Re: "Keep your laws out of my body"

This post is in response to Evan's blog concerning abortion. I agree that someone's sexual and reproductive rights are their own, and are not to be dictated to them by a government. The Supreme Court set the precedent of privacy in Griswold v. Connecticut, and backed it up in Roe v. Wade. The Women's Rights movement in this country is still very young. We are underrepresented in every level of government. It is scary to think that the majority of those who are making laws-- abortion laws in particular-- do not own a womb and will never know what it's like.

Abortion has been a controversial option of birth control for a long, long time. It needn't be such a divisive issue. I truly think it comes down to the question of equality. If having intercourse caused a man to develop a life-sucking tumor in his abdomen, he would be able to cure it. Women should have the option to decide whether or not to keep the tumor. The lines get blurry as to when the government has a stake in the wellbeing of that tumor. At some point, it can survive without the mother. The tumor then deserves all of the protections of its government.

Also, studies in population growth show a decline in birthrate when young girls are educated to the 4th grade level. It is important to teach and empower young women, so that they can make healthy decisions regarding birth control and sexual activity. I think we do a disservice to young people when we degrade the act of sex by claiming it immoral and corrupt. Adolescence is difficult and confusing enough... It would be awesome to see Sex Ed. classes be more unbiased, and for them to even include curriculum for the gay/lesbian and transgendered kids. Openness, honesty, and actual useful information would make for a whole, healthy society.

A Latina on the Bench!

Over the weekend, Sonia Sotomayor was sworn in as associate Justice of the Supreme Court. She is the first Hispanic woman on the bench, and she is replacing the liberal Justice David Souter. It is not surprising to me that President Obama's first nominee for the Supreme Court was someone like Sonia Sotomayor. She is very well qualified, and represents a portion of the population that remains underrepresented in U.S. government.
Sotomayor's confirmation hearing give me even less hope for the Republican party, with one Republican Senator making references to Ricky Ricardo. Others held tightly to partisan issues such as abortion or gun laws. Some cited Sotomayor's decision that the 2nd amendment does not apply to states as their reason for not confirming her. This is disheartening, as the issue of judicial selection is supposed to go beyond partisan ideology. A fact about her career is that she was chosen by George H.W. Bush in 1991 to serve on the district court. Her credentials go beyond partisan leanings. It is not surprising, though, that only nine Republican senators voted in her favor, while not a single Democrat voted against her.
Saturday, she swore to "administer justice without respect to persons" and "do equal right to the poor and to the rich." I share the Hispanic community's excitement of her place on the Supreme Court. She was raised in a housing project in the South Bronx. She understands firsthand the struggle of many Americans and the uphill battles minorities and women face. It is not necessary to fear her perspective, even if you are a wealthy white male.

Rush: A destructive force for Republicans

I am writing in response to "Rush Limbaugh Influential Clout," in which the author raises his/her concerns about Rush Limbaugh and his influence within the Republican party. I agree that the Republican party is on a path of self-destruction. The evidence is that they have lost the Senate, House, and Executive. It doesn't look hopeful for them in the 2010 elections either. It is unfortunate for the party that someone like Mr. Limbaugh has taken it upon himself to speak on behalf of the Republicans.
In my opinion, his popularity ties in with what we've learned about our uninformed electorate. For example, say someone is uneducated about actual issues, and is trained to believe what he or she is told. It would be easy to conceive of that person being duped by Rush's scare tactics.
Also, people like to dislike those unlike themselves. President Obama clearly does not fit the same profile of other American presidents. Limbaugh saw the opportunity to cash in on bigotry and small-mindedness. He feeds his gun-toting listeners unfounded propaganda to keep them scared and intolerant.
Keeping that in mind, we live in a country that allows for freedom of speech and self-expression. He has the right to say what he thinks necessary. We don't have to agree with his opinions or his perceptions of the world. For the sake of the Republican party, it'd be nice if they realized that they don't agree with him either.

Beer Summit: A promising day for American race relations.

It is interesting to me that there is more genetic variation within people of the same race than there is among people of differing races. People from every "race" experience skin disorders such as albinism or vitiligo. Various "races" share traits like blood type, eye color, and susceptibility to certain diseases. The concept of race has been shown to be a social construct. In Brazil, for example, there are several gradations of race, depending on physical features-- eye color, hair color and texture, lightness and darkness of skin, etc. In this system, a father can belong to one classification, the mother can be grouped into another, and their children can belong to a third, altogether different classification. Siblings can also fit into differing "races".
In America, it is more rigid than that. Our president, for example, has a Caucasian mother, but he is classified in our society as African American. It is no secret that historically, relations between those two "races" has not been pretty. In light of the uphill fight and tragic violence our country experienced because of bigotry, the recent story involving an alleged incident of racial profiling is worthy of discussion. This evening, President Obama invited St. James Crowley (alleged white man) and Henry Louis Gates (alleged black man) to engage in a reconciliatory conversation over beer and peanuts. This is something that was not even imaginable just decades ago.
In my opinion, it is a conversation that needs to happen, especially since the ethnic landscape in America is shifting. Ideologies of hatred and fear towards those unlike oneself are not going to serve well the future of this country. Instead of responding with cynicism and unsubstantiated apprehension, like Fox's Glenn Beck likes to do, we could all learn to recognize the "teachable moments" amongst those unlike ourselves, and take an opportunity to grow. Our country will only become stronger for it.

Reclaiming Republicanism

It is an exciting day for Republicans who are fed up with their floundering party. After years of watching the Bush administration smear the face of Republicanism, a few notable leaders within the party are addressing its major issues. Former governors Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney, along with the Republican Whip from Virginia, Eric Cantor, are launching the National Council for a New America. The goal of the convention is to reunify a party that has been overtaken by social conservatives.
NBC's Chuck Todd addresses the issue spot-on in his article, 'Yes, it's that bad for the GOP- Debates inside the party highlight the real problem: What is their vision?' His opinion of the failing GOP is not one of gloating or Republican bashing-- it is more an attitude of disappointment, because against the Democratic party, the Republican party is progressively less competitive.
I agree with this article. The Republican party is waning in support. I also agree that it has something to do with the confusion about what it means to be a Republican. Right now, it seems to be the haven of the ultra-conservative, fundamentalist Christians. In order to be a viable political party, the Republican platform needs to be broader than this one particular social agenda.
There are a couple of things Republicans seem to contradict themselves on- and Todd mentions them in his article. Firstly, the size of government: it increased dramatically under Republican rule, when it should have gone the other way. Secondly, the right to personal freedoms: that only seems to be the case if you want to carry a gun (and maybe a Bible)... If you want to smoke a joint, or abort an unintended pregnancy, or marry your same-sex partner, the Republicans assume the government knows better than you. It is time for the party to examine what it means to be Republican, and it is my hope that their platform can be relevant to a changing world, and that it grows to be inclusive of social and ethnic minorities.

Safe from Violence-- Expanding Hate Crime Protection

Are F-22 stealth fighter jets more important than protecting American citizens from hate crimes? This article on NPR discusses a crime prevention act that is aimed at expanding current hate crime legislation. It is named after a young man who was brutally tortured and beaten to death for being gay. The bill is under threat of veto, because it is attached to another bill, in which the GOP is pushing for the purchase of more stealth fighters. These fiscal conservatives don't seem to mind that the jets cost $140 million each. These F-22s are not a necessity, but protection from brutality should be the right of every American.