Fellow blogger, Backwoods Political Insight, also did a commentary on Arizona’s Illegal Immigration Law. He states that even though he opposes parts of the law, due to possible racial profiling, protesting and possible violence, that there are other parts that he does agree with. Much like me, I agree that law around illegal immigration when it comes to drug trafficking is necessary. There are too many illegal drugs that are coming from the other side of our borders, polluting our schools and streets. BPI also mentions the economic side of illegal immigration, by collecting money from the undocumented aliens to give them the chance to enjoy freedom and be legal, while also paying the necessary taxes that all legal, working citizens are required to pay. In his conclusion he made a well stated point regarding the death of the rancher in Arizona, “with a tragedy like this calls for forceful measures and are sometimes necessary to make sure it no longer happens.” As sad as the tragedy was, I couldn’t agree more. In many cases, it takes something horrific to happen to kick start a change. I enjoyed reading BPI’s post regarding Arizona’s Illegal Immigration Law.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Illegal Immigration.
I have to say I’m torn about the illegal immigration debate in Arizona and here’s why. One half says, “they are illegal immigrants” period. Meaning they came to the United States illegally, to live, work, have a better life, for whatever reason. But why not do it legally then? It’s like living in a house with open doors and windows and someone decides to sneak in, eat your food, sleep, etc. without your permission. Would you let them stay? Probably not. Unfortunately it seems the United States has always had an issue with illegal immigration and the connection to civil rights. And that is where my other half comes in.
Illegal immigrants, regardless if they are here illegally from Mexico or here illegally from another continent entirely, they are still human. And as humans we have rights. But the question still remains though, if you are in a country illegally, should you have the same rights or similar rights as the citizens? Where is the line drawn?
While doing research, and believe me there is a lot, I found quite a few people to be in favor of the Arizona law. Stating that regardless if an illegal immigrant seems to be a law abiding “citizen”, they are still illegally living in this country, which is…..illegal. And yes, while immigration should be on the federal level, clearly Arizona, felt the government is not doing enough.
Even after reading and doing more and more research I’m still on the fence, but probably more on the side of the fence that the United States does need to be in more control of the illegal immigration issue. I’m not necessarily saying Arizona’s law is right, because the law seems to be pretty broad, so that racial profiling is almost a given, but it's still a start, and it seems like a start in the right direction of gaining control.
Illegal immigrants, regardless if they are here illegally from Mexico or here illegally from another continent entirely, they are still human. And as humans we have rights. But the question still remains though, if you are in a country illegally, should you have the same rights or similar rights as the citizens? Where is the line drawn?
While doing research, and believe me there is a lot, I found quite a few people to be in favor of the Arizona law. Stating that regardless if an illegal immigrant seems to be a law abiding “citizen”, they are still illegally living in this country, which is…..illegal. And yes, while immigration should be on the federal level, clearly Arizona, felt the government is not doing enough.
Even after reading and doing more and more research I’m still on the fence, but probably more on the side of the fence that the United States does need to be in more control of the illegal immigration issue. I’m not necessarily saying Arizona’s law is right, because the law seems to be pretty broad, so that racial profiling is almost a given, but it's still a start, and it seems like a start in the right direction of gaining control.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Megan's Critique. Census Bureau Counting Same-Sex Couples.
In blog “Gay Marriage Being Counted in the Census Bureau,” fellow blogger Danielle is adamant of her opposition of same-sex marriages, not just that the Census Bureau is recognizing same-sex couples on the 2010 Census.
Same-sex couples being able to be counted as a “married” couple, conservatives, including Danielle, state this is just another step towards “redefining marriage.” What I have a hard time grasping is why is “redefining marriage” wrong? Danielle quotes this portion of our pledge of allegiance “one nation under God” and continues on with “God created marriage to be man with women.” But what about the bible commending slavery? Our Constitution in 1865 was amended “neither slavery nor involuntary servitude….shall exist within the United States….” So because it is commended in the bible, that is okay? Obviously not, because I couldn’t imagine anyone today being “for” slavery regardless what the book teaches us.
Over many decades, people of our country have overcome so much, it saddens me that even with such groundbreaking events, such as the end of slavery and segregation, all U.S. citizens granted the option to vote regardless of “race, color, sex or previous condition,” and electing a non-Caucasian president (and very close to electing a female one too), that there is still such opposition when it comes to same-sex couples (and even abortion).
I agree only with Danielle’s statement “people do have the freedom to love whoever,” but in my opinion they should also have the freedom to be counted just like everyone else, because they are a part of this country just like everyone else. Same-sex couples pay taxes, serve in our military and vote, so they too deserve equality, just like the slaves did, just like women and African-Americans did when we they were granted the right to vote and just like African-Americans did when they were allowed to sit at the front of a bus and attend “all white” schools, and just like when it became a woman’s right to choose.
Same-sex couples being able to be counted as a “married” couple, conservatives, including Danielle, state this is just another step towards “redefining marriage.” What I have a hard time grasping is why is “redefining marriage” wrong? Danielle quotes this portion of our pledge of allegiance “one nation under God” and continues on with “God created marriage to be man with women.” But what about the bible commending slavery? Our Constitution in 1865 was amended “neither slavery nor involuntary servitude….shall exist within the United States….” So because it is commended in the bible, that is okay? Obviously not, because I couldn’t imagine anyone today being “for” slavery regardless what the book teaches us.
Over many decades, people of our country have overcome so much, it saddens me that even with such groundbreaking events, such as the end of slavery and segregation, all U.S. citizens granted the option to vote regardless of “race, color, sex or previous condition,” and electing a non-Caucasian president (and very close to electing a female one too), that there is still such opposition when it comes to same-sex couples (and even abortion).
I agree only with Danielle’s statement “people do have the freedom to love whoever,” but in my opinion they should also have the freedom to be counted just like everyone else, because they are a part of this country just like everyone else. Same-sex couples pay taxes, serve in our military and vote, so they too deserve equality, just like the slaves did, just like women and African-Americans did when we they were granted the right to vote and just like African-Americans did when they were allowed to sit at the front of a bus and attend “all white” schools, and just like when it became a woman’s right to choose.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Dear Government, Can I leave my house today?
I don’t follow the news often, it’s typically filled with jargon that I don’t understand or doesn’t seem to peek my interest, honestly there are only a couple issues that I feel compelled to be involved in. The most controversial in my opinion, government and the woman’s right to choose.
The hot topic? Should abortion be illegal? No way Jose. Why should our government mandate our bodies? They shouldn’t! Basically their goal, unless it’s medically necessary or involves rape or incest, it shouldn’t be funded. Their argument, “why should people who are against abortion have to use their tax dollars?” I’d have to ask the same thing towards Health Reform.
To me it seems pretty simple, women should have the right to choose. Period. I am a responsible adult, who made a decision long ago to not have children and I take all the precautions, but if something ever did happen, I want to know that I have the right to choose, not the government telling me I can’t because I wasn’t raped, or it’s not medically necessary. And that’s what it boils down to, it’s my body it should be my right.
The last thing our country needs is more unwanted babies, or babies that are brought into this world in a non-loving family, or a family that doesn’t have the means to take care of them. Making abortions illegal doesn’t mean they’ll go away, it would mean more “back alley” abortions will pop up, which would lead to an increase in women becoming infertile and even dying.
It seems bizarre to me that our country can overcome something as horrifying as slavery, and discrimination in schools, churches, restaurants, and so on, but abortion and same sex marriage is still such a heated debate. It worries me with the Health Reform talks that our clocks will start going backwards and the next thing you know, it will be 2011, but yet we’d be back in a time before Roe vs Wade.
What’s next Mr. Government? Pretty soon no matter if a person wants insurance or not, they’ll be required to have it, abortions will eventually be illegal again, marriage will always be between and man and a woman, sounds like the path you’re leading us down, by the time I’m 40 I won’t have any rights. Does this mean I’ll have to start wearing sunscreen daily, you know since the sun can cause skin cancer?
The hot topic? Should abortion be illegal? No way Jose. Why should our government mandate our bodies? They shouldn’t! Basically their goal, unless it’s medically necessary or involves rape or incest, it shouldn’t be funded. Their argument, “why should people who are against abortion have to use their tax dollars?” I’d have to ask the same thing towards Health Reform.
To me it seems pretty simple, women should have the right to choose. Period. I am a responsible adult, who made a decision long ago to not have children and I take all the precautions, but if something ever did happen, I want to know that I have the right to choose, not the government telling me I can’t because I wasn’t raped, or it’s not medically necessary. And that’s what it boils down to, it’s my body it should be my right.
The last thing our country needs is more unwanted babies, or babies that are brought into this world in a non-loving family, or a family that doesn’t have the means to take care of them. Making abortions illegal doesn’t mean they’ll go away, it would mean more “back alley” abortions will pop up, which would lead to an increase in women becoming infertile and even dying.
It seems bizarre to me that our country can overcome something as horrifying as slavery, and discrimination in schools, churches, restaurants, and so on, but abortion and same sex marriage is still such a heated debate. It worries me with the Health Reform talks that our clocks will start going backwards and the next thing you know, it will be 2011, but yet we’d be back in a time before Roe vs Wade.
What’s next Mr. Government? Pretty soon no matter if a person wants insurance or not, they’ll be required to have it, abortions will eventually be illegal again, marriage will always be between and man and a woman, sounds like the path you’re leading us down, by the time I’m 40 I won’t have any rights. Does this mean I’ll have to start wearing sunscreen daily, you know since the sun can cause skin cancer?
Friday, March 12, 2010
Lesbians, Tuxedos, Prom, Oh My!
Constance McMillen, wait for it, a lesbian (are you still sitting?), has caused quite the stir at her local high school in Fulton, Miss. Every blog and main stream news outlet, even folks on twitter have much to say about it! What’s the big deal? Well first of all, she’s a lesbian (did the earth just stop?) and secondly when the school told her she couldn’t bring her girlfriend to the prom, she went to the American Civil Liberties Union arguing discrimination. And when they cancelled the prom, she claimed retaliation from the school board.
Janet Shan, a blogger from The Hinterland Gazette, had much to say about the “Drama in Mississippi.”
“Aren’t there more important things the state of Mississippi should be focusing on?” said Shan, “The young lady should be allowed to take her significant other to the prom.”
The school district’s policy requires that senior prom dates be of the opposite sex, so decided to cancel the event “due to the distractions to the educational process caused by recent events.” The ACLU gave the school district until Wednesday to change that policy, stating their policy banning same-sex prom dates violated McMillen’s constitutional rights. What did Shan have to say about that?
“So, I am guessing, if two kissing cousins want to come to prom as a couple, that would be okay by the ACLU, right?” stated Shan, “Personally I would not vote in favor of gay marriage, but I do realize that people have no choice over who they love and I respect that…”
I may not agree with her views on gay marriage, as I am personally against stating it should only be a union between a man and a woman, but regardless, I do agree with this, “Mississippi is very slow to change…” said Shan, and “I give this young lady credit for being brave and true to herself.”
Monday, March 1, 2010
1..2..3..10...2,369,102.... It's 2010, let the count begin.
According the Census Bureau, the participation rates have been declining since 1970. The reason? If you ask the left, it’s the undercounted Hispanics, African Americans and the homeless, but on the right, it’s the conservatives who willingly do not participate. Regardless, the marketing since the last census in 2000 has had a substantial increase with the census budgeting $133 million in ad campaigns that began this January. According to Juan Williams’ editorial, the controversy is why and who are they really trying to market?
Juan Williams, news analyst for NPR, political analyst for Fox News and author of Marketing the 2010 census with a conservative-friendly face, strongly believes that the census bureau has put most of their “friendly faces” in the conservative political basket. According to Williams’ editorial, if you’re a conservative male who watches NASCAR, you probably saw the census’ name on Greg Biffle’s Ford Fusion, car No. 16. Marie Osmond is on board for the female conservatives in Las Vegas and for those who watch the QVC home shopping network. Williams also notes that even football fans weren’t left out; this year’s Super Bowl had a census advertisement and heard specific mentions during the broadcast.
The reason for the “friendly faces” towards the conservatives according to Williams’, critics say the census is an invasion of personal privacy and will result in more liberal Democrats in Congress, not to mention conspiracy theories and the counting of illegal immigrants meaning “more illegal immigrants counted equal more power- for ethnic lobbyists, Big Labor, and the Democratic Party,” according to conservative columnist Michelle Malkin. Basically according to Williams’, the conservatives are urged to not participate in the count because it's only for political gain on the left.
Williams’ also states that the census is already responding to complaints on the right with unprecedented ads aimed at political conservatives- in his opinion “a subset of the group with the biggest over-count: white Americans.”
Though Steven Jost, associate director for communications at the Census Bureau ensures, “we closely monitor development in news and politics. We take seriously our responsibility to count everyone. So we are going to take every step to assure every American that we want them counted.”
Williams concludes that the census’ “biggest problem isn’t the political tensions caused by the rising number of minorities in this nation; it is that the government has to make a special effort to let upper-income, older suburbanites know that it dearly values them and wants to make sure they, too, are counted.”
Not that I do agree 100% with Williams’ argument regarding the push for the conservative’s participation, he does have strong points and it does make you take a moment and consider. However after additional reading of other editorials regarding the census, I feel pretty confident the Census Bureau is doing their part to increase their advertising towards the declining count of Hispanics and African Americans, and doing their part in trying to reduce the costs of the census counting process, ie more mailing your count, television, newspaper and radio ads in efforts to reduce door to door census takers.
Monday, February 15, 2010
I think I'm the only non-tweeter....
On a weekly basis, I've pretty much convinced myself I'm the last person on earth that doesn't tweet. This week is no exception. When searching for articles over the weekend, this headline was screaming "read me!", "Now Tweeting: White House press secretary Gibbs." My first thought? Yep, I'm still really the last person who doesn't tweet. (http://www.statesman.com/news/nation/now-tweeting-white-house-press-secretary-gibbs-236234.html)
I know you're probably asking yourself, out of all the articles and editorials out there, I chose one on tweeting, but think about it, how cool is it that our press secretary, Robert Gibbs, has joined the 21st century and become a tweeter?
What got Gibbs tweeting? According to the article, Gibbs was watching a twitter feed while the President visited a briefing room last week. Gibbs was fascinated "to watch and see what people were thinking, doing and writing." So he created an account that day and posted his first tweet, "Learning about 'the twitter' - easing into this with first tweet - any tips?"
On the White House website, there is already an option to sign up to have messages sent directly to you from top administration officials, however this is just another channel of keeping communication lines open.
According to the article, Gibbs already has more than 6,200 followers. I may just have to take the plunge and be a fellow tweeter and follow Gibbs' tweets. Will you?
I know you're probably asking yourself, out of all the articles and editorials out there, I chose one on tweeting, but think about it, how cool is it that our press secretary, Robert Gibbs, has joined the 21st century and become a tweeter?
What got Gibbs tweeting? According to the article, Gibbs was watching a twitter feed while the President visited a briefing room last week. Gibbs was fascinated "to watch and see what people were thinking, doing and writing." So he created an account that day and posted his first tweet, "Learning about 'the twitter' - easing into this with first tweet - any tips?"
On the White House website, there is already an option to sign up to have messages sent directly to you from top administration officials, however this is just another channel of keeping communication lines open.
According to the article, Gibbs already has more than 6,200 followers. I may just have to take the plunge and be a fellow tweeter and follow Gibbs' tweets. Will you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
