Medical Marijuana

So the reason the recent bill did not pass was because their were too many grey areas and questions about where the money would go apparently. I'm not sure of my view on this because there are many things to be considered.  For example what are the benefits? Would it really help the economy that much? Are the statistics for people over 20 that would buy the marijuana high enough for us to bring in enough money? I suppose we can observe Arizona and how the legalization will effect them and their economy. Maybe that will provide more answers for us.

Filibustering

Filibuster is the term used for the tactic of freebooting a debate. Personally i do not think this really serves a point because filibustering does not guarantee a different vote outcome. The whole idea of just talking and talking until the quarum is resolved seems rather silly to me. I feel as if this is a juvenile way to to prove that someone disagrees with the bill or is obviously against it. Overall, they are just postponing what needs the resolution of issues and stopping work for our country from being done. I mean what positive outcomes have come from it?

Warantless Wire-tapping

While this is surely a controversial subject, i stand with others in opposing it. I do not believe that our government should invade our privacy without warrants. I mean is it really that hard to obtain a warrant and for what purpose should they avoid it? Laziness? Just like no one would want to be recorded without knowledge or good reason behind it, i don't think anyone should be listened to like that. Overall this is an issue of our rights as citizens and humans as well as the fundamentals of the constitution. I just don't believe that any justification can be found for this issue because when there is a right way to go about something, such as warranted wiretapping, you cannot defend yourself for going the wrong way out of pure laziness or to avoid conflict.

Executive Privelage

I think the term "executive privelage" is a kind way of saying the president has the power to keep any government documents or information, private. Which is overall, slightly confusing. How do we decide which information the president can keep private rightfully and the information that our country should know. Basically, when should it be applied and who can apply it? Apparently the current president may hold this power , as well as "a former president during whose term an allegedly privileged document was created", which i suppose is understandable.
A recent example of this power is Obama declaring he will not use executive privelage as far as the Kagan nomination. Yet it also known that certain documents pertaining to will be kept private because of national security concerns. So, I'm not quite sure if i grasp the whole idea of this privelage just because it seems as if there can be special circumstances and we can never truely know the intentions behind why it is used..? Thoughts?

TSA

Transportation Security Administration -  created as part of a security act passed by Congress, and signed into law by Bush in 2001.

The head of the TSA has recently acknowledged that the airport pat downs have been very invasive to travelers and more than uncomfortable lately. Travelers have been complaining that these pat downs have been targeting private areas and are concerned with their privacy. At some airports travelers must decide between this aggressive method or a full body scan. What do you think? Are these methods good for us or should the government find alternatives. The American Civil Liberties Union is looking into this as it is a problem of security and invasion of privacy. One spokesman said they were concerned that this could be seen as apart of constant efforts to invade privacy and wondered if these methods were actually effective. There have been recent videos of bad reactions to the pat downs and many complaints that the procedure was more violating and aimed towards privates than necessary. Thoughts?

Wall Street Reform

Obama has recently released a proposal for a Wall Street Reform. While like every proposal there are areas in which are good and areas in which can be improved, it seems as if the majority thinks this proposal is benificial just because of the issues it draws attention to as well as the general ideas it proposes. This proposal revolves around 5 key ideas:

(1) Promote robust supervision and regulation of financial firms.
(2) Establish comprehensive supervision of financial markets.
(3) Protect consumers and investors from financial abuse.
(4) Provide the government with the tools it needs to manage financial crises.
(5) Raise international regulatory standards and improve international cooperation.

We are in the middle of a financial crisis. Are these 5 ideas enough and if they are established and enforced how much improvement will there actually be? Is this just the beggining of some sort of draft, because these ideas are too general and not enough to save us or is this the beginning of a brighter future under Obama's presidency? These are questions that will hopefully be answered soon.

Eminent Domain

Eminent Domain: The right of a government to seize private property for public use, in exchange for payment of fair market value.

Eminent Domain has surely rubbed many people the wrong way throughout history and the popular debate continues to resurface...is the power of Eminent Domain being abused? While there are people who do not agree with the whole idea just because they do not want to lose their property, there are many who are more understanding with it, that is as long as the cause is good and morally right. I say morally right because there have been many cases where eminent domain has been used just to increase tax revenue, rather than for good public use reasons. These are the cases that draw our attention to the power abuse behind eminent domain. We must draw clear lines around eminent domain and whether the fifth amendment supports them or not. For example, the Kilo vs. New London case. That case sought answers from the supreme court to the following:
What protection does the Fifth Amendment's public use requirement provide for individuals whose property is being condemned, not to eliminate slums or blight, but for the sole purpose of "economic development" that will perhaps increase tax revenues and improve the local economy?

This question surely stimulates the mind and reminds us to put ourselves in the shoes of those who have lost their homes to eminent domain unfairly. How would you respond if it was you? Speaking for myself, i would be upset and respond very strongly. So my conclusion is that the government must help us find a solution to this problem revolving around eminent domain because after all, it's there job to establish justice ..isn't it?

Don't Ask, Don't Tell..Don't Repeal?

"Obama has made choices identical to those that would have been made by the Bush Administration." Jon Turley, a law expert at George Washington University, stated after hearing about Obama's decision to not repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. It certainly is confusing how Obama is acting towards perhaps one of issues he most advocated for in the past. Obama pledged to end the policy, and once the opportunity came he turned it down. Many debate whether it is important or not how a person goes about accomplishing a goal, just as long as it is accomplished. I would say it is important. I would argue that yes, morals and reasoning are very important behind reasoning when it comes to reaching a goal, such as repealing this act. Yet, one must make their reasoning clear. Hopefully, Obama does come to justify himself and bring about clear reasoning rather than more confusion like he has done thus far.

Jerry Brown vs. Meg Whitman

After learning that a police group was considering endorsing Meg Whitman, one of Jerry Brown's staffords accused Whitman of being a "whore". Was this said because the news was a shock to Brown's team? It seems interesting to me because with this particular police group Whitman promised protection of their pensions, where as Brown promised little. So to say that response was appropriate is clearly wrong. That vile language should never be used in politics. While Brown apologized in the debate, Whitman answered no when asked if he had previously apologized which shows how little he cared on a personal level. As result of this slur though, Brown must fire any person on his staff who uses that derogatory language. So overall how has this incident effected the election? This incident has nothing to do with important issues that need to be addressed by future governors. If this incident has swayed many votes though, we must pay closer attention to how much of elections are based off of public perception rather than who is more fit by their actions and views..

Gerrymandering

How can gerrymandering (dividing voting districts so as to give an unfair advantage to a certain party in  elections) be justified? While i understand that this is just another way to advocate for a particular party, i believe that the manipulation used in this process is just short of fraud..to be put rather bluntly. I just feel as if this issue is often overlooked because it has become hard to hold politicians accountable for their underhanded actions..but we must. We need to stop the power grab and protect voters and the electoral process. To do so i think it would be smart to vote yes on Prop 20 so that the voter-approved Citizens Redistricting Commision, not politicians, will draw congressional districts. For example, Sacramento politicians still draw California districts so that their friends in Congress are basically guaranteed reelection. We need to pass Prop 20 to prevent this. Furthermore, it would also be wise i feel to vote no on Prop 27, because it is another blatant example of a political power grab. Overall, i think it is obviously unfair for politicians to draw their own election districts because they do so only to protect their jobs.

Blog #1 (p.84)

I believe that my family has affected my approach to politics immensely because they have in no way pushed their political views on me or held certain expectations for my opinions. Rather, they have always given me freedom to think what i want and believe in what i want. That said, they have always encouraged me to find reason for such thoughts and beliefs as well as be mindful of differing views. That has probably been the most encouraging thing they have done for me because that is what has caused me to be constantly mindful of differing views and open to expanding my own.

One issue that particularly interests me is the environment. Right now it is known that is declining, but i wonder sometimes if we are doing enough to make it evident. I just feel as if we , as a country, could do so much to help it and take care of but a lot of us continue to neglect it for very plain and simple reasons such as laziness. In order to resolve an issue, we must care enough for it. So for now, we should be conscious of our actions towards the earth because of the detrimental damage we can do and also, we need to do our best to care and bring about more awareness and alternatives.

Voting Age

After a lot of consideration, i have come to the conclusion that maybe it wouldn't be that terrible if voting age were to be lowered. While i think we must be mindful of how young is too young, i think if it were to drop by one or two years that would be acceptable. If you think about it, most teenagers around the age of 16 or 17 can legally drive, be charged for a crime, go to work and even get married with parental consent in some cases. I think that lowering the voting age has a greater potential of helping our country rather than hurting it if we take into consideration the falling voting rates of people between the ages of 18 to 25 that have occurred recently. Maybe by starting earlier, people will find voting to become more of a habit and on top of that be more encouraged to seek out their political opinions.