PropH8 Update

Back in 2008, if anyone remembers, California legalized gay marriage and found itself with an influx of couples traveling there to finally exchange their vows. But mere months later, voters ratified Proposition 8, which banned it once again.

Now, a heated trial has commenced over the constitutionality of the act, which effectively defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

According to the Associated Press, "The trial — the first in federal court to examine if the U.S. Constitution prevents states from outlawing same-sex marriage — has been on hiatus since late January, when Walker said he wanted to review the evidence before scheduling closing arguments."

There has been much controversy over the trial, even amidst the already controversial issue of gay marriage. Most experts agree that regardless of the ruling in the California Supreme Court, the debate of gay marriage will soon reach the federal circuits, and the federal Supreme Court.

Matt Coles of the Huffington Post had a few thoughts on possible Supreme Court rulings. "First, you can take a pure constitutional law perspective. As I said before, most constitutional lawyers think that discrimination based on sexual orientation should not be treated as generally constitutional. If the Court were to agree, it would be unlikely to uphold the marriage exclusions. But it’s not as if this is the only way to read the Constitution. There is a constitutional theory that says that all discrimination except discrimination based on race, maybe alienage, and sex should be treated as generally constitutional (the idea is that the 14^th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection, was really about race; most of the folks who subscribe to this view wouldn’t include sex either, but that constitutional ship sailed a long time ago). For the last 30 years or so, this narrow view of what kind of discrimination the federal Constitution prohibits has been doing better in the Supreme Court than the broader view. But there are times when the Court seems to be trying to chart a somewhat broader course."

The 14th Amendment's text is this: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Now, from where I sit, it looks as though Prop8, and other laws like it, are clearly abridging the privileges of US citizens and depriving them of equal protection of the laws. I don't know about the Supreme Court, but it seems to me that this issue is pretty clear.

Libert(arianism)y

To most of the people I know, I am considered liberal. In Gov, I'm considered a moderate, or sometimes even a republican. But none of these things is true.

Alright, so maybe "moderate" is a bit better description, but it still doesn't encompass the entirety of my viewpoints. It's too vague.

According to the Libertarian Party website, libertarianism asserts that "support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties."

Essentially, being a libertarian means you're fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I support both capitalism and equality of marriage. I support both the free market and pro-choice policies.

I consider the libertarian belief to be based solely in logic. Something is considered logical when, according to Princeton University, it is "marked by an orderly, logical, and aesthetically consistent relation of parts", or when it is reasonable, which, to clarify, is to be fair and showing sound judgment.

The opposite of a free market society, which is something libertarians support, is a socialist society. Socialism is "an economic system that has transcended commodity production and wage labor, where economic activity is carried out to maximize use-value as opposed to exchange-value, including in its definition a corresponding change in social and economic relations; such as the organization of economic institutions and resource allocation;often implying advocacy for a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended."

Basically, socialism is paying everyone the same amount of money regardless of their skill level or qualifications.

Tell me, how is this a reasonable system? Logically, a business would want the best employees, and a successful CEO deserves the money his hard work has earned. Of course, not everyone in a capitalist or free market society deserves their money, but a lot less people are undeserving under this system than there would be in a socialist or communist system.

Moving on. On the social side, I'll pick gay marriage as my issue. Logically, allowing two men or two women to be legally married hurts no one, changes nothing about the social fabric of the country (since there are gay couples living openly everywhere), and destroys no sanctity of the institution. (My sanctity argument can be paraphrased as such: SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE)

Libertarianism fights for what is logical and reasonable in society, and I hope that someday its political party can make it into the bid presidential debates.

This is the end

Since this is my last blog for the quarter, I figured I'd look into my political archives to see what to talk about. And to my nostalgic glee, I found an old debate case about the French healthcare system.

French healthcare is championed as one of the forerunners of affordable, universal healthcare. But there are some significant problems with this assessment.

In the French system, it is more expensive to see a specialist than a general practitioner, it is more expensive to have a home visit, and even more expensive to see a doctor at night, on Sundays, or on public holidays. The cost of the French system overall is boasted to be cheaper by half than the United States, but France also has 240,939,860 less people than the United States. That's a lot less people to cover. Also, if their healthcare spending continues at this rate, France will be 70 billion euros in debt by the end of 2020.

That doesn't sound like much fun. Now, the debate case I'm pulling bits of information from digresses into a discussion of the Japanese health care system, which it believes is much more efficient. Let's have a look, shall we?

In Japan, universal health coverage is divided into two categories; National Health Insurance and Employee's Health Insurance. National Health Coverage covers workers in agriculture, forestry, or fisheries, those that are self-employed, and those not employed, including expectant mothers, students, retirees, etc. Employee Health Insurance covers people who are working for medium to large companies; national or local government; or private schools. There is also a government-managed program within this plan for employees of small businesses. Premiums are based on monthly salary (excluding bonuses) and half is paid by the employer, half by the employee. The average contribution is around 4% of the person’s salary. Those covered under Employee Health Insurance pay 20% of their medical costs when hospitalized and 30% of the costs for out-patient care. Co-payments may also be required for prescription drugs. Costs are shared by the patients up to a certain ceiling, after which they receive full coverage. In case of long-term illness, the patients or the patients’ spouse receive an allowance based on their salary; in case of death, an allowance for the funeral is also paid.

Costs covered in part of in full by health insurance include in- and out-patient care, home care, and dental care; prescription drugs; long-term care expenses; home nursing expenses for the elderly; prosthetics; and cash benefits for childbirth.

Now, I'm not completely sold on this whole universal healthcare idea, but it's interesting to consider.

A Concession

“It is my hope that one day we will no longer need affirmative action. As our society becomes more diverse, the need for specific programs aimed at targeted groups will obviously diminish. However, that time has not yet arrived.” -Charles J. Ogletree Jr.

Although my last post was a bit critical of the affirmative action program, I have some concessions that I'd like to make in its favor.

Many problems with the old affirmative action policies have been remedied. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke was a Supreme Court decision in 1978 that upheld affirmative action but declared quotas, or prescribed numbers of minority students and workers, were unconstitutional. Quotas are often cited as the most racist components of affirmative action policies, and because they are no longer constitutionally legal, modern affirmative action can’t be criticized on that basis.

Ok, fine. Quotas are out of the picture.

If the government tried to appease every individual in America, nothing would get done. But by focusing on the community, we are able to better serve the needs of the whole.

A noted educational authority, Alexander Astin, conducted a national four-year longitudinal study of student outcomes that surveyed 25,000 undergraduates at 217 four-year colleges and universities. Based on this study, Astin concluded that “emphasizing diversity either as a matter of institutional policy or in faculty research and teaching, as well as providing students with curricular and extra-curricular opportunities to confront racial and multicultural issues, are all associated with widespread beneficial effects on a student's cognitive and affective development.”

Anthony P. Carnevale, vice president for public leadership at the Educational Testing Service, extended this idea with research of his own. “Diverse work groups and customers are not only inevitable, they also are more efficient, flexible, and creative at a time when the intensity and complexity of organizational life and economic competition reward these behaviors the most.”

Even with all this in mind, however, I still hold by my original point. Affirmative action programs are inherently racist. The only way we can truly get rid of racism is to stop acknowledging it.

I have a dream

“I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

For one final tournament, I am debating Public Forum. And much to my chagrin, the topic is as follows.

Resolved: Affirmative Action to promote equal opportunity in the United States is justified.

Let's just get something straight at the get-go.

Affirmative Action: A policy or program providing advantages for people of a minority group who are seen to have traditionally been discriminated against, with the aim of creating a more egalitarian society through preferential access to education, employment, health care, and social welfare (Princeton)

Equal opportunity: the right to equivalent opportunities for employment regardless of race or color or sex or national origin. (Princeton)

Look it up. These are legitimate definitions, and as you can see, they are in complete contradiction with each other. How can you be fair and balanced in employment giving preferential treatment to a certain group of people?

Oh. Hah. Right. You can't.

Affirmative action was introduced to end racism, but it’s actually serving to extend it. Thus, the original intent of the program is clearly not working, and we need to look to other options, because current options aren’t doing enough to promote equality.

One option may be extended off of popular Comedy Central parody news show host Stephen Colbert’s catch phrase. “I don’t see race. I am colorblind to race.”

According to Syracuse University, affirmative actions programs “are significant barriers to the establishment of a racially-blind meritocratic society. Justice for all requires the end of affirmative action.” Until we understand that affirmative action is just as racist as poll taxing and the court ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson, we cannot achieve the ambitious race-less viewpoint of Stephen Colbert.

And just to clear up any logical fallacies, affirmative action, while also being racist, doesn't actually help the minorities it was created for. According to Stanford Magazine, “Take, for instance, the claim that racial preferences help the "disadvantaged." In reality, as the Hoover Institution's Thomas Sowell has observed, preferences primarily benefit minority applicants from middle- and upper-class backgrounds. At the same time, because admissions are a zero-sum game, preferences hurt poor whites and even many Asians (who meet admissions standards in disproportionate numbers). If preferences were truly meant to remedy disadvantage, they would be given on the basis of disadvantage, not on the basis of race.”

Don't Even Try It

New York Times: "Three Google executives were convicted of violating Italian privacy laws on Wednesday, the first case to hold the company’s executives criminally responsible for the content posted on its system. The verdict, though subject to appeal, could have sweeping implications worldwide for Internet freedom: It suggests that Google is not simply a tool for its users, as it contends, but is effectively no different from any other media company, like newspapers or television, that provides content and could be regulated"

Just try it, America. If someone starts trying to regulate the internet... I swear to you that you will have a full fledged revolution. I will be leading it.

"The Italian move to hold the company or its executives responsible for text, photographs or videos made available by third parties through Google and its online services, like YouTube, poses a significant challenge to the company’s business model, along with those of other Internet companies."

NOT. OK.

Toyoda's Toyotas

BAM. See what I did there?

So Toyota's been in the news a lot recently because of the whole faulty break issue. Today, the owner was finally in court to discuss what to do.

According to the Wall Street Journal, "The hearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee was the second of three planned by Congress on Toyota's safety crisis, which has prompted the Japanese car maker to recall more than eight million vehicles world-wide for unintended acceleration, brake problems and other issues."

That's a lot of cars.

Now, I don't exactly think a bunch of hearings is going to do much good. I mean, this guy probably had nothing to do with the issue in the first place. Do you think Mr. Toyoda is down there, up to his elbows in oil, makin' cars? No. I think Mr. Toyoda is sitting in a Japanese mansion, rolling in a pile of money.

But his company sent out eight million faulty cars, so it is his responsibility to fix the problem. I just think the government is doing it wrong.

I mean, according to Reuters, "Under a program announced by state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, the U.S. arm of Toyota Motor Corp promised expedited repairs and other "special accommodations" to New York residents who bought Toyota vehicles from dealers in that state."

They are paying heavy reparations for the mistake. They are redoing the cars. Let's open up the courts for important things.