This was an article in The Deseret News.
The article summarized the new opposition to arbitrary sentencing for nonviolent drug offenders by both sides of the ideological spectrum. It talked about how the costs of our prison system have increased dramatically over the past few years and how new, shorter sentencing times could alleviate some of those costs, as well as eliminate a policy that they feel remove judges' discretion with sentences as well as generalizes the non violent drug offense population too much. It also referenced President Obama's pressing of the issue by commuting the sentences of eight drug offenders.
Part of me feels like this whole thing is more about cutting spending than really addressing a sentencing problem, but bipartisan support suggests that perhaps there is some merit to the new initiatives. A lot of noise has been made as well about the overcrowding of prisons as well as prison spending, so perhaps shortening the prison sentence for relatively insignificant crime is a prudent action for the time being.
The other part of me feels a kind of paranoid insecurity at the prospect of shorter sentencing times. Drug crimes aren't ones to be taken lightly (although not analogous to violent crimes like rape and murder). If spending needs to be cut then I can think of several programs that seem much lower on the totem pole than law enforcement and incarceration. Shaving a little off of our massive military budget might not hurt us, at least, not as much as the potential negative repercussions from reducing incarceration times.
Comments are appreciated.
Saturday, January 4, 2014
Poverty After 50 Years
This was an article in The New York Times.
This article reviewed some of the progress that has been made since LBJ declared war on poverty. It gave some statistics on the lackluster gains made by some of the initiatives. It compared and contrasted contemporary economist's views on the reality of the statistics, some saying that the government's statistics haven't acknowledged the gains made by things such as food stamps and education initiatives, and others saying that there is still quite a bit more do do. It also reviewed modern day demographics, such as the fact that four out of 10 black children live in poverty as well as three out of 10 Hispanic children, more children are being born out of wedlock and are being raised by a single parent, and, according to one study done in 2011, 1.7 million homes were living on about $2 a day per person in the household. In contrast, malnutrition and infant mortality rates have dropped while college completion has increased, and millions of women have entered the work force.
Poverty is still a significant problem today. I don't think any one really disputes that. The article outlined arguments for eliminating poverty, such as increasing the minimum wage, increasing early education initiatives (a solution that has wide benefits regardless of poverty levels, in my opinion), or increasing incomes straight across the board. The question that has been swirling around in my mind a lot lately is, is it alright to take from the rich and give to the poor? I know that this question makes a simplistic and incomplete summary of the issues at hand, but I can't be the only one who has considered it.
The two biggest injustices that perpetuate this philosophical dilemma are the existence of poverty and necessity of choice. Do I think that it is alright to have any kind of poverty while we have such wealth in our country? Kind of seems dystopian, a societal illness if you will, to me. Do I think that any initiative that forces people to make the right decision rather than choose it for themselves is ethically acceptable? Nope.
So what do we do? We can't hold the 1 percent at gunpoint while they spill their pockets, but, like Pope Francis said in his recent Papal Exhortation, how is it that old, homeless men can freeze to death without anyone taking notice, but when the stock market loses two points everyone loses their minds? I'm paraphrasing (you can look it up, if you want to -- it's on the internet).
I'm reminded of a great chapter from one of the best books out there.
There's a wise, old king talking to his people before he dies. After he tells his people to love the Messiah, he tells them to love each other and to teach their children to love each other. He tells them to help people that need it, even if they feel like those people don't deserve it.
"And also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish.
"Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just --
"But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God."
At this point some of you might be saying, "That one percent worked for all of their money." First of all, philosophically, work has a vague saturation point that is decided by the rarity of work, the ownership of work, the quantity of work, and so forth. On a basic level, work is decided by energy expended. There is no specific work-to-earnings ratio that is acceptable, but the more and more someone earns for a certain amount of work, the harder it becomes to justify, especially when put in comparison to others work-to-earnings ratios.
Watch this video before you continue. It's only a few minutes. Ethan has used it in one of his older posts.
So, now that you've seen the horrific, skewed nature of wealth in this country, you've got to be at lease a little uneasy about the justice of the one percent. The more and more the person receives for his labor, the harder and harder it gets to justify those earnings. I thought it was interesting to consider how, using that basic definition of what work is, a CEO would have to work 380 times harder than his average employee to wholly justify having truly worked for all of that money. Of course, now your saying, "But we can't just give that money to the poor. They worked even less for it." Like work has a saturation point, it has a inherent, basic value. A value that merits living above the poverty level in every circumstance. Now you're saying, "But some people don't work and just take advantage of us." Well, frankly, that's for God to judge. Not us. Either way, the injustice of those few people taking advantage of the system versus a few people sitting on bank accounts that would have made Carnegie weep is considerably less.
The one percent possess the ability to pull every single American that is below the poverty line to living standards. Just like that. Poof. They also have the ability to do so without really losing any assets that their wealth could have provided them.
Think of it like blankets. We have some people who are freezing to death. We also have some people who are rolling around in so many blankets that they are visible from space. If that person were to give even, say, a tenth of their blanket behemoth, they would never notice, because you only need so many blankets to stay the cold. My guess is that the outer blankets aren't even doing anything for them. Before you think I've gotten lost in the metaphor, let me transition. What is the one percent going to do with that cash anyways? Stare at the mountainous stacks of it and watch it sway in the breeze? Now you're yelling at me in a fit of Laissez Faire rage, "They would earn interest on it!" Woop-De-Doo. Now the useless stack of cash is even bigger.
Now, your more sensible and philosophical friend is telling me, "Well that's a personal liberty that you have no right to take away." Your stupid, brilliant friend is right. And that is the only thing preventing liberal commandos from breaking down Warren Buffet's gilded doors to take his solid gold swimming pool filled with gold coins and giving it all to the poor.
So do I think it's okay for us to take from the rich and give to the poor, just because the rich can foot the bill? No. Do I think that it's okay for the rich to not foot the bill just because they don't have to? No, not really.
So what is the ultimate justice that can be done? Everyone, not just the one percent (but I'm still giving them an especially heated stare), can give. Why, you say?
Let's return to that old king. Here's where he delivers the kicker.
"For behold, are we not all beggars? Do we not all depend upon the same Being, even God, for all the substance which we have, for both food and raiment, and for gold, and for silver, and for all the riches which we have of every kind?"
Look, even if you don't believe in the God that the old king speaks of, are you not a beggar? Did you not have teachers who stiffed poor salaries to teach you how to be successful? Did you not eat the food that came from some mid-western farm? Did you not enjoy goods crafted by unskilled hands in some minimum wage factory? Did you not, like all of us, take something from society? If you forget that principle then you are more dead-weight to our country than the poor you so abhor.
Comments are appreciated.
This article reviewed some of the progress that has been made since LBJ declared war on poverty. It gave some statistics on the lackluster gains made by some of the initiatives. It compared and contrasted contemporary economist's views on the reality of the statistics, some saying that the government's statistics haven't acknowledged the gains made by things such as food stamps and education initiatives, and others saying that there is still quite a bit more do do. It also reviewed modern day demographics, such as the fact that four out of 10 black children live in poverty as well as three out of 10 Hispanic children, more children are being born out of wedlock and are being raised by a single parent, and, according to one study done in 2011, 1.7 million homes were living on about $2 a day per person in the household. In contrast, malnutrition and infant mortality rates have dropped while college completion has increased, and millions of women have entered the work force.
Poverty is still a significant problem today. I don't think any one really disputes that. The article outlined arguments for eliminating poverty, such as increasing the minimum wage, increasing early education initiatives (a solution that has wide benefits regardless of poverty levels, in my opinion), or increasing incomes straight across the board. The question that has been swirling around in my mind a lot lately is, is it alright to take from the rich and give to the poor? I know that this question makes a simplistic and incomplete summary of the issues at hand, but I can't be the only one who has considered it.
The two biggest injustices that perpetuate this philosophical dilemma are the existence of poverty and necessity of choice. Do I think that it is alright to have any kind of poverty while we have such wealth in our country? Kind of seems dystopian, a societal illness if you will, to me. Do I think that any initiative that forces people to make the right decision rather than choose it for themselves is ethically acceptable? Nope.
So what do we do? We can't hold the 1 percent at gunpoint while they spill their pockets, but, like Pope Francis said in his recent Papal Exhortation, how is it that old, homeless men can freeze to death without anyone taking notice, but when the stock market loses two points everyone loses their minds? I'm paraphrasing (you can look it up, if you want to -- it's on the internet).
I'm reminded of a great chapter from one of the best books out there.
There's a wise, old king talking to his people before he dies. After he tells his people to love the Messiah, he tells them to love each other and to teach their children to love each other. He tells them to help people that need it, even if they feel like those people don't deserve it.
"And also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish.
"Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just --
"But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God."
At this point some of you might be saying, "That one percent worked for all of their money." First of all, philosophically, work has a vague saturation point that is decided by the rarity of work, the ownership of work, the quantity of work, and so forth. On a basic level, work is decided by energy expended. There is no specific work-to-earnings ratio that is acceptable, but the more and more someone earns for a certain amount of work, the harder it becomes to justify, especially when put in comparison to others work-to-earnings ratios.
Watch this video before you continue. It's only a few minutes. Ethan has used it in one of his older posts.
So, now that you've seen the horrific, skewed nature of wealth in this country, you've got to be at lease a little uneasy about the justice of the one percent. The more and more the person receives for his labor, the harder and harder it gets to justify those earnings. I thought it was interesting to consider how, using that basic definition of what work is, a CEO would have to work 380 times harder than his average employee to wholly justify having truly worked for all of that money. Of course, now your saying, "But we can't just give that money to the poor. They worked even less for it." Like work has a saturation point, it has a inherent, basic value. A value that merits living above the poverty level in every circumstance. Now you're saying, "But some people don't work and just take advantage of us." Well, frankly, that's for God to judge. Not us. Either way, the injustice of those few people taking advantage of the system versus a few people sitting on bank accounts that would have made Carnegie weep is considerably less.
The one percent possess the ability to pull every single American that is below the poverty line to living standards. Just like that. Poof. They also have the ability to do so without really losing any assets that their wealth could have provided them.
Think of it like blankets. We have some people who are freezing to death. We also have some people who are rolling around in so many blankets that they are visible from space. If that person were to give even, say, a tenth of their blanket behemoth, they would never notice, because you only need so many blankets to stay the cold. My guess is that the outer blankets aren't even doing anything for them. Before you think I've gotten lost in the metaphor, let me transition. What is the one percent going to do with that cash anyways? Stare at the mountainous stacks of it and watch it sway in the breeze? Now you're yelling at me in a fit of Laissez Faire rage, "They would earn interest on it!" Woop-De-Doo. Now the useless stack of cash is even bigger.
Now, your more sensible and philosophical friend is telling me, "Well that's a personal liberty that you have no right to take away." Your stupid, brilliant friend is right. And that is the only thing preventing liberal commandos from breaking down Warren Buffet's gilded doors to take his solid gold swimming pool filled with gold coins and giving it all to the poor.
So do I think it's okay for us to take from the rich and give to the poor, just because the rich can foot the bill? No. Do I think that it's okay for the rich to not foot the bill just because they don't have to? No, not really.
So what is the ultimate justice that can be done? Everyone, not just the one percent (but I'm still giving them an especially heated stare), can give. Why, you say?
Let's return to that old king. Here's where he delivers the kicker.
"For behold, are we not all beggars? Do we not all depend upon the same Being, even God, for all the substance which we have, for both food and raiment, and for gold, and for silver, and for all the riches which we have of every kind?"
Look, even if you don't believe in the God that the old king speaks of, are you not a beggar? Did you not have teachers who stiffed poor salaries to teach you how to be successful? Did you not eat the food that came from some mid-western farm? Did you not enjoy goods crafted by unskilled hands in some minimum wage factory? Did you not, like all of us, take something from society? If you forget that principle then you are more dead-weight to our country than the poor you so abhor.
Comments are appreciated.
Friday, January 3, 2014
Nuns versus Obama Administration
This article came from "The Washington Post."
The title might be a little misleading. The situation is a little more passive than a cage fight.
The article outlined an interesting issue. The Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, contains a provision that requires employers to provide coverage to their employees for contraception. A Catholic non-profit organization, the Little Sisters of the Poor, has objected to the provision. They argue that the provision violates the protection guaranteed by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Obama Administration has stated that the organization doesn't require protection because the organization can easily exempt itself from the provision. The Nuns say that the exemption would merely differ the contraceptive cervices to a third party that would then be reimbursed by the government. They say that it is an equal violation of their religious beliefs to compel someone else to sin on their behalf. They say that they are essentially given the option of violating their religious beliefs or receiving a fine. The article then went on to show the same objections being raised by for-profit organizations: Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties, the latter of which was denied exception.
I admit I have a pretty significant bias when it comes to this issue on multiple levels. Ultimately, I have to side with the nuns, as well as other religious organizations.
First of all, I think that Obama is shooting himself in the foot by including a contraceptive provision to the ACA. It's sort of the same issue that plagued the GOP when the government shutdown, only on a smaller scale. Why would you include such a controversial provision into an otherwise reasonable idea? It only fosters more resistance to the bill and prevents the other benefits of the bill from being employed. It seems to me that first passing Obamacare without the provision would enable the more fundamental elements of the bill while fostering a little more support that the bill would with the provision. Then the contraceptive provision could be addressed as a secondary issue while the greater part of the ACA would be in action. The only reasons I can think of that the contraceptive provision would need to be included in the initial bill are A) President Obama sees contraceptives as an inherently essential part of medical well being and/or B) the provision wouldn't be passed otherwise. Both of these lead me to my next objection.
I don't think that contraception is in any way essential. Perhaps I am forgetting a fairly obvious and essential purpose of contraception, and if that is the case then please comment below, but I don't quite understand why contraception equates to things like regular check-ups, immunizations, and other preventative and restorative cares. Generally, a pregnancy (outside of situations like, say, rape) involves a considerably larger amount of choice than say, getting strep-throat does. An argument could be made for the importance of contraception within a marriage, but the prevention of impregnation as a result of extramarital relations is totally nonessential. To require those who object to sexual conduct outside of a traditional marriage, whether those objections originate religiously or not, to provide a service that would remove the natural consequences of those relations is completely inappropriate. A provision that differentiated between the coverage of married and unmarried persons might alleviate some of the objections, but the legislation required to create that provision on a national scale is probably unrealistic. Even then, however, many religions regard any use, by married persons or not, of contraception as immoral.
I understand the subjectivity of morals and I realize that it is equally immoral to impose my morals onto somebody else. If you believe that extramarital relations are acceptable, then I respect the ability for the two of us to have different beliefs. That being said, I feel like this contraceptive provision does the opposite of that, by imposing contraceptive services onto organizations, both non-profit and for-profit, that object to contraception.
Comments are appreciated.
The title might be a little misleading. The situation is a little more passive than a cage fight.
The article outlined an interesting issue. The Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, contains a provision that requires employers to provide coverage to their employees for contraception. A Catholic non-profit organization, the Little Sisters of the Poor, has objected to the provision. They argue that the provision violates the protection guaranteed by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Obama Administration has stated that the organization doesn't require protection because the organization can easily exempt itself from the provision. The Nuns say that the exemption would merely differ the contraceptive cervices to a third party that would then be reimbursed by the government. They say that it is an equal violation of their religious beliefs to compel someone else to sin on their behalf. They say that they are essentially given the option of violating their religious beliefs or receiving a fine. The article then went on to show the same objections being raised by for-profit organizations: Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties, the latter of which was denied exception.
I admit I have a pretty significant bias when it comes to this issue on multiple levels. Ultimately, I have to side with the nuns, as well as other religious organizations.
First of all, I think that Obama is shooting himself in the foot by including a contraceptive provision to the ACA. It's sort of the same issue that plagued the GOP when the government shutdown, only on a smaller scale. Why would you include such a controversial provision into an otherwise reasonable idea? It only fosters more resistance to the bill and prevents the other benefits of the bill from being employed. It seems to me that first passing Obamacare without the provision would enable the more fundamental elements of the bill while fostering a little more support that the bill would with the provision. Then the contraceptive provision could be addressed as a secondary issue while the greater part of the ACA would be in action. The only reasons I can think of that the contraceptive provision would need to be included in the initial bill are A) President Obama sees contraceptives as an inherently essential part of medical well being and/or B) the provision wouldn't be passed otherwise. Both of these lead me to my next objection.
I don't think that contraception is in any way essential. Perhaps I am forgetting a fairly obvious and essential purpose of contraception, and if that is the case then please comment below, but I don't quite understand why contraception equates to things like regular check-ups, immunizations, and other preventative and restorative cares. Generally, a pregnancy (outside of situations like, say, rape) involves a considerably larger amount of choice than say, getting strep-throat does. An argument could be made for the importance of contraception within a marriage, but the prevention of impregnation as a result of extramarital relations is totally nonessential. To require those who object to sexual conduct outside of a traditional marriage, whether those objections originate religiously or not, to provide a service that would remove the natural consequences of those relations is completely inappropriate. A provision that differentiated between the coverage of married and unmarried persons might alleviate some of the objections, but the legislation required to create that provision on a national scale is probably unrealistic. Even then, however, many religions regard any use, by married persons or not, of contraception as immoral.
I understand the subjectivity of morals and I realize that it is equally immoral to impose my morals onto somebody else. If you believe that extramarital relations are acceptable, then I respect the ability for the two of us to have different beliefs. That being said, I feel like this contraceptive provision does the opposite of that, by imposing contraceptive services onto organizations, both non-profit and for-profit, that object to contraception.
Comments are appreciated.
ACLU Sues Government Over NSA Surveillance
This was an article from "BBC."
This article reported on the recent lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union against the US government. The ACLU wants more details on the NSA's overseas surveillance program and the executive order that established it. They previously lost a case in which they argued that the NSA's surveillance activity violated the Constitution. The judge over-ruled their appeal on the grounds that the massive amounts of data being monitored by the NSA is only being used to disrupt terrorist activities.
I feel like I am more ambivalent than most on the issue of the NSA's surveillance program. I didn't quite feel the vociferous outrage that a lot of my peers did when the program was exposed. Frankly, I don't feel my rights to privacy are all that compromised and I don't feel like my ability to conduct my life according to my own will has been inhibited at all. I mostly feel a sense of apologetic sympathy for the poor NSA technician that has to wade through all of my boring telephone calls and emails. Maybe I'll start using more trigger words like "nuclear purge" just to give them something to do.
The article talks about how the massive body of digital data moving within our population would inevitably be tapped by the government. I agree that the inevitability of it seemed obvious, and that the methodology by which they've begun to monitor it seems equally inevitable.
The most insidious element of this whole thing is the way the government is beginning to encroach on civil-liberty violations. Do I care that someone is listening to every time I call my grandparents or reads all of the emails I send to my teachers? Not particularly. Do I care that this program might be setting a tone for the expansion of future morally-ambiguous domestic policies? Yeah, more than I care about someone sitting in a cubicle getting to know my late-work emails intimately.
I think that the government actually hasn't ventured that far from their designated powers. If there is quantifiable evidence that the program is being useful in the disruption of terrorist activities, then I have no problem with the monitoring. If it isn't, I would be more worried about wasted tax-dollars than the potential violation of personal liberties. There hasn't been any evidence that the gathered information is being used to unjustly subjugate American citizens. I think that particular allegation is born more out of misplaced government suspicion and paranoia that any realistic concerns.
Perhaps I am forgetting a fairly obvious point. If so, feel free to leave it in the comments.
This article reported on the recent lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union against the US government. The ACLU wants more details on the NSA's overseas surveillance program and the executive order that established it. They previously lost a case in which they argued that the NSA's surveillance activity violated the Constitution. The judge over-ruled their appeal on the grounds that the massive amounts of data being monitored by the NSA is only being used to disrupt terrorist activities.
I feel like I am more ambivalent than most on the issue of the NSA's surveillance program. I didn't quite feel the vociferous outrage that a lot of my peers did when the program was exposed. Frankly, I don't feel my rights to privacy are all that compromised and I don't feel like my ability to conduct my life according to my own will has been inhibited at all. I mostly feel a sense of apologetic sympathy for the poor NSA technician that has to wade through all of my boring telephone calls and emails. Maybe I'll start using more trigger words like "nuclear purge" just to give them something to do.
The article talks about how the massive body of digital data moving within our population would inevitably be tapped by the government. I agree that the inevitability of it seemed obvious, and that the methodology by which they've begun to monitor it seems equally inevitable.
The most insidious element of this whole thing is the way the government is beginning to encroach on civil-liberty violations. Do I care that someone is listening to every time I call my grandparents or reads all of the emails I send to my teachers? Not particularly. Do I care that this program might be setting a tone for the expansion of future morally-ambiguous domestic policies? Yeah, more than I care about someone sitting in a cubicle getting to know my late-work emails intimately.
I think that the government actually hasn't ventured that far from their designated powers. If there is quantifiable evidence that the program is being useful in the disruption of terrorist activities, then I have no problem with the monitoring. If it isn't, I would be more worried about wasted tax-dollars than the potential violation of personal liberties. There hasn't been any evidence that the gathered information is being used to unjustly subjugate American citizens. I think that particular allegation is born more out of misplaced government suspicion and paranoia that any realistic concerns.
Perhaps I am forgetting a fairly obvious point. If so, feel free to leave it in the comments.
President Tightens Gun-Owner Background Checks
This was an article from "The Huffington Post."
The article outlined some of President Obama's plans to strengthen background checks. According to "The Huffington Post,"
"According to materials provided by the White House, some states have raised concerns about ambiguous wording that makes it difficult to determine who should be barred from purchasing a gun. The first proposed rule change, by the Department of Justice, expands the definition of the statutory term 'committed to a mental institution' to clarify that the prohibition on firearms purchases applies to people subjected to involuntary outpatient as well as inpatient commitments.
"The rule also clarifies that 'adjudicated as a mental defective' and 'committed to a mental institution' include persons who are found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect; persons lacking mental responsibility or deemed insane; and persons found guilty but mentally ill, regardless of whether these determinations are made by a state, local, federal or military court."
The article also mentioned that a White-House official told "The Huffingtion Post" that this is only the first step in a series of actions designed to combat gun violence. The official brought their attention to "a recent move to spend $100 million on mental health services."
I think this is a great move by the President to not only do something about gun violence, but to do so in a compromising manner. When I read this, I thought of Kyle's recent suggestion that stiffer background checks would be a better solution to gun violence than revoking gun rights. The article in which he suggests so can be found here.
I agree that increasing the ability to differentiate between a responsible gun-owner and a erratic, potentially violent person would be valuable, regardless of your position on gun-control. While I do recognize the nebulous nature of psychological illness, I think that we still haven't pushed gun-restrictions to match the full capacity of our knowledge (albeit, limited) of what defines mental illness.
Either way, I feel like the White House has been too quiet as of late, even with regards to other issues. I am pleased that the President is acting, whether or not his actions are effective.
Comments are appreciated.
The article outlined some of President Obama's plans to strengthen background checks. According to "The Huffington Post,"
"According to materials provided by the White House, some states have raised concerns about ambiguous wording that makes it difficult to determine who should be barred from purchasing a gun. The first proposed rule change, by the Department of Justice, expands the definition of the statutory term 'committed to a mental institution' to clarify that the prohibition on firearms purchases applies to people subjected to involuntary outpatient as well as inpatient commitments.
"The rule also clarifies that 'adjudicated as a mental defective' and 'committed to a mental institution' include persons who are found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect; persons lacking mental responsibility or deemed insane; and persons found guilty but mentally ill, regardless of whether these determinations are made by a state, local, federal or military court."
The article also mentioned that a White-House official told "The Huffingtion Post" that this is only the first step in a series of actions designed to combat gun violence. The official brought their attention to "a recent move to spend $100 million on mental health services."
I think this is a great move by the President to not only do something about gun violence, but to do so in a compromising manner. When I read this, I thought of Kyle's recent suggestion that stiffer background checks would be a better solution to gun violence than revoking gun rights. The article in which he suggests so can be found here.
I agree that increasing the ability to differentiate between a responsible gun-owner and a erratic, potentially violent person would be valuable, regardless of your position on gun-control. While I do recognize the nebulous nature of psychological illness, I think that we still haven't pushed gun-restrictions to match the full capacity of our knowledge (albeit, limited) of what defines mental illness.
Either way, I feel like the White House has been too quiet as of late, even with regards to other issues. I am pleased that the President is acting, whether or not his actions are effective.
Comments are appreciated.
Abortion and Constitutional Violations
This article came from "The New York Times." It had a noticeable liberal bias, but presented its information and evidence accessibly, and the bias didn't get in the way of the article.
The article illustrated the movements against abortion-access in the past three years and attributed a lot of the pro-life momentum to state legislation. The article argued that the legislation has, in many cases, violated the terms set in Roe v. Wade. The article concluded with a statement from Jennifer Dalven, the director of the reproductive freedom project at the American Civil Liberties Union, that suggested that state policies reflect policies set up prior to Roe v. Wade.
First of all, I don't want this post to turn into an abortion debate. My views on abortion match those defined by the LDS church, which can be found here. I am perfectly fine talking about what I believe in regards to abortion and why, but I don't feel that A) the comments section of my blog is the best place to discuss it and B) that any ensuing debate with regards to abortion will be productive.
The first thing that I want to address is the states rights versus federal power conflict that is prevalent in this issue. A basis for federal intervention in this issue is the idea that reproductive rights are universal and shouldn't fluctuate from state to state. In contrast, a basis for state control in this issue relies heavily on the heterogeneous set of morals within our country. Utahans tend to view abortion differently than, say, New Yorkers. I understand that there are more than just these two arguments when it comes to the States v. Fed element of abortion, and would love some comments on them.
The second thing that this article made me think of was the way we view the Constitution and the violation thereof. Forgive the nasty generalization that is about to follow. Americans, as a whole, have shown a certain degree of tolerance for violations of the constitution. Ex: The Emancipation Proclamation was arguably a pretty flagrant violation of the Presidential Powers defined by the Constitution. That being said, many of Lincoln's contemporaries as well as a majority of present-day Americans view the document as one of the most important in American history. The Emancipation Proclamation actually affirmed the ultimate goal of the Constitution, which is to ". . . secure the Blessings of Liberty . . . ." So, Americans tend to accept Constitutional violations that they see as catalysts of this goal.
I think the biggest complications in the issue of abortion come when Americans are inevitably forced to reconcile both their moral views as wells as their personal degree of tolerance for Constitutional violations. For example, someone who believes that the life of the fetus begins at fertilization might be in favor of violating the terms defined by Roe v. Wade because they see the violation as a further assurance of the fetus's right to life. Someone who believes that the life of the fetus begins at fertilization but doesn't have any degree of tolerance for Constitutional violations might be against legislation that would violate the terms of Roe v. Wade, and would instead advocate judicial review of the 1973 decision in hopes that the ruling might change. I haven't even included the opinions that someone who was Pro-Choice might have.
Once again, I don't want to have a moral debate on abortion, but would love comments about States versus Fed, Constitutional violations, and so forth. Thanks.
The article illustrated the movements against abortion-access in the past three years and attributed a lot of the pro-life momentum to state legislation. The article argued that the legislation has, in many cases, violated the terms set in Roe v. Wade. The article concluded with a statement from Jennifer Dalven, the director of the reproductive freedom project at the American Civil Liberties Union, that suggested that state policies reflect policies set up prior to Roe v. Wade.
First of all, I don't want this post to turn into an abortion debate. My views on abortion match those defined by the LDS church, which can be found here. I am perfectly fine talking about what I believe in regards to abortion and why, but I don't feel that A) the comments section of my blog is the best place to discuss it and B) that any ensuing debate with regards to abortion will be productive.
The first thing that I want to address is the states rights versus federal power conflict that is prevalent in this issue. A basis for federal intervention in this issue is the idea that reproductive rights are universal and shouldn't fluctuate from state to state. In contrast, a basis for state control in this issue relies heavily on the heterogeneous set of morals within our country. Utahans tend to view abortion differently than, say, New Yorkers. I understand that there are more than just these two arguments when it comes to the States v. Fed element of abortion, and would love some comments on them.
The second thing that this article made me think of was the way we view the Constitution and the violation thereof. Forgive the nasty generalization that is about to follow. Americans, as a whole, have shown a certain degree of tolerance for violations of the constitution. Ex: The Emancipation Proclamation was arguably a pretty flagrant violation of the Presidential Powers defined by the Constitution. That being said, many of Lincoln's contemporaries as well as a majority of present-day Americans view the document as one of the most important in American history. The Emancipation Proclamation actually affirmed the ultimate goal of the Constitution, which is to ". . . secure the Blessings of Liberty . . . ." So, Americans tend to accept Constitutional violations that they see as catalysts of this goal.
I think the biggest complications in the issue of abortion come when Americans are inevitably forced to reconcile both their moral views as wells as their personal degree of tolerance for Constitutional violations. For example, someone who believes that the life of the fetus begins at fertilization might be in favor of violating the terms defined by Roe v. Wade because they see the violation as a further assurance of the fetus's right to life. Someone who believes that the life of the fetus begins at fertilization but doesn't have any degree of tolerance for Constitutional violations might be against legislation that would violate the terms of Roe v. Wade, and would instead advocate judicial review of the 1973 decision in hopes that the ruling might change. I haven't even included the opinions that someone who was Pro-Choice might have.
Once again, I don't want to have a moral debate on abortion, but would love comments about States versus Fed, Constitutional violations, and so forth. Thanks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)