"In God We Trust?"

I suppose I am slightly confused by your meaning in this editorial. You appreciate the sentiments of our founding fathers, yet you are tired of this country being called a Christian country? This leads me to want lay my ideas on the table. After reading your very helpful links on the National Treasury and also the original article, I must say that I do agree with part of the Fox News article sentiment. Lamar Vest is right to say that our nation’s foundations were influenced by words of the bible. It would be silly and uneducated to say anything otherwise, however I must say I am tired of that same argument being used to somehow make it ok to haze the line of separation between church and state in this country. While Christianity was a building block for this country…simply because almost all the immigrants in the heavily populated cities, were Protestants or some other off shoot trying to escape the tyranny of the Catholics in Europe…it is easy to see that it was influential simply because the majority at the time all believed in generally the same ideas.

Today, however, we do not have to take dangerous trips in horse-drawn carriages to make a year journey to California. We are extremely connected to all parts of the world at almost any given time (there are about half a million cell phone towers in the U.S alone), our exposure to other cultures and especially religions is mind boggling. In 1957 when “In God We Trust” was printed on paper money, my mother and aunt were Air Force children(who lived in 5 different countries) -had never even heard of Islam. Unfortunately I have not been able to find actual statistics on this, but just think about that for a moment. There we were putting faith on our money, and I’ll bet a majority of U.S citizens were not even aware of a religion that only became a known household fact in this country after 9/11.

 We are not the same country we were two hundred years ago, or even sixty years ago. Times are changing rapidly, and I think it is time for the United States to truly embrace ‘freedom of religion’. Theologically, the Bible is fascinating. I believe that people can learn wonderful things and may even find answers for their lives, but faith is a personal choice. As a voter, do I really need to be concerned with what religion a senator is? By law in our constitution, that senator has the right to be whatever he would like to be religiously, just as I have the right to believe what I want in return.

According to the Fox News article, people living by and reading the bible have dropped about 6% in a year. According to the article 31% of people do not believe the Bible contains a meaningful path to life. Furthermore, 18% of the people in this country “do not revere the bible as sacred literature.” Am I saying these are staggering numbers to pull “In God We Trust” off of our money? No. Honestly, I could care less whether it is there or not. It is part of our history; we shouldn’t see it as a strike against non-Christians. We shouldn’t even see it as pro-Christian. As a country, we are slowly learning to celebrate the differences in our cultures, and because of this I hope that one day religion won’t even be mentioned when discussing our government. I believe it is safe to say that the sane, hardworking citizens in this country all want the same thing – to live healthy, long, peaceful, safe and happy lives. Whether or not so and so is Christian and that guy over there is Buddhist, or the woman who works at the doctor’s office is Muslim…. It doesn’t matter! What matters is, we want a functional and honest government that we don’t have to fear. We want a government we can trust to do the right thing for us. Our founding fathers ran this country well all that time ago, we should respect their methods. But just because something fit and worked for them 200 years ago, certainly doesn’t mean it will fit into our society now. Yes change can be daunting, but it is happening whether we, as a country, want to stop it or not. 

Birthday Suit

Guess what everybody, now if you get arrested for failure to use your turn signal…you can get strip searched when they take you into jail. All the police need is “reasonable suspicion” that you are carrying contraband. This court ruling was set into place today by the Supreme Court, and while they did admit that some ‘minor’ crimes can be omitted because of the fourth amendment, cases under similar laws have wound up with ‘criminals’ with unpaid ticket warrants, trespassers, and those arrested for driving without a license stripped down. This is, however, only allowed before you get put into general population, but it requires that you undress and get inspected by a guard. While I understand the conservative mindset that people can hide a variety of objects in places I do not even what to think about, and that they can be potentially dangerous or drug related…I sincerely dislike the terminology associated with allowing these searches. The fact of the matter it, there are corrupt strange people out there…who even make it into uniform. If I were to suddenly get arrested because I didn’t realize I had a ticket somewhere in ‘lala’ land that was never paid, I do not want to be at the disposal of a rule called “reasonable suspicion”. What exactly does that mean anyway? This also bothers me, because in some of the reports of these strip searches, women who had been sexually assaulted and also others menstruating have been required to strip to their skin in front of some stranger. This reminds me of the body scanners now allowed in many airports, and I do not understand how the Supreme Court could have declared these invasions constitutional on some level.  Like I said, I understand that some people have and will continue to carry illegal substances and weapons on their person. I also do understand that allowing dangerous people to continue to hold these in their possession when put into jail can cost someone their life. But strip in front of a stranger searches? No I do not think that is completely necessary. Honestly, I would feel better if they did use those body scanners. Aren’t they supposed to be able to detect almost anything? Then also the pictures would be sent to someone away from the room and people would not be put through the humiliating aspects of standing in front of a perfect stranger in your birthday suit. The scanner can then notify if ‘cavity searches’ are necessary right? I think that would spare everyone the uncomfortable atmosphere. 

You can read more information HERE

JOBS

Richard Eskow discusses the JOBS act that passed through the House this month with what he describes as an ‘overwhelming majority’. I was drawn to this editorial, because of his hilarious recreation of the acronym for JOBS- which is said to stand for "Jump Starting Business Startups” but suggests that it could really mean “Jivers' Opportunity to Bilk Suckers.” 

In his commentary he very openly criticizes the motives of this bill and suggests that, essentially, it is a mock up to once again trick the American people into supporting such a bill, but also at the same time hiding some key features that once again helps the ‘big men.’ From what I have read, he clearly is incredibly left-wing (so is the website)…so going into the article I know that he has written it for an audience with the intention to make this bill and it’s supporters the ‘bad guys’ if you will. However, I was surprised as I continued to read, that he never really bashes Republicans out right, and even suggests that this bill was simply pushed by money to whoever would back the legislation…even including Democrats. 

I found his explanation all very interesting, as he explains the key functions of the bill. “Crowdfunding” is the idea behind private-citizen investors to put money into ‘start-up’ companies, in hopes to generate small business growth and development. However, Richard here makes a valid point that this type of investment is very easy to corrupt and could be seen as a ploy to ‘sucker’ people out of their hard earned money. Under this new bill banks and bank holding companies could play in the investment market again. It would also give millions in tax breaks to the ‘small businesses.’ However, by definition of ‘small businesses’ it actually leaves big buck companies in that loop ( also including plastic surgeons, attorneys, and financial advisors…which I agree when Eskow says that these would not create new jobs). In addition these ‘emerging growth companies’ would have less strict regulations and would have an income limit per year of 1 billion dollars, but as the author once again points out ….companies can split in two to avoid reaching that limit in order to continue to take advantage of this suggested JOBS system. 

Richard Eskow writes for multiple blogs and is an active member in the Campaign for America’s Future. I think is rather credible and offers some good key points to the table when observing the political activities. I agree with him that this bill is just another smoke screen with hidden agendas to help the big companies out, all while trying to trick us into thinking differently. 

Super Tuesday

                It seems that Super Tuesday has left a strange feeling in the stomachs of many. As the author of this editorial so blatantly suggests, they are not happy with “relentlessly nasty, divisive, and vapid extreme right-wing” the recent Republican campaigns have become. While equally discussing Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, the author is not at all afraid to show his distaste for many of the recent comments made. I find myself agreeing with his statements that while this country is going through serious economic crisis and security risks; the Republican candidates seem to be stuck on cultural and religious topics, instead of the real issues at hand. It is obvious that the other is very biased towards the candidates as he sums up Mitt Romney as a man “who stands for nothing except country-club capitalism” and Rick Santorum “so blinkered by his ideology that it’s hard to imagine him considering any alternative ideas or listening to any dissenting voice.” Which I do find quite funny and a fair assessment of the two candidates, however I realize that may not be very objective of me. Going on to discuss the topics that are important to the candidates, it sounds quite like the same old spiel we’ve heard before. Santorum is very much against the gay and lesbian communities, and also believes he should be able to run the country and openly let his religion influence his decisions. Romney follows close with attacks on abortion and oral contraceptives. Both, according to the author, have offered little in terms of financial plans. The author then discusses the candidates, in his opinion, blatant attacks on President Obama for problems that he feels are out of the hands and much bigger than just a president. Here the author is biased, because I believe he does appear to support Obama, or at least tolerate him more in a likeable manner, than the Republicans. He discusses the successful order to raid and kill of Osama Bin Laden and ‘pummeled’ Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders. The author then makes one of the most blatant bias comments, that Obama accomplished all of those things “without the Republicans’ noxious dead-or-alive swagger.” He does however end the editorial with the notion that while Obama has gained popularity again in the past few months, and discusses the popularity of these candidates, he does suggest that if our current President is working on some changes, he still has a long way to go.

                All in all, I completely agreed with this editorial. While it was biased, I feel the author was passionately against these candidates for the same reasons I am. (Seriously Santorum, aspirin?) I don’t understand how the American people can honestly consider some of these guys worthy for the presidency. That said, I am not necessarily a fan of Obama’s, however I was sincerely hoping for a candidate in the Republican seat that at least brought something new to the table, or would be interesting to stir in debates. I don’t want to hear about presidents making promises to pass social bills that will never make it through Congress, I want real plans and truths. 

Gun Control

                In light of today’s high school shooting in Ohio, I decided to research anything recent with the hot topic ‘gun control’. Whether you are for or against laws restricting ownership and use of these lethal weapons, a lot of people are generally passionate one way or another. This topic is often a division between our two major parties, with liberals for restriction of use and conservatives tending to be not for restrictions. Starting in 1791, when the Bills of Rights were ratified and added to the constitution, obviously the “right to bear arms” was important even back then to the American people. The second amendment of the U.S Constitution states “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” This being said, it is actually quite surprising that the biggest legislation to pass was back in 1968. The Gun Control Act was proposed after the assassination of John F. Kennedy and passed quickly after the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and also Robert Kennedy. This act put a heavier demand on licenses and more detailed record keeping for dealers. Convicted felons were prohibited from the purchase of the weapon, and also mail order sales were prohibited. Additionally, in the 30 years that followed, the 5 day waiting period has been enacted as well as a background check for gun owners. These, however, are federal laws. Each states has differences in their gun control policies.

                As much of a hot topic this is, The New York Times archives on the issue, show that no legislation on this has gone up for a vote since 2009 when “the Senate turned aside the latest attempt by gun advocates to expand the rights of gun owners, narrowly voting down a provision that would have allowed gun owners with valid permits from one state to carry concealed weapons in other states.” I found that this decision was correct, especially when you look at the ‘Full Faith and Credit Clause’ that gives the power of licensing rights of this nature solely to each state individually.

                With all of this said, I will not be surprised, especially because of the events that occurred this morning at Chardon High School, Ohio, that the GOP nominees will suddenly be discussing gun control. I would not even be surprised if President Obama were to release a statement regarding the incident and put his take on what he is for or against. According to “2012 Presidential Candidates.org”, Obama is for some restrictive laws to help keep criminals out of possession of such weapons, but also for the right of citizens to own for sporting/hunting and also the protection of their homes. The website also has information on Ron Paul’s stance is that he would have the Gun Control Act of 1968 repealed and is of the belief many of the laws in place today are “for no conceivable reason beside the desire of demagogic politicians to appear tough on crime.” It will be interesting to see tomorrow if these are still the statements candidates will stand by, or even if they address the situation at all.

                I chose this topic and researched many articles on this issue because of events that occurred today, February 27, 2012. For those uniformed individuals, a juvenile student today fired multiple gunshots in a school cafeteria at Chardon High School, injuring for four (three of which are in critical condition) and killing one Daniel Parmertor. While I own a hand-gun myself and also have my license to carry (thanks Dad), when situations such as this (Take time to remember Columbine and Virginia Tech) it makes me wonder if there are any laws that could prevent these things from happening. Unfortunately, I do not think that there are. I think the idea for gun control is good, but an unrealistic one. If we are to stay a country that allows its citizens to possess these weapons, then we also opening ourselves up to them falling into the wrong hands…whether it is illegal or not. Is that enough to make me want to give up my rights? I honestly do not know, because I feel that the persons people are truly afraid of are the criminals. By definition, I think it is important to remember though, that criminals don’t really have a respect for the law. I mean look at today, Ohio gun control laws prohibit use of hand-guns for persons under 21 and all firearms to a person under 18 (except for sporting use). Yet, a juvenile was somehow able to acquire one (I do suspect probably his home and not criminal activity...) and he went and shot up his school. Yes he was caught, and will suffer the consequences, but did the laws of gun control stop him? No.  So unfortunately, I think the whole situation is a catch 22. 

The Ranter and The Raver

Raised in a red state, it is no surprise that my parents raised me with a certain amount of conservative influences. Politically, this actually has not affected me as, what I presume, as many of the other children raised similar to me. In all actuality, I believe I was more influenced by a random substitute teacher I had when I was a sophomore in High School. As seemingly insignificant as my encounter with the man was, I can say it was the most infuriating day I ever had in sophomore English. For fifty minutes my fellow students and I were subjected to the ranting of an old man about how young people will never be able to run this country, his fears of not being taken care of, and how my generation will be the cause of the failure of this great nation. How dare he say such things! 
However, I do understand the foundations for his opinions; all you had to do was look around the room at the huddles of classmates not caring at all. In his mind, he was sitting in a room full of children that confirmed he was correct. I know when he looked upon me as well, that I had to be one of those frivolous children as well. Of course, no I was not. I remember being so angry at him throughout the class and the desire to prove the man wrong swelled inside me. However, I did not possess the time, tools, or ability to do so. This had made me even more frustrated and at 16 I vowed to find a way to prove this man wrong! This is typically the part where I would show my efforts and discuss how I was inspired to change the world, or something inspirational like that. Alas, that is not how my story goes. Two classes later I didn’t really give the man and his ravings another thought and I continued my day just like any other teenager would do.

Today, however, under the circumstances of a college government class, I am here with the hope of maybe making that wish come true. I hope as we each get to know one another through these blogs, that maybe those of you who had no interest, never watch the news, or who have never voted…experience the frustration that I felt when I was 16. That this makes you passionate and gives you the drive to write a senator (which I have done 4 times in my life and never received a response), vote (and actually have an idea what Joe Schmo on the ballot stands for…and not just the presidential candidates!), or even simply work on ironing out some of your feelings on hot topics (and even what you would like to be a hot topic).

Traditionally, I am aware that our country has been a two party system and today it is important and convenient when discussing local and national governments to disclose your party of choice to give a general idea about what your political ideology may be. I, however, do not consider myself a ‘republican’ or a ‘democrat’. I like to vote a split ticket, and I have learned that neither party will ever align exactly with the ideals I am for and against. On certain days I guess you could call me a conservative liberal and on others you could call me a liberal conservative. What you can call me for certain however, is a concerned citizen willing to do my part and who hopes that one day… she can make an old man rest easy that this generation was able to pull it off after all.