Blog Stage 8 - Comment on Classmate's Blog

Are you sad? I'm sad. This is my last assignment. I get the feeling that I'll still post when something is grinding my gears though. And here we go:

-------------------
Comment on Sarah's "Political Prowess"
Blog 7: Let 'Em Search Us
I agree with Sarah that this is a violation of constitutional rights and an assault on the poor, but my bleeding heart liberalism only goes so far. These people are trying to get money from the government, so by proxy they are almost employees of the government. When I got my job, I had to be drug tested, and I could be randomly tested again if they wanted to. I'm not amused by that, but I also don't do drugs so I have nothing to fear. If I didn't like that rule though, I could go work somewhere else without drug testing (sure I wouldn't get paid as much). It is my option. These people applying for welfare could go get a job somewhere and not depend on the government who will take the liberty to hassle them as much as my boss takes the liberty to hassle me. True, my boss wouldn't dare to illegally search my house, but I provide a service and am not taking a free ride on the taxpayer's dime.
The government is insuring that their investment is not going to waste, even if they are being total bastards about it.

Old Poll, New Poll. Sunrise, Sunset.

Just for posterity:
Should America offically mandate English as the National Language?
-Of course! And if you can't speak English, get the hell out! 4 votes
-Limiting our spoken language to English only defeats the purpose of being a culturally rich melting pot 7 votes
-...what do you mean it isn't? 1 vote
-We should throw out all languages and create a new worldwide spoken language 1 vote
Total Votes: 13

This is another Lindsay v. Berry argument. I don't hate people because they don't speak English. I also don't hate people who come to America and don't speak English. I hate the people who come to America to live and refuse to learn English. I know English is not the national language, and we will never elect it so, and I'm okay with that too. I just have no idea why you would go to another country and plan to stay there and not take the time to learn the predominate language. If you just wanted to visit and poke around, that's completely understandable, but jesus! It gets my goat.

Anyway, the new poll reflects my latest assignment in class, and not a L v. B argument. YAY!

Blog Stage Seven - Original Editorial

...just another person telling you how to vote.

The news on CNN and USA Today presented an announcement for the people who want to care about politics, but don't have the time, so they wait someone "smarter" and "more informed" to tell them what to do. No, no, they didn't introduce the parent going into the voting booth with their children feature, but they did announce that Chuck Norris threw his support behind Mike Huckabee and Oprah Winfrey is officially supporting Barack Obama.
It disgusts me that society is so far gone that they are depending on pop culture figures and failed journalists, ahem, I'm sorry, talk show hosts to tell you who to vote for. I knew with Oprah it would happen sooner or later, I just wasn't sure if she would support Hillary or Barack. But Mike Huckabee getting Chuck Norris?
From Mike Huckabee for President:


I have deep, personal issues with Oprah, yes, but she is on top of things 51% of the time so her vouching for a campaign is completely understandable. But, once again, CHUCK NORRIS?
The man only knows roundhouse kicks and beard maintenance!

I'm getting away from myself. Here is the point:
Society needs to learn how to research and make decisions for itself, especially in regards to policy, candidates for any electable office (raise your hand and tell me if you know what the Texas state Railroad Commissioner does. That's what I thought, and you elect someone to that spot every time it comes around), and any facet of our government. George Clooney wants people to care about Darfur, so they do. Leonardo DiCaprio wants you to care about global warming (and only recently has accepted that it's called "climate change"), so they do. These are serious issues that need attention, but... you know... "what can one person do? Darfur is really far away and I love my SUV even if Leo has pretty eyes."

Chuck Norris wants people to care about Mike Huckabee, so now millions of frat boys everywhere who live their lives by the Chuck Norris Facts are actually going to go vote and get a inbred-looking, wall-eyed, gun nut into office.

Good work, Hollywood. Thanks for stepping in.

Pat Sajak gets it. Why doesn't she?

Blog Stage Six - Comment on a Colleague's Work

Comment on Matt Hausmann's "Politics Pocket"
Original article found here: "Colbert is serious, but so was Reagan."

Mr. Hausmann, you are missing the point, in more ways than one.

First: Stephen Colbert is in no way, shape, or form seriously running for president.
Colbert is 100% satire. His purpose in life is to hold a mirror up so everyone can see how silly all of us are. His "run" for presidency is no more serious than CC Goldwater & Stephanie Miller's run for the presidency. I'm trying to think of ways that he could be considered serious, and that can only be if EVERY person in the nation lost their sense of humor and thus lose their understanding of what is going on.

Second: "It probably has something to do with his consistent criticisms of the Bush administration and conservatism."
...what?
I don't know if you've ever seen his show or read Colbert's interviews but he only critiques liberals. Sure, he mocks conservatives, but never in words, only in mannerisms. Colbert is know to ask people he is interviewing, "George W. Bush: Great president, or GREATEST president?"

Third: Colbert knows that even if he won the presidency, his career would be extremely short lived. His television career will last much longer than any political career. He just wants everyone to see how silly campaigning is, that is all this is about. There is nothing to be afraid of here... except that even if Colbert did win, he would more than likely do a better job than whoever gets elected for real.
That's scary.

dammit.

I tried to go vote, but by the time I got there, the line at my precinct was WRAPPED AROUND the building of the school and there was no way I could have waited. goddamit. I didn't see early voting anywhere, but I really wanted to vote against prop. 15. Not that I hate people with cancer, but the proposed plan isn't good enough. The money wouldn't go to where it's needed and that pisses me off.

Also, I wanted to vote against the transportation bonds (prop. 12) because it's more of Texas refusing to find a decent plan for our roads (even though I would vote for a proposition that would throw every person who wasn't 1) born here, or 2) been a resident here for more than 10 years, or 3) married someone who is one of the aforementioned criterion, out of the state which would help the traffic problem quite a bit)... seriously... Mike Krusee is the biggest brain dead waste of space moron ever. Please, god, please... Vote him out of office Williamson County! I hates him, Precious.

Other things I was looking forward to voting on:
Prop 1. - FOR.

Prop 2. - Very much FOR.

Prop 3. - FOR.

Prop 4. - So AGAINST it hurts! What the eff are you people thinking over there in that beautiful pink granite building? Did you live under powerlines as a kid?!

Prop 5. - eh. Doesn't really affect me, but could help someone else out. FOR.

Prop 6. - AGAINST. Stop giving money away to people who don't need it. kthxbai.

Prop 7. - FOR, even though they shouldn't have to buy their land back, they should just get it back from the dirty land snatching bastards.

Prop 8. - Once again... could be of use for someone else and doesn't really affect anyone 'cept greedy corporate bastards. FOR.

Prop 9. - FOR. Them fellas deserve it.

Prop 10. - Huh? I don't even know what this is, or really understand it. What I do know is that the last thing we need is ANOTHER position in our state government. AGAINST.

Prop 11. - FOR. Easy man.

Prop 13. - I want to be for this, but being that a personal friend of mine is considered a domestic abuser for the most ridiculous circumstances ever, I'd hate for someone in his position to be affected. AGAINST.

Prop 14. - Stop trying to help your buddies stay in power. AGAINST.

Prop 16. - Wastewater services are very important. This should go without saying. FOR.

Blog Stage Five - Original Editorial

Which Rights Are Important?

In 1993, 18 year old Jose Medellin (now 32 years old) was a participant in the brutal rape and murder of 14 year old Jennifer Ertman and 16 year old Elizabeth Pena. He and the other four members of his gang attacked the two girls as they were walking home through TC Jester Park in Downtown Houston. All of the members of the gang were prosecuted and sentenced to death. One of the murderers in this case has been executed by the state but all of the other members have gotten stays of execution due to being a minor at the time of the crime or, in Jose's case, being a Mexican national.
Jose has lived in Texas since childhood (There is some discrepancy about when he moved to Houston. According to reports he came over when he was 6 years old, but he claims he was 9 on his penpal request site), was schooled here, used resources and rights as though he was an American, and committed a crime here. Mexican citizen or no, the basics of the American law system are covered in our elementary, middle and high schools, which he had attended at every level.
Though Jose had his Miranda Rights read to him, the police did not inform him that he had a right to speak to the Mexican consulate. I personally was not aware that the police force in Houston needed to be required to know the ins and outs of international law so they would be able to inform an illegal citizen-cum-murderer of his rights. Anyhow, Jose claims on those grounds that he deserves a retrial. The state of Texas denied him a retrial as he never asked for assistance throughout his initial trial.
This case has gone up the ranks and was before the Supreme Court of the United States at the beginning of October. While the case was before the court, President Bush, former governor of Texas, made a statement that had sided with Medellin. Texas is of course fighting back and the case will not be decided until early next summer.
While this has become an excellent discussion of state's rights, my larger concern at the moment is why an illegal immigrant is allowed to murder the legal residents of the country he's crashing in? If an American citizen traveled to another country, murdered someone there, and then CONFESSED TO IT, I would think that they should be held up to the highest law of the land. Their citizen was killed after all. If tables were turned, there would be hell to pay.
The fact that the consulate was not contacted did not come to light until 10 years after the death sentence ruling was made... I'd say that the statue of limitations for complaints was up on that one.
My biggest problem has to do with length of time in the states. If Jose was a visitor, here on the weekend, or something of the like, I would be in complete support of the consulate stepping in and defending him. However, the man lived in the United States for the better part of his life, and it's not like we keep it secret how much the state likes killing people who kill other people around these parts.

For more information on this case, Google "Jose Ernesto Medellin", or check out some of my research:
NPR's Nina Totenberg
ABC News
Fox News (to be fair)
Oyez-The Supreme Court Media

Blog Stage Four - Editorial Critique

The Tobacco Tax
Washington Post
10/17/2007

In response to the Washington Post's article on... well, who knows what it's about? Its meandering writing goes from being anti-smoking to being anti-Bush for not passing the bill to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) with little segue and the only point it seems to make is that apparently President Bush must support smoking and the tobacco companies because he didn't pass the bill due to "the legislation would raise taxes on working people".
The argument made in the editorial (and what a long and winding road we took to get there) is the expansion would be funded by a steep raise in the taxes on cigarettes, steep being 61 cents per pack, and the veto would not enforce this price hike therefore no funding for SCHIP.
First and foremost, President Bush and his administration are hiding behind the working people he does nothing for in the first place. There can be many avenues taken to fund SCHIP... I have one... cut down on war spending. Crazy notion, I know. But, since he is hiding behind the working class and not wanting to raise the price of the cigarettes they apparently so desperately cling to, that is the game we’ll play.
Now I’m meandering as much as the fair editorial writer.
The editorial has its stance: it's mad about the SCHIP expansion being vetoed. But is it mad about smokers and their evil smoking? Is it mad at Bush because he uses the working class as a scapegoat? One cannot tell. This has an initial aim of discussing the dangers of smoking and how raising cigarettes taxes would cause a drop in smokers, but then goes on to talk about how we need the money from smoking to support and pay for SCHIP. Would that not defeat the purpose? If sin taxes from cigarettes are the only way to pay for the expansion and then we eliminate the smokers by pricing them out, what are we going to do about SCHIP?
Maybe we can have kids start smoking at a young age and then they can die of lung/throat/lung cancer and emphysema before anything really bad gets to them, since they won’t have insurance to help them. At this point I am as confused as the writer, but I know I'm mad too. I just don't know what I'm mad about anymore.

Poll 2 Results!

Just for posterity:
What do you think of the Electoral College?
-Outdated! Get rid of it. It only causes problems. 10 votes
-Keep it! Tradition is tradition. 1 votes
-...so what is an electoral college? 3 votes
Total Votes: 14

Me and ye olde fiance (Berry) go back and forth on this subject for daaaaaaaaaaays. He firmly believes that it will set the government on it's ear if you allow the people to actually vote for what they want, because "the electoral system provides a layer of stability to the government, in times of changeover which is needed and it also represents the rights of states to continue to choose their electors how they wish and distribute those electoral votes as they see fit."

I say, this is a good argument... for the early 1800's. We've also been having this debate off and on for the past seven years. Apparently, neither of us will break.

Blog Stage Three - Editorial Critique

Re: Gun Games in the Senate

The New York Times is notable for its high-minded approach at all issues written in editorials. Its target audience of liberal city-dwellers forces subjects to lose a certain amount of objectivity in the name of slight sensationalism for issues such as gun control.
The article seems to be siphon for personal rage at the negligence of the Senate for not passing a bill through fast enough, and then the bill ultimately being blocked by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK). There is not much in the way of an argument, and the little that is presented is unclear of what the writer wants to accomplish. The most tangible thesis that can be gleaned from this is that the writer believes that actions should be taken to speed up the process of bills passing through Congress. Luckily enough, to compensate for the lack solid argument, the writer does not waste the reader's time by trying to manipulate any group of people in particular to change their minds to match the writer's own beliefs. Solid facts are used to support the writer’s cause for rant. Nothing is specifically quoted, but substantial piece of evidence are brought forward to prove that the editorial is justified.
The conclusion seems to have put together an idea that a new law should be created every time a new travesty towards your fellow man is committed. The law that was so callously brought down by Sen. Coburn was to eliminate the loophole in gun control laws that allowed Seung-Hui Cho to purchase the guns he used in the Virginia Tech Massacre. The root of the argument there is that Cho was not included on the list of citizens not allowed to purchase firearms due to mental instability because he was under outpatient mental treatment rather than in-patient.
There is no doubt in my mind that stricter measures should be taken about who should and should not own a gun, but I will always oppose a law that was created and rushed to ease the troubled minds and souls who turn to the government for all of their answers. Knee-jerk, reactionary legislation is how Americans wound up with the Patriot Act, and if even another month was spent on that "miracle" of Congress my fellow countrymen would not have to worry about who was listening to the other end of their phone call.

New Blog - comin' up

So for my Stage Three Blog Assignment I am to do the following:

Substantial commentary or criticism #1 (Due: October 3, 2007)
Write a substantial (250-500 words) commentary or critical analysis of an article (news, editorial, or commentary) about U.S. national government from one of the Suggested Sources. Post your commentary or criticism to your blog.

Well... I am not a fan of critical analysis, because I'm a live-and-let-live, you-do -your-thing-I'll-do-mine sort of person. I'll rant about the stuff I care about, but I don't wanna sit around and tear apart someone else's philosophy. The most I'll get into is "That's dumb" or "How can you think that?" but I can't bring myself to going further.
...also... critical thinking hurts... oh, the wrinkles in my brain are flattening! Just kidding.

Either way, my point for this was warning:
My next blog is me doing a Devil's Advocate thing. Some of it I'm into, but not all of it. I still encourage people to comment and let me know what they think. I like to hear about what is on your mind.

Polls!

So, I think my first poll went okay. A new one will be up for another two weeks, so don't forget to vote!

Just for posterity:
Should literacy tests be brought back to be allowed to vote?
-Yes! Voters should be able to be informed by more than TV before voting! 3 votes
-Eh... sure voters should be more informed, but they shouldn't have to pass a test to prove it. 3 votes
-No! Bring back a poll tax too if you want to keep disenfranchising voters. 3 votes
Total Votes: 9

The reason I even bothered to ask is because I was wondering... what is worse? Someone who doesn't vote, or a voter who doesn't know what is going on in the world. I'm sure there are all points of gray areas to be covered, but I feel like an uninformed voter is worse. At least someone who doesn't vote isn't pulling something either way, but there are some jackasses that will go and vote straight ticket out of obligation and not pay attention to the world they are creating by doing so.

That felt good. I'm gonna make another poll now and then resume writing my english paper.

Wiretapping Wednesday!

Bush Asks Congress to Extend NSA Program


This article is a fascinating look into the current wiretapping laws and how President Bush is working to make a temporary law permanent. Though the Bush Administration claims that "the law will not result in domestic surveillance without a court order," that language is very mutable for whatever they would need it to fit. Also, I do not imagine that it would be hard for the US Government to draw up a court order for anything they might need. I believe that this is a good and pertinent read, especially because many people do not know about the government approved wiretapping much less the current state of it.

What are we doing in Iraq?

My friend Lucas Molandes answers many questions you might have about politics. This is crude as hell, but so on point. The beginning and the end are about politics, and the middle is... well... Lucas doing what he does. Enjoy!


2007 Just for Laughs New Faces - Lucas Molandes

Add to My Profile | More Videos

Hi!

Welcome to my blog assignment for my US Government class. The first few blogs will just be my rundown of some articles about politics, but later I'll be able to get into more interesting stuff. Please take my poll and thanks for stopping by!

-Lindsay