A response

After posting my blog discussing the Invisible Children, a student who-shall-not-be-named raised quite a stink. Although I assured him that I was not in fact against the charity or anything they stood for, but rather against their new Obama initiative, he still had more to say.

Him: "Do you not think genocide is a problem?"
Me: "Of course I think it's a problem. It's just not Obama's problem at this moment in time, since it isn't occurring in the country he actually has jurisdiction over."
Him: "We have the resources! We could help!"
Me: "Like we helped in Iraq, removing Saddam? Everyone seems to be so pleased about that intervention."
Him: After a pause, "Was there genocide in Iraq?"
Me: "He was gassing his own citizens."

After this short exchange, my adversary shut up, but I realized what misconceptions he was operating on. His belief was that, by removing Kony (the man in charge of the child army), we would save Uganda. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

My adversary is correct, we do have the resources to hunt down and capture Kony, although a time frame is vague. However, he fails to understand that capturing Kony is only the tip of the iceberg.

Again, using Iraq as an example, simply removing Sadaam Hussein was not enough. We hung him in 2006, and nearly four years later, we're still occupying the country. This is because simply removing the root of the problem is not enough, because we still have to save the rest of the tree. And American certainly does not have the resources for that.

Framed

Today during Mr. Coit's lecture stemming from our interest groups activity, he said the phrase "abortion group". I know he didn't mean it that way, but that's how people think of it. "Pro-" and "Anti-" abortion groups. And this led my thoughts to another phrase: political framing.

According to the Cathie Marsh Centre for Census and Survey Research, political framing is a schema of interpretation—that is, a collection of anecdotes and stereotypes—that individuals rely on to understand and respond to events. Basically, it is used by competing interest groups to make their contrast group look worse. That's why Mr. Coit's "Anti-abortion" groups call themselves "Pro-Life", seeing as life is generally something people enjoy. On the other end, "Pro-Abortion" groups (which is a misnomer, since most of the people in this category don't actually like abortion), call themselves "Pro-Choice", since choice is also has a generally positive connotation.

The reason I used the abortion issue as my example is because of the false political framing used. Sure, on the surface, "Pro-life" supporters seem like they uphold the "right to live". But let's look closer. Former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin proclaimed being Pro-Life back in November of 2006. However, she stated in that same month of that same year, this. "If legislature passed death penalty law, I would sign it. We have a right to know that someone who rapes and murders a child or kills an innocent person in a drive by shooting will never be able to do that again."

Did you catch the hypocrisy? No? Alright, let me lay this out for you with a rhetorical question. How can you be "pro-life" and also be pro-death penalty? The reason this is a rhetorical question is that you can't. "Pro-life" implies that you are against everything that would cause death; including, but not limited to, the death penalty, war, and the ability to euthanize dogs. Obviously, Mrs. Palin is not opposed to all of these things, thus making her not "pro-life".

I would argue that a more appropriate title would be "anti-abortion" (because "anti-choice" is a false frame as well, just biased in the other direction), but I can't support this assertion without also arguing against the term "pro-abortion". People who are "pro-choice" are not pro-abortion. I am personally pro-choice, but nothing short of rape or the threat of dying during childbirth would cause me to get an abortion. I think that getting an abortion for selfish reasons like forgetting to use a condom is disgusting, but I respect that a woman has the right to choose what goes on with her body.

In short, political framing, while somewhat useful in the world of policies, is annoying, and we should be more critical towards it. I don't care what your politics are, but just make sure the labels you place on them are truthful. Because if you can't stand behind an actual representation of your beliefs, then you may want to reexamine your beliefs.

Priorities

Today, after a unanimous decision, our AP Gov class decided to go watch the Invisible Children presentation in our auditorium. As we walked in to catch the end of the movie, volunteers handed out small slips of paper, with the words "Citizen's Arrest Warrant Joseph Kony". Turning the card over, I read on and discovered that the Invisible Children have a high reaching agenda.

"We ask President Obama to do three things:
1. Commit the United States to lead an international effort to arrest Joseph Kony and announce this strategy through a public statement by Christmas 2009.
2. Commit to sign into law and implement LRA Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009.
3. Commit to the recovery and rehabilitation of the LRA affected communities in Uganda, Southern Sudan, CAR and DR Congo."

Underneath these demands was a place to sign your name, zip code, and email address to pledge yourself to the cause. Invisible Children want to present the president with 250,000 of these by mid-December, almost like an initiative petition to get him to take a stand.

I, for one, did not sign this piece of paper. Rather, I kept it so I could fully explain why. And in just as many reasons as the Invisible Children have demands, I will elaborate.

1. As much as I respect what the Invisible Children people are trying to do, this new initiative is completely irresponsible. There are better ways to help these people, without jeopardizing our own country. Their bracelet and hand bag programs are two great examples, providing the people with jobs to help rebuild their lives. With this in mind, why do I think asking the president to make an active contribution to this cause? Simple, he has other, more important things on his plate. Barak Obama is the president of the United States, not Uganda. Therefore, his priorities lie elsewhere, in places that his jurisdiction actually gets things done. We have domestic problems that we need to solve before we can make this big of a commitment to another country.

2. Does no one remember the outrage when former president Bush went into Iraq? The original reasoning was to interfere with WMD creation, but we stayed to dethrone Sadaam Hussein and solve the mass of human rights violations occurring. If America commits to trying to "solve" Uganda's problems again and attempts to right all of Joseph Kony's wrongs, it's going to backfire. We were all for "saving Iraq" until we realized that it wasn't as simple as going in and taking the worst people away. It's going to be the same in Uganda. Americans have a very short attention span; if Uganda isn't "cured" in three months, they will label Obama as a failure and an idiot. Sound familiar?

3. Obama is already being stretched too thin. Health care reform advocates are pushing him to pass health care legislation; gay rights activists are pushing him to support the LGTB community; Wall Street is pushing him to pull us out of a recession. Forcing him to take a stand on Uganda will only make him less effective. Stop badgering the President for a while and let him actually get something done. The more we put on his plate, the less he eats.

You win some, you lose some

We all remember the heartbreaking defeat of equality in California when Proposition 8 was passed, banning gay marriage after ruling it to be legal only a few months before. Another thing that stands out about that decision was the driving force behind the measure; the Mormon Church. They went door to door with pamphlets about "defending traditional marriage", and their efforts paid off. "Traditional" marriage was upheld.
However, in a surprising reversal, according to the Associated Press, "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced it would support proposed city laws that would prohibit discrimination against gays in housing and employment."
This has created an uproar on both sides; the original gay activists are rejoicing in this support while other conservative religious groups have lashed out, attacking the Mormon church on the ridiculous grounds that they're only doing it for public relations.
"Supporting basic civil values," Michael Otterson, director of public affiars for the Mormon church, said, "does not compromise the church's religious belief that homosexuality is a sin and that same-sex marriage poses a threat to traditional marriage."
And to this I say, good for them! While their former allies may be right about the support being a public relations issue, it doesn't matter. Support for equality is support, and those on the "pro-gay agenda" should tack this one as a win.
One thing to note, though, is that there are strings attached. Again, according to the Associated Press, "The position is not a reversal, Otterson said. In August 2008 the church issued a statement saying it supports gay rights related to hospitalization, medical care, employment, housing or probate as long as they 'do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.'"
What the Mormon Church still remains to see is that gay marriage does not effect them or the integrity of marriage at all. Churches even now have the ability to deny marriage to people, regardless of gender. There are other means to be married, like being married by a Justice of the Peace. (Fun fact: I learned this first from A Series of Unfortunate Events by Lemony Snicket)
Marriage is no longer an exclusively spiritual connection; it is also a legal union, or, even more simply, a union based purely off of love for your partner. And quite frankly, I don't see anything wrong with love. As the Beatles, my highest authority on all things, so famously sang, all you need is love.

Additional link:
Examiner.com

Tweet, Mr. President!

As an advocate and compulsive user of some of the most popular social networking sites on the internet, finding celebrities using the same services often makes me giggle. When Miley Cyrus deleted her Twitter, an estranged fan created mileysavefuzzy.com, where she threatened to kill and eat her cat if the teenager pop star didn't come back to the new SNS phenomenon. Fun fact: She has even posted a collection of potential recipes for the doomed kitty.
This made me wonder, however, what would happen if the White House were to ever pull out of such social media website.
What would we do without "tweets" such as "Tradition. Video of Obama planting a tree on WH grounds, photos of a couple others from over the years" and "Photo gallery: White House Halloween, First Lady as Catwoman"? Without the YouTube videos of the first lady advocating healthier diets, how would I connect on a personal level with my policy makers?
These realizations led me to a decision; if the White House were to ever take down their Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube accounts, I will saw off my own arm and stir fry it with brown rice.
But in all seriousness, although I commend the White House for attempting to reach out to the younger generations, I don't think Michelle Obama as Catwoman is really the most important domestic issue at the moment.
Maybe the administration should stop "tweeting" and start reading the Health Care bill. Maybe it's just me and my public school brainwashing, but where I come from, we generally try to read a book before telling everyone we like it.

Related (and admittedly fun) Links:
http://www.youtube.com/user/whitehouse?blend=1&ob=4
http://twitter.com/whitehouse
http://mileysavefuzzy.com/recipes.html

If you’ve ever taken an American history class, whether it was AP or back in 8th grade, you’ve heard of the Prohibition. And if you’re even half way attentive to the world around you, you’ve noticed the rising drug problem that has infected our cities. In Colorado alone, in 2001, 455 kilograms of marijuana, 206 kilograms of cocaine, two kilograms of heroin, and 54 kilograms of meth were confiscated from citizens. (ncbuy.com)The trend is rising steadily, thanks to an increase of foreign drug trafficking. Also in 2001, 216 Clandestine Factories were shut down. Sixteen billion dollars was spent on this “war on drugs” nationally in 2007, and after all of that and more, in 2009, America is still wasting its money.

That sounds insensitive, doesn’t it? I’m sure many people’s lives have been saved from drugs through the 40 years of “fighting”, but that doesn’t excuse the extreme vacuum of resources that are required to continue the “battle.” I mentioned the Prohibition earlier, but what does the 18th amendment have to do with drugs? Everything. Here’s a quick history lesson. The 18th amendment to the Constitution, the illegalization of alcohol, was ratified in 1919. Up until it was considered null and void with the 21st amendment in 1933, there was a 41% increase in drinking-related arrests, and thousands of people were sent to jail for frequenting speakeasies, or illegal alcohol bars. By the end of the “Roaring Twenties”, gangster Al Capone controlled 10,000 speakeasies in Chicago. Historians don’t deny the link between the Prohibition movement and the rise of organized crime. Once the 21st amendment was ratified, however, the government was able to tax alcohol, resulting in monetary gain from someone’s vice while at the same time having a better chance at controlling the “problem”.

Now, with no more “moral cause” to combat, America has turned to drugs. Look at the stats in my first paragraph. Drugs are being confiscated left and right. But what does the government do with them once they’re relieved of their original owners? They study the drugs to determine what they are, seal them for evidence, and destroy them. That’s ridiculous. On March 2 of last year, Homeland Securities seized $113,000 worth of marijuana in Texas. In one bust. That is $113,000 dollars, untaxed, that the government is going to destroy. I don’t know about you, but I’ve noticed a little something called an economic recession that we should probably be looking into. Not only would legalizing drugs, or at the very least, marijuana, allow the federal government to make money through taxes, but they would also be able to legally control the distribution. That’s a win-win situation.

But let’s look at another issue, death. In 2000, annually, tobacco, which is a legal substance, amounted for 435,000 American deaths. Alcohol was close behind at 85,000. All illicit drug use, either directly or indirectly, caused 17,000. Marijuana, however, was marked at zero. “Marijuana alone has not been shown to cause an overdose death,” asserts the US Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration. Look at those numbers. Firearms, pulling in at 29,000 deaths annually, “out-kill” drug-related deaths. Is this really a war worth fighting? As soon as the Prohibition ended, organized crime, and the deaths that came with it, decreased. (StudentAid.ed.gov)

So what is the real American killer? Drugs? Or the laws making them illegal? When President Obama was still a Senator, back in 2004, he told the country that "The war on drugs is an utter failure." Now that he’s in office, he’s already passing laws to revoke the 40 long years of intense drug fighting. “Raids by the federal government on legally sanctioned medical marijuana facilities will become a thing of the past,” says Health News Online. Although the new President is only tackling one side of the issue, medical marijuana, it’s still a step in the right direction. Maybe after a few more months in office, he can convince the public that it is in our favor to “join ‘em”, since we can’t seem to “beat ‘em”. Because once we join them, we can, as the saying should be extended to, “control and tax them for our own benefit”.

Related Links:

http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20091109/OPINION10/91108005/1004/OPINION/Forget-about-S.B.-94--it-s-time-to-legalize-marijuana

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/us/28pot.html

I'm glad we're still "the land of the free"

Yesterday, Maine voted down gay marriage. This is a sickening blow to LGBT supporters everywhere, especially after the fall of California just last year.
I understand that it isn't the federal government's place to pass legislation for the legalization of gay marriage, the same way as it isn't their place to legalize marijuana. I get that. States rights are very important, and I am in full support of less national government. But let's think about this for a second.
Interracial marriage wasn't deemed legal until 1967, but previous to the Supreme Court case that made it law, states like Washington, New Mexico, and Maine passed it within their states. In fact, only 16 states hadn't passed it before Loving v Virginia made it national law.
Upon the court's decision, they stated this. "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
What I don't understand is why this same argument doesn't apply to same-sex couples. Just because they don't have a specific amendment in the Constitution allowing them to vote doesn't mean that they shouldn't have the same rights to marry.
Currently, gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire. Five states. We have a while to go before getting to the point of where interracial marriage was when it was made law.
But what I want to know is why no same-sex couple has brought their case to the Supreme court. They'd have the ability, especially if they were married legally in Connecticut and then moved to Nevada, hoping to get the same legal recognition. Obviously, they wouldn't, but this violates the constitution. Specifically, it violates Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.
Judicial proceedings? According to Legal-Dictionary.com, judicial proceedings are "any action by a judge". From the same website, a marriage license is "a legal document giving official permission to be married". Therefore, any state not recognizing two legally married persons from another state as married is unconstitutional, and therefore illegal.
My government teacher told me something about "definitions" when I asked him about this, but that doesn't change the fact that it is in the Constitution.
There is no reason anyone should be against the legality of gay marriage. Sure, morally some people may have a problem with it, but since the law deals with justice and not morality, keep your morals to yourself and let the rest of us live according to our personal beliefs.

Related Links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/us/30maine.html
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2009/11/06/Gay-marriage-opponents-wont-give-up/UPI-22651257519042/