of firearms should be accompanied by responsibility. The responsible will take the time to not only learn about how to care and store their firearms, but will educate their children as well. The cost of freedom is not cheap. It should involve educating ourselves and others. We are not children to be led by the hand and only given the freedoms someone else thinks we can handle. As citizens of the United States of America, we must continue to strive to keep our liberties.

An Eye for an Eye?

That is the issue many debate when it comes down to our justice system. It still seems to be the issue when dealing with the rape of children. A person can get the death penalty for murdering someone but not for raping a child according to a recent 5-4 decision by Supreme Court justices on June 25, 2008.

The case in question originated in Louisiana. Patrick Kennedy was convicted and sentenced to death for the rape of his 8-year-old stepdaughter. Not only was she raped, but the act caused enough injury to require emergency surgery. The Louisana Supreme Court not only upheld the original conviction of the crime, but the punishment as well. The next step natually was the US Supreme Court who just gave its ruling on the case days ago. Their ruling overturned death penalty laws in Louisiana, Georgia, Oklahoma, Montana, South Carolina and Texas.

There is nothing that will get emotions riled faster than deliberate injury to a child. Both Presidential hopefuls John McCain and Barack Obama went public with statements of dissent towards the Supreme Court ruling. But, realistically, what else could they say? That raping a child isn’t heinous enough to deserve the death penalty?

The question before the Supreme Court was whether or not the death penalty in this case was a violation of the eighth amendment and its cruel and unusual punishment clause. Is death for the rape of a child cruel and unusual punishment?

I’m not sure I have an answer for that. Death, in a way, sometimes seems too easy an escape. The conscience can be a wonderful and terrible thing to behold. I am sure there must be ways to educate such people as to the enormity of the wrong they have committed and then they have to live with that knowledge every day for the rest of their lives. Barring that, what is wrong with some heavy manual labor? I do know that I am not personally comfortable with the death penalty. It’s not so much that I want to live in a world with murderers and child rapists running rampant, but I would never want to be the one to make that decision to take another’s life. Even the most damning of evidence could be wrong. As stated by Justice Kennedy in defense of the decision, there are “special risks of unreliable testimony” by children and the fact that this situation often occurs within the families. He is concerned that families might try to “shield the perpetrator from discovery” with a penalty of death. This could have negative implications of an increase in the non or underreporting of these crimes.

I do not believe there is enough evidence to support claims that the death penalty is a deterrent for those inclined to take the lives or innocence of others. There are some truly sick individuals who will perpetrate a crime whatever the punishment for that crime. John L. Donohue and Justin Wolfers write a compelling study entitled “The Death Penalty: No Evidence for Deterrence” that coincides with my feelings that there is no real evidence out there supporting a reduction in heinous crimes in states with the death penalty.

I wish I could say that the threat of death would stop or even reduce these kinds of crimes from happening. But I do not believe they do. I do not support the crimes or feel sorry for the perpetrators. I just feel there has to be other options for punishment other than death.

Opinion Polls A Postive Opportunity For Learning

In Lauren R. Hughley’s recent commentary in her “Common 2 Cents Blog” on Poll Pressure she makes some valid points on the duty of the news. She states “the duty of the news, whether through the television, radio, or paper is to inform the people about important issues and not influence them in their decision making and opinion forming.” I agree, in a perfect world the news would come to us unbiased for assimilation and to base future decisions upon. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the American Press is free to cover politics in any way it chooses. I say unfortunately due to the amount of mud slinging that is allowed to go on instead of pure news coverage. On the other hand, what is the consequence of removing the freedom of the press? Is it worth it? Shouldn’t American citizens take on the personal responsibility of a little homework?

There are so many avenues to receive the news anymore. One can read the paper, watch the television, go online, have it sent to a cell phone, the opportunities are endless. The best method I can come up with is to follow a story through several different sources and watch the outcome and see which sources “truth” most closely matches my own. I, as do others, just need to be careful to get the whole story and not just a fragment of the truth.

As to Ms. Hughley’s opinion on poll reports, I have to disagree. She states “the American people can be both irrational and easily influenced.” With that statement, I wholeheartedly agree. I think that could be said of people in general. I know I myself try to look at different issues from different perspectives before forming a hard and fast opinion of my own. Still, as my knowledge grows, I might change my mind several times on just one issue.

I believe in the right to learn and grow and be challenged. For with challenge comes personal growth. It is not always pretty, but it is worth it. When we take the stance that information should not be given because a certain sector of the population might be swayed by that information to make irrational choices, we take something very dear from society in general. We cannot dumb down information to the weakest intellectuals in society. Rather they must be challenged to form their own reasoned opinions based on more than just someone else’s opinion.

Polls can be valuable tools for many different reasons. For one, they can help motivate the public in general to take a closer look at why others feel differently than they do on specific issues. If I were to feel one way about an issue and I found out that a large percentage of others were diametrically opposed to my opinion, I would want to do some more research to find out if I had possibly misunderstood something that I might have thought was super clear to me. That most likely end in one of two possible results. Either I would reform my opinion on an issue I thought I understood, but clearly didn’t, or I would strengthen my already set opinion. Either way, I have taken the time to add to my own personal knowledge. Another value to polls is for the candidates themselves. A poll gives them the same chances it gives any other individual. For example if an opinion poll tells a candidate that the public is really not happy with his stand on a certain issue, he too has choices. The candidate could do some more research and make sure the stand he is perceived as taking is the one he really wants to show. That candidate then has the opportunity to stand firm and try to educate the public as to why that stand is important to all, or he could back down and decide that is just not something worth tackling at the moment or even make a stronger stand on another issue or related issue to give a wider perspective to the American public as to who they really are as a political candidate.

In the end, polls represent knowledge. Knowledge is power when used effectively. People don’t have to be swayed by other’s opinions. They do; however, have a right to all the information they can handle when trying to make informed opinions. It is up to the individual as to how much they want to pay attention to opinion polls and then what do with that information. I personally have never been swayed from my opinion on who I want to vote for because others around me had a different opinion. As previously stated, at most, I was merely prompted to do some more research and become better informed. I personally am glad for the barometer that opinion polls offer me on the political outlook of my fellow American citizens.

Earmarks....Congress' dirty little secrets?

A Congressional earmark as defined by Daniel Engber in Slate.com is “Any element of a spending bill that allocates money for a very specific thing-a given project, say, or location, or institution.” But an earmark is more than that. If that were it cut and dried, most would not see a problem with the whole idea of earmarks. How better to control an outflow of cash than to designate exactly where it is to go? The problem is the way earmarks are inserted to the bill in the first place.

Earmarks are not handled in an above-board manner. They are inserted to a bill after the debate is over by any member of Congress. In the past, members did not even have to put their names to an earmark, but looking at where the money goes would narrow the field considerably. Earmarks are generally sent back to a Congressman’s home state. A sort of pork barrel maneuver. According to Source Watch, most earmarks are added during the phase where House and Senate leaders meet to solve any remaining problems one or the other might have with the bill. Then, that bill must be approved by both houses. If anyone notices and wishes to remove the added specified funds, they have to vote against the entire bill, not just the recent addition. Even that is an oversimplified reason for allowing earmarks to stay. The old, “You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” comes into play. By not stopping one Congressman’s personal funding of pet projects, others hope to get the same treatment in the future. This appears to be working as earmarking has been on the rise for the past 30 years.

Those receiving earmarks certainly aren’t complaining, but one has to wonder, if the funds offered are appropriate and above-board, why add them after debate? Shouldn’t these legitimate needs for funding be addressed as the bill is constructed? Shouldn’t negotiations happen in committees? It is the very nature of allowing this to be tacked on to a bill almost as an afterthought that makes the word “earmarking” leave a bad taste in the mouth. While the funds may be legitimately needed for specific projects, are they more worthy of funds than other projects that didn’t get that funding? Congress has a way to funnel funds into needed areas without resorting to sneaking those funds into a bill at the last minute. I personally don’t believe the reforms of the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2006 goes far enough.

While members of Congress do represent their individual states and are always looking for that re-election vote, their duty should be towards the greater good. We are more than just a hodge-podge of individual states willing to stab each other in the back to better our own individual status. We need to be looking out for the well-being of all. Congress, our elected officials, needs to watch out for the well-being of all. If funding for pet projects cannot be legitimately added during the committee phases of the bill, they should not be allowed to be added at all. After all, this is the United States of America.

The End Justifies the Means?

It would appear that President George W. Bush is under the mistaken idea that the end really does justify the means. It doesn’t and never has. In the Washington Post, columnist Eugene Robinson discusses his opinion on the President’s stand at Guantanamo Bay in his article “A Victory for the Rule of the Law”. Robinson argues for the checks and balances established by our Founding Fathers. The Supreme Court was put in place for a reason and I would say the current situation overseas is a precise example of what they feared could happen when any one branch of government is allowed too much unchecked power. There has to be a cool head to say, “Wait a minute, I think you are overstepping the line here.”

That is precisely the situation at Guantanamo Bay. We simply cannot allow anyone to overstep the laws of decency like this. The United States of America is supposed to stand for something. Something decent where individual rights are not trampled on; no matter the individual. Had Bush gotten wind of Iraqi prisoner of war camps treating American prisoners in a similar fashion, you had better believe it would be leaked all over the press as a method of riling up the American public into a frenzy that would allow him to continue to send more and more of our brothers and sisters over to fight for “right”. He would definitely play up the stance that the United States will not stand for this kind of treatment. I could imagine parallels of Vietnam POW camps and even Hitler being brought up as images to inflame a renewed interest in a war that was previously declared over. If those things were to have happened I would have to say he is absolutely right. This cannot be allowed to continue. I still say, “This cannot be allowed to continue.”

Robinson quoted Justice Anthony M Kennedy’s statement of, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times,” That is absolutely correct. Just because we are at war doesn’t give us the right to break our own laws. Just because we are in another country, we don’t have the right to say our laws are no longer valid or enforceable. As American’s we have the duty to remain true to our ideals no matter where we stand. The end does not justify the means and anyone who says different needs to be checked.

Political Parties VS. Constitutional Principles

There reaches a point where partisanship reaches the ridiculous. It used to mean something to claim to be a Democrat or a Republican. The average American on the street might be able to state w which party they are affiliated with but will have no real clue what the party itself stands for any more. Are Americans more interested in labels than actual content? Should the government be crippled by a Republican President versus a Democratic House? Doug Giebel a reporter for Counterpunch asks similar questions in his article “A plague on Both your Houses (of Congress)” Giebel gets down to brass tacks when he asks the pointed question, “Did you swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?” The support and defense of The Constitution of the United States and all of its inhabitants, what a novel idea. When and how did things go so off track that the American people are willing to sit back and watch as their political leaders play partisan games of one-upsmanship instead of honoring and defending individual rights? The government of the United Sates of America was set up with a series of checks and balances. This is to protect the rights of the citizens; instead of trying to play the game of politics and furthering the cause of a political group. The point is made that the Democrats are stalling instead of insisting on the appearance of Bush Administration operatives to hearings. The implication being as election times draws nearer it will strengthen the Democratic position to be able to say to the American public, “Look what a Republican President and his administration has done to our country. It is time for a change. Vote for the Democratic nominee.” But what of the opportunities available right now to stop the progression of unconstitutional acts? The most important issue here should be the preservation constitutional rights not the advance of one political party over another. Political parties come and go, but if defended properly our Constitution, nay our rights as US citizens, will continue indefinitely. It is the responsibility of Congress to check the Executive branch when necessary. It is the responsibility of the individual citizens to be informed enough to put into office those who will not put the continuance of their stay in office above the tenants of the constitution.

Obama Prevails

The Democratic primaries have been on everyone’s minds this year. This has been a very positive influence against voter apathy despite the mud slinging that seems to come hand in hand with campaigning. Who cares what someone’s priest says from the pulpit? Is he on the ticket? Also who cares what color or sex the delegate is? What is his or her stand on issues? Can they actually do what they claim they can? These are the things that should carry weight with voters. But, if debating whether or not a white woman had more credibility than a black man gets people involved, then who am I to nay say? As reported in The New York Times this particular race is over. Obama is the Democratic nominee for president of the United States of America. There, of course, is talk of a super-team of Obama and Clinton running for office together. I enjoyed the insight on the close of the primary race and the speculation on what might be in store for us in the near future. Anyone interested in following the progress of these two candidates will be interested in this article.