It was Charlie Daniels who famously said "They're trying to take our guns away, and that would be just fine, if you take them away from the criminals first, I'll gladly give you mine." I think, in essence, that sums up exactly how a lot of people feel about the issue. Though gun owners are often portrayed in the media as ignorant rednecks that need their weapons to shoot minorities, the fact of the matter is, most folks simply want to feel protected.
On one hand, there are many ways to protect yourself besides using a firearm. I believe it is a cultural theme which makes Americans feel that they can only protect themselves with a gun of some sort. On the other hand, the government can never completely eradicate the presence of firearms among criminals and black market dealers, so if the bad guy has a gun, then a baseball bat won't serve as adequate protection.
One issue with gun ownership is the politics behind it. People on the left believe that guns - not individuals - kill people and we would be a safer nation if no one legally owned firearms. People on the right believe that more guns in the hands of Americans means more safety and every child should be given an AR-15. While this is a slight exaggeration, it's not too terribly far off. Gun ownership, like every controversial issue in America, has become excessively politicized, making it impossible to negotiate any type of compromise.
As always, before delving into the issue, I'd like to first highlight statistics which support arguments on both sides of the issue:
-In 2008, 16,272 murders were committed; about two-thirds of these were committed with firearms.
-A study conducted in 2000 concluded that, on average, Americans use guns to protect themselves or others from criminals about 1 million times per year.
-A 1982 study found that among male felons in state prisons:
-34% had been scared off, wounded, or captured by victims with firearms
-40% decided not to commit a crime because they knew or believed the victim was armed
-69% knew another criminal who had been scared off, wounded, or captured by an armed victim
-A 10-year study conducted by the Justice Department concluded that 83% of Americans will be the victim of a completed or attempted violent crime in their lifetime.
-For every 12 violent crimes committed, just one person is prosecuted and convicted.
-In 1976, Washington, D.C. banned handgun ownership in the district. In the following 30 years, murder rates in D.C. were, on average, 73% higher, while murder rates throughout the rest of the nation dropped.
-England and Wales - two nations often championed for their low homicide rates and strict gun control - imposed a ban on most firearms in 1968 and an even tighter ban in 1997. Following the 1968 law, homicide rates increased by 52% and rates increased by another 15% following the 1997 law.
-States which have a right-to-carry law (allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons with just a background check and a gun-safety course) have 24% less violent crime, 28% less murders, and 50% less robberies.
-In 2010, 606 unintentional deaths occurred because of firearms.
-States with the highest rates of gun ownership have nine times as many unintentional deaths than states with the lowest rates of gun ownership.
-1.7 million children are living in homes that possess loaded and unlocked firearms.
-Abused women are five times as likely to be killed by their abuser if he owns a firearm.
-Of the 61 mass shootings that have occurred since 1982, 49 of the shooters obtained their guns legally.
I understand that's a lot of statistical information to take in, but I believe it's important. Though there are many other figures which I would like to include, I can only bore my readers but so much. One thing to highlight, though, is that there is a significant difference between correlation and causation. Some studies show that more guns equal more deaths; other studies indicate that more concealed carry permits equal less violent crime. It's worth noting, however, that these variables are not necessarily connected. That is, it could be the case that less violent crimes occur because more people are concealed carrying. It could also be the case that as violent crimes decreased, concealed carry permits coincidentally increased. Therefore, you should never assume that any statistic is definitive proof of any sort of trend.
Practically speaking, however, it's natural to look at those statistics and notice two things: guns seem to be key in self protection and preventing crime, and they also seem to contribute to superfluous deaths. We, of course, want people to be safe and minimize victimization as much as possible, but we also want to make sure that guns don't go into the hands of the wrong individuals and that gun owners are as safe and responsible as possible. This is where the rubber meets the road and where policy needs to reflect the desires of folks on both the left and the right.
First and foremost, the Second Amendment guarantees us the right to keep and bear arms, no matter what (with the exception of a constitutional amendment). The original version of the Second Amendment read as follows: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed." You're probably thinking that that is a weirdly worded sentence that could be interpreted as both a comma splice and an incomplete sentence. To clarify what I believe Jefferson meant, I'd like to turn to newspapers. Often times you'll read a headline such as "Obamacare hurts taxpayers, insurance companies". That comma, of course, is meant to take the place of the word "and". Similarly, Jefferson intended the Second Amendment to be read as "A well regulated militia (being necessary to the security of a free state) and the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"—thus, eliminating any question as to whether the Second Amendment applies to the people or simply militias. Certainly, there are a great deal of arguments that can be made as to what exactly "arms" are, but that is a debate that can neither be won nor lost.
In terms of establishing policy that allows gun ownership in a safe and responsible manner, there are a myriad of solutions. Though I am clearly in favor of gun ownership, I'm far from an extremist. I believe that guns used for hunting and recreation should be available for adults over the age of 18—and please, do not try to tell me that you're going whitetail hunting with an AK-47. This includes mostly just shotguns and hunting rifles. In terms of purchasing any types of assault rifles, I believe prudential policy would raise the age of purchase to 21, as is the case with handguns. Why? The idea behind handguns not being available to individuals under 21 is the same idea behind the drinking age: the government wants gun owners to be mature and responsible. A 19-year old is not going to carry around an AR-15 for protection the way a 22-year old would carry around a Glock .40. Therefore, the only reason that a sub-21-year old would need an assault rifle would be for either home protection or recreation. Assault rifles, typically, are not used for recreation anymore than handguns are, so if handguns are going to be exclusively for 21-year olds, then assault rifles should be as well. In terms of home protection, a shotgun is as effective - if not more - in providing home protection when compared to an assault rifle. Realistically, if there is a burglar, one shot (from any gun) will be more than enough to encourage them to leave. If, however, your goal is to shoot and kill them (which it shouldn't be), then for close-range firing, a shotgun - which shoots a spray of pellets - will cover a greater deal of surface area, almost guaranteeing a hit if you know what you're doing (which you should, if you own a firearm).
Along with raising the age requirements for assault rifle purchases, I believe that the process for purchasing any type of gun should be tightened. The process right now, though it varies state to state, is often extremely quick. My friend, for instance, purchased a handgun in Virginia about two months ago. He was in and out of the store within two hours, and that included a great deal of shopping around first. While this is convenient for the responsible gun owners, anyone that needs to get a gun within an hour is probably up to something shady. I suggest tightening the background checks, including applicable psychiatric information in the background check information, inclusion of expunged charges, and the inclusion of any federal files on the applicant. Again, I fully believe in allowing folks to purchase and own firearms, but I don't see how you could possibly be too safe about it.
Of course, gun laws should and will be administered on a state level, but I would support a gun safety course for all gun owners. While it's tedious, too many inexperienced individuals can walk right into a gun shop and purchase any type of firearm they please without having any knowledge of or experience with operating the weapon. I would also support mandated renewal of firearm licenses on either a five or ten year basis. It's great to be thorough in checking individuals before the preliminary sale of the weapon, but gun owners are just as capable of becoming mentally unstable or ill after their purchase. If a man buys a gun one day and is perfectly fine but six years later suffers deep depression and schizophrenia, then perhaps he should have his firearm revoked until he can sufficiently prove that he has overcome his illnesses. If we ever want to prevent unnecessary murders and mass shootings, our approach must be proactive rather than retroactive.
In terms of the recent restrictions on magazine capacities, I'm a little torn. On one hand, I see no practical need for a 50-round magazine. On the other hand, the government cannot objectively determine which magazine size is reasonable and which is not, nor can they account for all potential situations. I suppose the best approach is to allow each state to decide what magazine capacity (if any) is the most appropriate and reasonable. Alternatively, research into the average number of bullets required to subdue or deter a criminal in an attack may provide insight as to the most reasonable magazine size. Obviously the only need to regulate magazine size is to hinder the capabilities of a perpetrator in the case of a mass shooting.
The final approach to improving the gun laws of America is to increase the penalties for illegal gun ownership. Legal penalties are already substantial, but the best way to further curb illegal ownership is to increase the penalty. Once again, this is an issue that should be left up to the states to decide, but harsher penalties will likely result in less crime.
Many conservatives, particularly the Tea Partiers, believe that
Americans should have the right to carry weapons of any size in order to
protect themselves from the forces of tyranny and an oppressive
government. I'd like to address this in a twofold manner. Firstly,
giving Americans weapons of any size is a terrible, terrible idea. I
will not feel any safer in my home if I have an M249 Saw, but I will
feel unsafe if my neighbor has one. Secondly, the government is not
going to "attack" us. Anyone that believes that that will happen is
downright insane. But let's, for a moment, just imagine that it were to happen—one of two things would occur.
In the first scenario, the federal government decides that it will
begin rounding up Americans and (I don't know?) putting them in camps or
something. The military, however, refuses to go along with this plan
(because it's absurd and absolutely not okay). Without the military, the
government cannot execute on this diabolical plan. What are they going
to do, send Harry Reid from house to house with a sawed off shot gun? In
the second scenario, the government begins this plan but the military does
go along. In this case, we stand no chance. I don't care how many
AR-15s or ACRs you have, you cannot and will not take down a platoon of
Marines, much less an Abrams Tank. An M1 Abrams Tank, simply, does not
lose. So in either of these cases, our attempts (as citizens) to resist
the tyranny of the government are futile.
I think by this point, I have offended both gun toters and gun controllers, but the point is, we have to form a comprehensive and compromised approach if we want to resolve the issue of gun violence in the U.S. This way, the gun toters can keep their guns, and the gun controllers can sleep a little safer at night knowing that less crazies can access firearms.
I'd like to end this article the same way I began: with a quote. I will not cite who this quote was provided by (though you can obviously Google it and find out for yourself) because without knowing who stated it, this quote can be interpreted two ways. It can either mean that banning guns will make us feel safe or that banning guns will make us feel endangered—both of which are accurate in their own ways. Guns, ironically, are a double edged sword that provide both danger and protection. Anything that can simultaneously do that is incredibly hard to control and impossible to effectively legislate.
"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe." -Anonymous
Friday, July 25, 2014
Tuesday, July 22, 2014
The Growing Crisis of Teen Pregnancy
Coming from someone who grew up in rural Virginia in what could easily be labeled as a "redneck town", the issue of teen pregnancy is a very familiar one. That is not to suggest that teen pregnancy is an issue in all redneck towns, or even most, but it certainly is in mine. I have a disproportionate amount of friends who were or are teen mothers or fathers. By no means does this make them bad, idiotic, or irresponsible people. Many of the children of teen parents live better lives than children of adult parents, but the issue goes far beyond that. I'd like to discuss why teen pregnancy happens, the effects of it, and how it can be prevented.
The question of why teen pregnancy happens is relatively easy to answer. Today's children and teens, unlike previous generations, have resources such as internet, television, movies, music, etc. which are constantly exposing them to the beauty of sex. Although I am just as much a part of the same generation, I grew up watching shows like Leave it to Beaver or Happy Days, in which every guy's dream was to "go steady with Joanie Cunningham" rather than "round the bases with Erica". Today, youngsters are watching shows like The Secret Life of the American Teenager, Teen Mom, and 16 & Pregnant. Now, you can make the argument that these shows may condemn pregnancy rather than glorify it, but teen girls will always want what they see on television.
On the other hand, a lot of the issue has to do with both boredom and freedom. Teen pregnancy, according studies, is most common in the South and has particularly high concentration in rural areas. This is partly due to the lack of activities available for youth, particularly teens that have yet to earn their driver's licenses. In a very limited environment with little access to facilities such as a bowling alley or a movie theater, it is not uncommon for teens to turn to sex as a way to pass the time. Going hand in hand with that, another major cause is the increased level of freedom. Studies indicate that youth growing up in rural areas have much more time away from parents or adult supervision than youth in urban areas. This can be attributed to things such as longer work commutes for parents, less fear of an intruder, a higher inclination to allow one's child explore outdoors, etc.
Certainly, most teens do not want to get pregnant, but they do want to have sex, just like anyone else. Personally, I have no issue with teens wanting to have sex. After all, it is a normal physical desire, and with the growing influence of sex in popular culture, it's surprising that there aren't more 10 year-olds losing their virginity. In fact, most of us became sexually active during our teenage years—right or wrong. Sexual activity, however, is not the problem; sexual irresponsibility is. If teens were being responsible and practicing safe sex in the right way, there would be no need for this discussion. But since when have teens ever acted responsibly?
When I say that teen pregnancy rates are a crisis, don't just take my word for it. I'd like to highlight some key facts about teen pregnancy to really illustrate the severity of the situation.
-Three out of ten teens will be pregnant before their 20th birthday.
-Two out of ten teens will be pregnant twice before their 20th birthday.
-Teen pregnancy costs the federal government about $9.4 billion per year.
-Teens 18-19 account for about 500,000 pregnancies a year and about 234,000 births (that's a lot of abortions).
-30% of all females that drop out of high school cite pregnancy as the reason.
-Less than 2% of women who have children before 18 graduate college before 30.
-81% of children born to adults receive high school diplomas, while 66% of children born to teens do.
-Only one in five sets of teen parents will get married.
-Children born to teen parents are 22% more likely to become teen parents themselves.
Those statistics are frightening aren't they? If this doesn't constitute a crisis, I don't know what does. And it's clear that teen parenthood has negative effects for both the parents and the child. In fact, teen mothers are more likely to depend on welfare, become pregnant again, become depressed, abuse alcohol and drugs during pregnancy, and smoke during pregnancy. Children of teen parents are at a higher risk of retarded cognitive development, infant mortality, low birth weight, underdeveloped organs, and eventual incarceration. No matter how many responsible, loving, caring teen parents you may know, these issues carry serious weight.
Now that I've addressed - at least partly - why teen pregnancy happens and its effects, it's necessary to discuss how we can curb its frequency. In its simplest form, the answer to that is education, education, and more education. And I don't mean abstinence education. There are more than enough studies that indicate that abstinence education is completely ineffective, and it's about time that sexual education curricula catch up. It's no longer practical to try to teach our kids that if they have sex they'll go blind. What they need to be taught is that if they have unprotected sex, they'll have children and forfeit many opportunities which lie in their future—a very true statement. Teens need to learn about the benefits of safe sex because, like it or not, they will become sexually active eventually.
Aside from educating teens on safe sex, their parents, especially, need to be educated. Today's parents grew up learning from the same abstinence curricula and, therefore, don't know the truth about sex, teen pregnancy, or STDs anymore than their children do. It's one thing for a nurse to stand in front of a group of teens and tell them to practice safe sex, but if parents can become educated and establish an open dialogue with their children, then the message will resonate with a much greater impact. In fact, 76% of teens say that it would be easier to delay sex if they could have an open dialogue with their parents about it, and 60% of teens say that they do not use contraception because they do not want their parents to find out. In order to fix this, we must work to change the mindset of parents. At the end of the day, any good parent's priority is not their religious or moral objections to premarital sex, it is the well-being of their child, and that must be capitalized upon.
From a more policy-related perspective, there is a lot that can be done. The federal government offers hundreds of millions of dollars for programs to either educate teens on pregnancy or provide contraceptives to low income 18 and 19 year-olds. Many states like Virginia, however, do not apply for or accept these funds out of principle—either because they oppose big government or because they refuse any curriculum not rooted in abstinence.
The first step, on the state level, is to begin utilizing all of the federal resources that are out there. State programs should also use other outlets besides schools, such as social media and television, to educate youth on the dangers of unsafe sex. Programs such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families could include requisite education programs for teen mothers, and the Child Welfare Department should practice more home visits to ensure that children are receiving the proper care and nourishment.
On the local level, organizations should work (as mentioned) to educate parents, as well as incorporate experience-based educational programs where teens can interact with teen parents and children of teen parents to learn the real life consequences of pregnancy. In school districts that would allow it, mandating a sexual education course for graduation, though controversial, would improve knowledge across the board.
Lastly, on the federal level, Title X clinics (clinics which provide care for low-income individuals) should continue to be funded. Being a proponent for small government, I would prefer to see these clinics operated on a state level, but so long as they are federally operated, they should also be federally funded. Last year alone, Title X clinics prevented 1.2 million pregnancies through contraception. That's 590,000 births and 400,000 abortions. Say what you will about Title X funding; that's 590,000 less children and parents dependent on taxpayer funded entitlement programs and 400,000 less taxpayer funded abortions. Studies show that one Medicaid covered birth costs - on average - $12,770 while each Medicaid covered contraception prescription costs $239. I would much rather pay $239 than $12,770 along with the long term expenses.
The fact of the matter is, there is no single way to resolve the issue of teen pregnancy. It needs to be done in a multifaceted and modernized way. The first and most important step, however, is changing the cultural view of teen sex. In order for parents and voters to accept the necessary changes in educational curricula and local programs, they must first change their views on the issue as a whole and understand the tremendous consequences which society is facing. Almost any mother or father, when faced with the reality that their daughter has a 33% of being pregnant before 20, will likely begin to change his or her opinion on the issue. By improving teen pregnancy rates, education and graduation rates will improve, crime and incarceration rates will decrease, infant mortality rates will decrease, job attainment rates will improve resulting in a stronger economy, and society - as a whole - will benefit immensely.
The question of why teen pregnancy happens is relatively easy to answer. Today's children and teens, unlike previous generations, have resources such as internet, television, movies, music, etc. which are constantly exposing them to the beauty of sex. Although I am just as much a part of the same generation, I grew up watching shows like Leave it to Beaver or Happy Days, in which every guy's dream was to "go steady with Joanie Cunningham" rather than "round the bases with Erica". Today, youngsters are watching shows like The Secret Life of the American Teenager, Teen Mom, and 16 & Pregnant. Now, you can make the argument that these shows may condemn pregnancy rather than glorify it, but teen girls will always want what they see on television.
On the other hand, a lot of the issue has to do with both boredom and freedom. Teen pregnancy, according studies, is most common in the South and has particularly high concentration in rural areas. This is partly due to the lack of activities available for youth, particularly teens that have yet to earn their driver's licenses. In a very limited environment with little access to facilities such as a bowling alley or a movie theater, it is not uncommon for teens to turn to sex as a way to pass the time. Going hand in hand with that, another major cause is the increased level of freedom. Studies indicate that youth growing up in rural areas have much more time away from parents or adult supervision than youth in urban areas. This can be attributed to things such as longer work commutes for parents, less fear of an intruder, a higher inclination to allow one's child explore outdoors, etc.
Certainly, most teens do not want to get pregnant, but they do want to have sex, just like anyone else. Personally, I have no issue with teens wanting to have sex. After all, it is a normal physical desire, and with the growing influence of sex in popular culture, it's surprising that there aren't more 10 year-olds losing their virginity. In fact, most of us became sexually active during our teenage years—right or wrong. Sexual activity, however, is not the problem; sexual irresponsibility is. If teens were being responsible and practicing safe sex in the right way, there would be no need for this discussion. But since when have teens ever acted responsibly?
When I say that teen pregnancy rates are a crisis, don't just take my word for it. I'd like to highlight some key facts about teen pregnancy to really illustrate the severity of the situation.
-Three out of ten teens will be pregnant before their 20th birthday.
-Two out of ten teens will be pregnant twice before their 20th birthday.
-Teen pregnancy costs the federal government about $9.4 billion per year.
-Teens 18-19 account for about 500,000 pregnancies a year and about 234,000 births (that's a lot of abortions).
-30% of all females that drop out of high school cite pregnancy as the reason.
-Less than 2% of women who have children before 18 graduate college before 30.
-81% of children born to adults receive high school diplomas, while 66% of children born to teens do.
-Only one in five sets of teen parents will get married.
-Children born to teen parents are 22% more likely to become teen parents themselves.
Those statistics are frightening aren't they? If this doesn't constitute a crisis, I don't know what does. And it's clear that teen parenthood has negative effects for both the parents and the child. In fact, teen mothers are more likely to depend on welfare, become pregnant again, become depressed, abuse alcohol and drugs during pregnancy, and smoke during pregnancy. Children of teen parents are at a higher risk of retarded cognitive development, infant mortality, low birth weight, underdeveloped organs, and eventual incarceration. No matter how many responsible, loving, caring teen parents you may know, these issues carry serious weight.
Now that I've addressed - at least partly - why teen pregnancy happens and its effects, it's necessary to discuss how we can curb its frequency. In its simplest form, the answer to that is education, education, and more education. And I don't mean abstinence education. There are more than enough studies that indicate that abstinence education is completely ineffective, and it's about time that sexual education curricula catch up. It's no longer practical to try to teach our kids that if they have sex they'll go blind. What they need to be taught is that if they have unprotected sex, they'll have children and forfeit many opportunities which lie in their future—a very true statement. Teens need to learn about the benefits of safe sex because, like it or not, they will become sexually active eventually.
Aside from educating teens on safe sex, their parents, especially, need to be educated. Today's parents grew up learning from the same abstinence curricula and, therefore, don't know the truth about sex, teen pregnancy, or STDs anymore than their children do. It's one thing for a nurse to stand in front of a group of teens and tell them to practice safe sex, but if parents can become educated and establish an open dialogue with their children, then the message will resonate with a much greater impact. In fact, 76% of teens say that it would be easier to delay sex if they could have an open dialogue with their parents about it, and 60% of teens say that they do not use contraception because they do not want their parents to find out. In order to fix this, we must work to change the mindset of parents. At the end of the day, any good parent's priority is not their religious or moral objections to premarital sex, it is the well-being of their child, and that must be capitalized upon.
From a more policy-related perspective, there is a lot that can be done. The federal government offers hundreds of millions of dollars for programs to either educate teens on pregnancy or provide contraceptives to low income 18 and 19 year-olds. Many states like Virginia, however, do not apply for or accept these funds out of principle—either because they oppose big government or because they refuse any curriculum not rooted in abstinence.
The first step, on the state level, is to begin utilizing all of the federal resources that are out there. State programs should also use other outlets besides schools, such as social media and television, to educate youth on the dangers of unsafe sex. Programs such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families could include requisite education programs for teen mothers, and the Child Welfare Department should practice more home visits to ensure that children are receiving the proper care and nourishment.
On the local level, organizations should work (as mentioned) to educate parents, as well as incorporate experience-based educational programs where teens can interact with teen parents and children of teen parents to learn the real life consequences of pregnancy. In school districts that would allow it, mandating a sexual education course for graduation, though controversial, would improve knowledge across the board.
Lastly, on the federal level, Title X clinics (clinics which provide care for low-income individuals) should continue to be funded. Being a proponent for small government, I would prefer to see these clinics operated on a state level, but so long as they are federally operated, they should also be federally funded. Last year alone, Title X clinics prevented 1.2 million pregnancies through contraception. That's 590,000 births and 400,000 abortions. Say what you will about Title X funding; that's 590,000 less children and parents dependent on taxpayer funded entitlement programs and 400,000 less taxpayer funded abortions. Studies show that one Medicaid covered birth costs - on average - $12,770 while each Medicaid covered contraception prescription costs $239. I would much rather pay $239 than $12,770 along with the long term expenses.
The fact of the matter is, there is no single way to resolve the issue of teen pregnancy. It needs to be done in a multifaceted and modernized way. The first and most important step, however, is changing the cultural view of teen sex. In order for parents and voters to accept the necessary changes in educational curricula and local programs, they must first change their views on the issue as a whole and understand the tremendous consequences which society is facing. Almost any mother or father, when faced with the reality that their daughter has a 33% of being pregnant before 20, will likely begin to change his or her opinion on the issue. By improving teen pregnancy rates, education and graduation rates will improve, crime and incarceration rates will decrease, infant mortality rates will decrease, job attainment rates will improve resulting in a stronger economy, and society - as a whole - will benefit immensely.
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
Richard Nixon Was a Good President and a Good Man
A recent poll conducted by Quinnipiac University states that, according to a plurality of voters, President Obama is the worst President since World War II. He was followed closely by George W. Bush and President Richard Nixon rounded out the top three. Though I would make the argument that none of these three are the worst President (you'll have to ask me personally if you want to know my number one), I'd like to take a moment to highlight the overlooked achievements of our 37th President.
Mr. Richard Milhous Nixon was born to Quaker parents in January of 1913 in Yorba Linda, California. Named after Richard the Lionheart, as a child Nixon exhibited many of the same qualities as the 12th century king—leadership, fortitude, and brilliance. As president of his eighth grade class, an outstanding football player, a talented debater, and an astute academic, Nixon was a star that shined exceptionally bright.
Despite his long list of extracurricular activities, Nixon's primary job was being a good son and a good brother. His brother, Harold, was diagnosed with tuberculosis during Nixon's sophomore year in high school. In order to take care of his brother, Nixon quit one of his most beloved passions: football. He even declined a scholarship to attend Harvard University to remain in his hometown and attend Whittier College in order to care for his sick brother. Still engaged in a number of extracurricular activities, Nixon continued to excel academically at Whittier and, subsequently, received a full ride to Duke Law School, where he went on to graduate third in his class.
Nixon bounced around a few jobs before deciding to commission in the United States Navy in 1942. Though he wasn't directly involved in combat, Nixon was stationed at Guadalcanal and Nissan Island, in charge of the Combat Air Transport Command. After being assigned to several administrative positions, Nixon resigned his commission in 1946.
Although he did not actively seek a career in politics, by some random stroke of luck (or an act of God, some might say), the Republicans of California's 12th district selected Richard Nixon as their man. In his first political campaign, Nixon defeated the Democratic incumbent, Jerry Voorhis, by a substantial margin, thus, marking the beginning of a long and often turbulent political career.
From there, he moved to the Senate, winning yet another decisive Congressional race. From the Senate, Nixon took a stance against communism while expressing favor towards civil rights, thus, winning the hearts of Americans on both sides of the aisle. As a result, Eisenhower, while running for President in 1952, selected Nixon as his running mate, largely for political reasons. In response to criticisms against Nixon for allegedly receiving reimbursements for political expenses, he gave his famous Checkers speech, which shifted the nation's attention from political funds to an adorable little cocker spaniel, resulting in tremendous national support for the Eisenhower-Nixon ticket.
The two gentlemen won the 1952 election and were re-elected in 1956. During his Vice Presidency, Nixon was involved in critical affairs in the Far East, the Civil Rights act of 1957, and the famous Kitchen Debate. He went on to run for President in 1960, only to lose to John F. Kennedy by a tremendously narrow margin. (A loss which many attribute to introduction of televised debates.) Nixon went on to run for President again in 1968 against Hubert Humphrey, whose campaign was permanently stained by the violent protests of the Democratic National Convention.
Nixon won the election in 1968, as well as his bid for re-election in 1972. Though his Presidency will forever be connected with the so-called failure of the Vietnam War, secret bombings in Cambodia, the Pentagon Papers, and - of course - the Watergate Scandal, his Presidency was about much more than controversy. The title of this article states that Richard Nixon was both a good man and a good president - a bold statement to many. However, the belief that President Nixon was one of the worst (if not the worst) Presidents originated within the media and, unfortunately, has been perpetuated by misleading articles and history books.
So why do I believe that President Nixon was a good President and a good man? I'll address the "good man" label first. What little details I've provided regarding Nixon's upbringing should be sufficient evidence to defend the righteousness of his character, but it goes far beyond that. Not only was he was a major champion of civil rights, he was also a respectful diplomat and a true environmentalist. And despite his rough, hard-shelled exterior, Nixon is also known for being a warmhearted romantic. In letters to the soon-to-be Mrs. Nixon, Dick wrote romantic one-liners such as "the only thing that matters is that I love you more every day." Though he may have been a distant, introverted man in the political world, there was a soft, compassionate side of Nixon which existed deep within the shadows of his personal life.
Why do I believe that Nixon was a good President? That is a question that, if answered sincerely, requires a great deal of long-windedness, so I will attempt to summarize President Nixon's achievements in a somewhat brief manner. First and foremost, it is because of Nixon and Kissinger's foreign policy that the United States and China were able to re-establish a formal relationship. The President was able to settle relations between China and Taiwan; he was able to settle tensions between the U.S. and China as a result of the Vietnam War; he was able to quell international communist influences by further blocking the Soviet sphere of influence in China; and he fostered the Sino-American relationship which would ultimately lead to China's Open Door Policy.
Secondly, although they are rarely mentioned, Nixon made several forceful attempts at negotiating a reasonable and peaceful end to the war in Vietnam shortly after assuming the Presidency. In fact, in 1969, he introduced plans to begin weening Vietnamese troops off of their dependency on American soldiers so that they could fight their own war. Although he authorized secretive or covert operations in both Cambodia and Laos, these were often attempts to control supply trails and hinder the North Vietnamese through nonviolent means. On one hand, Nixon did not want the War in Vietnam to wage anymore than anyone else in America. On the other hand, he understood the importance of securing democracy in the Far East and assuring that the lives of American soldiers were not lost in vain.
Thirdly, his negotiations with the Soviet Union provided more progress in slowing nuclear proliferation than had been achieved by any previous President, as evidenced by SALT I and the beginnings of SALT II. Furthermore, his policies in the Far East, Latin American, and the Middle East also slowed the rate of Soviet influence. Along with his accomplishments in China and (arguably) Vietnam, Nixon was a strong supporter of Israel, as well as Saudi Arabia and Iran, who were all seeking to push back the extending reach of communism.
Fourthly, Nixon implemented numerous economic policies to fight rising inflation of the American dollar. He ended the convertibility of the dollar into gold which served its purpose of stabilizing the dollar (though its long-term effects have been highly debated by economists and politicians). In fact, the investor confidence which occurred as a result of this move by Nixon caused the Dow to increase 33 points the very next day.
Fifthly, as previously mentioned, Nixon was very concerned with environmentalism, and this concern led to the creation of EPA, as well as OSHA. He also supported the Clean Air Act of 1970 and the National Environmental Policy Act and is widely regarded as the greatest environmentalist President since Teddy Roosevelt. On the home front, Nixon also supported Healthcare reform, through things such as the replacement of Medicaid with state-run programs; he initiated the war on drugs; he catalyzed civil rights; and - under his watch - the United States became the world's first nation to place a man on the moon.
These are just a few achievements among many which are too frequently overlooked when considering Richard Nixon's legacy. Did he engage in dishonest and corrupt acts in the Watergate Scandal? Yes. But the shadow cast by this scandal, however large it may be, should not be large enough to obscure his innumerable accomplishments which improved both American life and the international political climate. And say what you will about Nixon and his coarse personality; after the soft, weak exterior and friendly personality of Kennedy and the juvenility and sporadic personality of Johnson, the United States needed a strong, tough, decisive, and calculated President. That is exactly what we got with Richard Nixon.
He may never be recognized for his successes, but - for better or for worse - the name Richard Nixon will never be forgotten.
Mr. Richard Milhous Nixon was born to Quaker parents in January of 1913 in Yorba Linda, California. Named after Richard the Lionheart, as a child Nixon exhibited many of the same qualities as the 12th century king—leadership, fortitude, and brilliance. As president of his eighth grade class, an outstanding football player, a talented debater, and an astute academic, Nixon was a star that shined exceptionally bright.
Despite his long list of extracurricular activities, Nixon's primary job was being a good son and a good brother. His brother, Harold, was diagnosed with tuberculosis during Nixon's sophomore year in high school. In order to take care of his brother, Nixon quit one of his most beloved passions: football. He even declined a scholarship to attend Harvard University to remain in his hometown and attend Whittier College in order to care for his sick brother. Still engaged in a number of extracurricular activities, Nixon continued to excel academically at Whittier and, subsequently, received a full ride to Duke Law School, where he went on to graduate third in his class.
Nixon bounced around a few jobs before deciding to commission in the United States Navy in 1942. Though he wasn't directly involved in combat, Nixon was stationed at Guadalcanal and Nissan Island, in charge of the Combat Air Transport Command. After being assigned to several administrative positions, Nixon resigned his commission in 1946.
Although he did not actively seek a career in politics, by some random stroke of luck (or an act of God, some might say), the Republicans of California's 12th district selected Richard Nixon as their man. In his first political campaign, Nixon defeated the Democratic incumbent, Jerry Voorhis, by a substantial margin, thus, marking the beginning of a long and often turbulent political career.
From there, he moved to the Senate, winning yet another decisive Congressional race. From the Senate, Nixon took a stance against communism while expressing favor towards civil rights, thus, winning the hearts of Americans on both sides of the aisle. As a result, Eisenhower, while running for President in 1952, selected Nixon as his running mate, largely for political reasons. In response to criticisms against Nixon for allegedly receiving reimbursements for political expenses, he gave his famous Checkers speech, which shifted the nation's attention from political funds to an adorable little cocker spaniel, resulting in tremendous national support for the Eisenhower-Nixon ticket.
The two gentlemen won the 1952 election and were re-elected in 1956. During his Vice Presidency, Nixon was involved in critical affairs in the Far East, the Civil Rights act of 1957, and the famous Kitchen Debate. He went on to run for President in 1960, only to lose to John F. Kennedy by a tremendously narrow margin. (A loss which many attribute to introduction of televised debates.) Nixon went on to run for President again in 1968 against Hubert Humphrey, whose campaign was permanently stained by the violent protests of the Democratic National Convention.
Nixon won the election in 1968, as well as his bid for re-election in 1972. Though his Presidency will forever be connected with the so-called failure of the Vietnam War, secret bombings in Cambodia, the Pentagon Papers, and - of course - the Watergate Scandal, his Presidency was about much more than controversy. The title of this article states that Richard Nixon was both a good man and a good president - a bold statement to many. However, the belief that President Nixon was one of the worst (if not the worst) Presidents originated within the media and, unfortunately, has been perpetuated by misleading articles and history books.
So why do I believe that President Nixon was a good President and a good man? I'll address the "good man" label first. What little details I've provided regarding Nixon's upbringing should be sufficient evidence to defend the righteousness of his character, but it goes far beyond that. Not only was he was a major champion of civil rights, he was also a respectful diplomat and a true environmentalist. And despite his rough, hard-shelled exterior, Nixon is also known for being a warmhearted romantic. In letters to the soon-to-be Mrs. Nixon, Dick wrote romantic one-liners such as "the only thing that matters is that I love you more every day." Though he may have been a distant, introverted man in the political world, there was a soft, compassionate side of Nixon which existed deep within the shadows of his personal life.
Why do I believe that Nixon was a good President? That is a question that, if answered sincerely, requires a great deal of long-windedness, so I will attempt to summarize President Nixon's achievements in a somewhat brief manner. First and foremost, it is because of Nixon and Kissinger's foreign policy that the United States and China were able to re-establish a formal relationship. The President was able to settle relations between China and Taiwan; he was able to settle tensions between the U.S. and China as a result of the Vietnam War; he was able to quell international communist influences by further blocking the Soviet sphere of influence in China; and he fostered the Sino-American relationship which would ultimately lead to China's Open Door Policy.
Secondly, although they are rarely mentioned, Nixon made several forceful attempts at negotiating a reasonable and peaceful end to the war in Vietnam shortly after assuming the Presidency. In fact, in 1969, he introduced plans to begin weening Vietnamese troops off of their dependency on American soldiers so that they could fight their own war. Although he authorized secretive or covert operations in both Cambodia and Laos, these were often attempts to control supply trails and hinder the North Vietnamese through nonviolent means. On one hand, Nixon did not want the War in Vietnam to wage anymore than anyone else in America. On the other hand, he understood the importance of securing democracy in the Far East and assuring that the lives of American soldiers were not lost in vain.
Thirdly, his negotiations with the Soviet Union provided more progress in slowing nuclear proliferation than had been achieved by any previous President, as evidenced by SALT I and the beginnings of SALT II. Furthermore, his policies in the Far East, Latin American, and the Middle East also slowed the rate of Soviet influence. Along with his accomplishments in China and (arguably) Vietnam, Nixon was a strong supporter of Israel, as well as Saudi Arabia and Iran, who were all seeking to push back the extending reach of communism.
Fourthly, Nixon implemented numerous economic policies to fight rising inflation of the American dollar. He ended the convertibility of the dollar into gold which served its purpose of stabilizing the dollar (though its long-term effects have been highly debated by economists and politicians). In fact, the investor confidence which occurred as a result of this move by Nixon caused the Dow to increase 33 points the very next day.
Fifthly, as previously mentioned, Nixon was very concerned with environmentalism, and this concern led to the creation of EPA, as well as OSHA. He also supported the Clean Air Act of 1970 and the National Environmental Policy Act and is widely regarded as the greatest environmentalist President since Teddy Roosevelt. On the home front, Nixon also supported Healthcare reform, through things such as the replacement of Medicaid with state-run programs; he initiated the war on drugs; he catalyzed civil rights; and - under his watch - the United States became the world's first nation to place a man on the moon.
These are just a few achievements among many which are too frequently overlooked when considering Richard Nixon's legacy. Did he engage in dishonest and corrupt acts in the Watergate Scandal? Yes. But the shadow cast by this scandal, however large it may be, should not be large enough to obscure his innumerable accomplishments which improved both American life and the international political climate. And say what you will about Nixon and his coarse personality; after the soft, weak exterior and friendly personality of Kennedy and the juvenility and sporadic personality of Johnson, the United States needed a strong, tough, decisive, and calculated President. That is exactly what we got with Richard Nixon.
He may never be recognized for his successes, but - for better or for worse - the name Richard Nixon will never be forgotten.
Saturday, July 12, 2014
Gay Marriage and Why You Shouldn't Care
Let me begin this article by saying that I have no intentions of criticizing anyone's personal or religious views. I don't believe that being anti-gay marriage makes you a homophobe or a bad person nor do I believe that being pro-gay marriage makes you righteous and better than anyone else. I will continue to befriend people on both sides of the issue because political beliefs do not equal personal character.
That being said, I have a confession to make: for many, many years I was against gay marriage and homosexuality in general. Why? I don't really know. It's natural to fear the things that we can't see or don't understand, and it's also natural to condemn the things that we fear. For instance, many people don't understand guns and therefore fear them and condemn their use. (That's a different can of worms that will be opened on a different day, however.) The point is, homosexuality scares us because it's something we're not familiar with. We have to ask ourselves though, why are we so unfamiliar and how can we fix it?
The "why" part is rather easy to answer. For centuries, millennia even, homosexuality has been castigated, mostly under religious doctrine. The Bible makes a few criticisms of homosexuality, for instance, and therefore the idea that homosexuality is evil has been concreted into perpetuity, even for the nonreligious. As a result, homosexuals have been persecuted, abused, and ostracized from nearly every society, further discouraging any hope of these individuals being candid about their sexuality. Subsequently, homosexuality has become - more or less - a secretive way of life for many who, much to their dismay, must live their romantic lives solely behind closed doors. Remember how we fear the things which we can't see or don't understand? This is why.
Any "new" form of social expression, culture, lifestyle, etc. is labeled as taboo in its infancy. It's only over time that things become more of "the norm" because people begin seeing more of it and getting used to it. In my opinion, we're right at that turning point of homosexuality transitioning from taboo to socially accepted. Though far from a complete transition, many people (such as myself) are beginning to realize 'hey this has truly no affect on me whatsoever.'
That, I believe, is the biggest part of all. It doesn't affect me. It doesn't affect you. It doesn't affect anyone except for the members of the gay community. And like it or not, they may be part of the gay community, but they're also part of the same community as you and I. Now sure, folks will say things like "I don't support gay marriage because it takes away from the value of my traditional marriage." That argument, for lack of a better term, is b.s.
By that logic, Porsche owners wouldn't want people to drive Dodges because it would take away from the value of their vehicle. Or Democrats wouldn't want Republicans to have children because it would take away from the value of their parenthood. Or, even, Christians wouldn't want Jews to own homes because it would take away from the value of their homeownership. If you believe so strongly in your convictions that you are right and "they" are wrong, then their participation in the same institution only increases the value of your partnership. We, as humans, can tell nice cars from crappy cars; we can tell good parents from bad parents; we can tell nice homes from poor ones; and we can tell good marriages from bad marriages. With a divorce rate of 50% in America, it seems like the value of a lot of these folks' marriages isn't very high to begin with.
Many individuals who, perhaps, don't believe that gay marriage will depreciate their own marriage do believe that homosexuality is a choice. To be honest (though I am ashamed of it), I, too, was once guilty of this belief. Unfortunately, I have no empirical evidence or data and charts to prove that someone is born homosexual rather than making a choice (though studies do exist), but let's reason through this debate with an example:
It's Monday morning and you've just woken up and are getting ready to go to work or school. Before you leave the house, you check the weather - be it a phone app, television broadcast, website, etc. - to determine whether or not it will rain today. According to the forecast, there is a 90% chance that it will rain today, so you pack your umbrella and head on your way. But think about what just happened there. You placed trust in experts (namely meteorologists) who used their knowledge and experience in the subject of climate and weather to most accurately predict the day's weather. You didn't call your pizza deliveryman to ask him what the weather would be, because he's not an expert. Now sure, weather is a constant guessing game and meteorologists are often wrong, but if a group of dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of meteorologists tell you that it's going to rain, you should (and likely will) believe them.
Now let's apply this to homosexuality. I am not an expert on homosexuality, and unless you, personally, are gay, then you are not either. Now, if I'm trying to determine whether homosexuality is a choice or not, I'm going to ask an expert—a homosexual. In my experience, I have yet to hear from a single gay person that believes that their sexual orientation was a choice. But even if there are some who believe they made a conscious decision to be gay, the overwhelming majority of the gay population loyally asserts that it is, in fact, not a choice. So who am I to argue? Heterosexuals who insist that gays choose their sexual orientation are just pizza deliverymen trying to tell the meteorologists that they're wrong about the weather. I, personally, am heterosexual, and I do not recall making any conscious decision to like women over men. Do you remember deciding what to like?
Now lastly, I'd like to challenge the belief that since homosexuality is a sin (which can be argued) it must be banned. First of all, we're all sinners. Most of us - if not all - sin on a daily basis. If we didn't sin, then Jesus would have died for nothing. By no means does that mean that we should sin as much as possible, but the Lord sacrificed his life because he knew that we would sin. Beyond that, however, Christians universally agree that only God can judge. Devout Christians believe that homosexuals will be sent to Hell by God for their actions if they do not seek forgiveness. It seems, then, that Christian Americans should stop passing judgment and attempting to fill the shoes of God. Either homosexuals will be sent to Hell and receive their "fair punishment" or they will spend their lives being gay, ask for God's forgiveness, and enter Heaven. Everyone else can sin and receive forgiveness, so why can't gays? Either way, they should be allowed to commit their so-called sins during their time on Earth, the same way the rest of us are.
Secondly, there are a lot of sins. Sure, we know the seven deadly sins and the 10 Commandments, but apparently, anything which the Bible denounces is considered a sin. Does that mean that we should make laws banning individuals from committing every sin possible? That doesn't sound very practical. Not to mention, several of the 10 Commandments are perfectly legal in the United States. It's not illegal to worship other gods; it's not illegal to take the Lord's name in vain; it's not illegal to skip church on Sunday; and it's not illegal (in most states) to commit adultery. And though the seven deadly sins are very broad terms, they typically are legal as well. It's impractical to think that we should govern the lives of all Americans by the doctrine of just one religion and ban every act that could possibly be interpreted as sin.
Thirdly, there are many, many verses in the Bible condoning things which - in no way - should be accepted today. Exodus 21:20-21, for instance, says (in simple terms) that a man may strike his slave with a rod. If the slaves dies, then the man shall be punished. If the slave recovers after a day or two, however, then the man shall not be punished, because his slave is his property. Realistically, the anti-gay marriage crowd would argue that we should not follow that rule, but we should follow the one which denounces a man lying with another man. But how can we pick and choose which verses by which to govern and which to not? It's one thing for an individual to pick and choose the standards by which to live, but it's impossible for a government to objectively do so.
Fourthly, the Bible is a largely symbolic and allegorical book. Again, I have no intentions of criticizing or denouncing anyone's religion, but many of the stories which take place in the Bible are not intended to be taken literally. For instance, most people know that the burning bush is a literary symbol, but many of the same people vehemently believe that Egyptians were turning sticks into snakes. My point is, much like my previous example, there's no objective way of determining which stories should be interpreted literally and which should be interpreted figuratively, and it certainly is not the role of the government to do so.
Lastly, I'm tired of hearing "we are a Christian nation and were founded on Christian ideals." For one, Egypt was founded on polytheism and Pharaonic beliefs but is now predominantly Sunni Muslim; does that mean their laws should be rooted in polytheism? America is and always has been predominantly Protestant Christian, but there's no such thing as a right or wrong religion. Yet formulating governing laws based on just one religion implies that there is, and it is grossly unfair to those who do not subscribe to Christianity. Furthermore, the belief that our founding fathers were ubiquitously Christian is simply false.
Spoiler Alert: This will rain on your parade.
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Thomas Paine, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, and Abraham Lincoln (though not a founding father) were all deists. What is a deist, you may ask. Though they were considered the atheists of their times, deists - in the simplest of explanations - believe in two major things. First, God exists but does not interfere with the world; in other words, He got the ball rolling and hasn't touched it since. Secondly, books, scriptures, and individuals claiming to reveal the word of God are completely bogus. Yes, that means that they did not believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God or a prophet of any type, and yes, they rejected the Bible. If you don't believe me, you can see for yourself. Thomas Paine, writer of Common Sense and one of the key initiators of the American revolution, wrote "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of...Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."
Now, although this has been a somewhat long-winded response to the challenges to gay marriage, I believe it's warranted. There are a million and one reasons which I haven't even had the chance to touch on, such as the fact that government has no right interfering with the institution of marriage in the first place, the tax benefits for individuals, and the role of federalism which undoubtedly defines this as a state's rights issue rather than a federal one.
But, aside from that, even if you're uncomfortable being pro-gay marriage, it doesn't mean that you have to be anti-gay marriage. It's perfectly okay to simply not care. If you or I wake up one day and gay people can suddenly get married, what will change in our lives? Nothing that I can think of. This is a futile fight for those that oppose the right, as we all know that it is a social change which is inevitable. The sooner we can learn to accept the issue and understand that homosexuals are normal people rather than a bunch of flamboyant, in-your-face, rainbow-wearing freaks, the sooner our country can focus on more important issues.
That being said, I have a confession to make: for many, many years I was against gay marriage and homosexuality in general. Why? I don't really know. It's natural to fear the things that we can't see or don't understand, and it's also natural to condemn the things that we fear. For instance, many people don't understand guns and therefore fear them and condemn their use. (That's a different can of worms that will be opened on a different day, however.) The point is, homosexuality scares us because it's something we're not familiar with. We have to ask ourselves though, why are we so unfamiliar and how can we fix it?
The "why" part is rather easy to answer. For centuries, millennia even, homosexuality has been castigated, mostly under religious doctrine. The Bible makes a few criticisms of homosexuality, for instance, and therefore the idea that homosexuality is evil has been concreted into perpetuity, even for the nonreligious. As a result, homosexuals have been persecuted, abused, and ostracized from nearly every society, further discouraging any hope of these individuals being candid about their sexuality. Subsequently, homosexuality has become - more or less - a secretive way of life for many who, much to their dismay, must live their romantic lives solely behind closed doors. Remember how we fear the things which we can't see or don't understand? This is why.
Any "new" form of social expression, culture, lifestyle, etc. is labeled as taboo in its infancy. It's only over time that things become more of "the norm" because people begin seeing more of it and getting used to it. In my opinion, we're right at that turning point of homosexuality transitioning from taboo to socially accepted. Though far from a complete transition, many people (such as myself) are beginning to realize 'hey this has truly no affect on me whatsoever.'
That, I believe, is the biggest part of all. It doesn't affect me. It doesn't affect you. It doesn't affect anyone except for the members of the gay community. And like it or not, they may be part of the gay community, but they're also part of the same community as you and I. Now sure, folks will say things like "I don't support gay marriage because it takes away from the value of my traditional marriage." That argument, for lack of a better term, is b.s.
By that logic, Porsche owners wouldn't want people to drive Dodges because it would take away from the value of their vehicle. Or Democrats wouldn't want Republicans to have children because it would take away from the value of their parenthood. Or, even, Christians wouldn't want Jews to own homes because it would take away from the value of their homeownership. If you believe so strongly in your convictions that you are right and "they" are wrong, then their participation in the same institution only increases the value of your partnership. We, as humans, can tell nice cars from crappy cars; we can tell good parents from bad parents; we can tell nice homes from poor ones; and we can tell good marriages from bad marriages. With a divorce rate of 50% in America, it seems like the value of a lot of these folks' marriages isn't very high to begin with.
Many individuals who, perhaps, don't believe that gay marriage will depreciate their own marriage do believe that homosexuality is a choice. To be honest (though I am ashamed of it), I, too, was once guilty of this belief. Unfortunately, I have no empirical evidence or data and charts to prove that someone is born homosexual rather than making a choice (though studies do exist), but let's reason through this debate with an example:
It's Monday morning and you've just woken up and are getting ready to go to work or school. Before you leave the house, you check the weather - be it a phone app, television broadcast, website, etc. - to determine whether or not it will rain today. According to the forecast, there is a 90% chance that it will rain today, so you pack your umbrella and head on your way. But think about what just happened there. You placed trust in experts (namely meteorologists) who used their knowledge and experience in the subject of climate and weather to most accurately predict the day's weather. You didn't call your pizza deliveryman to ask him what the weather would be, because he's not an expert. Now sure, weather is a constant guessing game and meteorologists are often wrong, but if a group of dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of meteorologists tell you that it's going to rain, you should (and likely will) believe them.
Now let's apply this to homosexuality. I am not an expert on homosexuality, and unless you, personally, are gay, then you are not either. Now, if I'm trying to determine whether homosexuality is a choice or not, I'm going to ask an expert—a homosexual. In my experience, I have yet to hear from a single gay person that believes that their sexual orientation was a choice. But even if there are some who believe they made a conscious decision to be gay, the overwhelming majority of the gay population loyally asserts that it is, in fact, not a choice. So who am I to argue? Heterosexuals who insist that gays choose their sexual orientation are just pizza deliverymen trying to tell the meteorologists that they're wrong about the weather. I, personally, am heterosexual, and I do not recall making any conscious decision to like women over men. Do you remember deciding what to like?
Now lastly, I'd like to challenge the belief that since homosexuality is a sin (which can be argued) it must be banned. First of all, we're all sinners. Most of us - if not all - sin on a daily basis. If we didn't sin, then Jesus would have died for nothing. By no means does that mean that we should sin as much as possible, but the Lord sacrificed his life because he knew that we would sin. Beyond that, however, Christians universally agree that only God can judge. Devout Christians believe that homosexuals will be sent to Hell by God for their actions if they do not seek forgiveness. It seems, then, that Christian Americans should stop passing judgment and attempting to fill the shoes of God. Either homosexuals will be sent to Hell and receive their "fair punishment" or they will spend their lives being gay, ask for God's forgiveness, and enter Heaven. Everyone else can sin and receive forgiveness, so why can't gays? Either way, they should be allowed to commit their so-called sins during their time on Earth, the same way the rest of us are.
Secondly, there are a lot of sins. Sure, we know the seven deadly sins and the 10 Commandments, but apparently, anything which the Bible denounces is considered a sin. Does that mean that we should make laws banning individuals from committing every sin possible? That doesn't sound very practical. Not to mention, several of the 10 Commandments are perfectly legal in the United States. It's not illegal to worship other gods; it's not illegal to take the Lord's name in vain; it's not illegal to skip church on Sunday; and it's not illegal (in most states) to commit adultery. And though the seven deadly sins are very broad terms, they typically are legal as well. It's impractical to think that we should govern the lives of all Americans by the doctrine of just one religion and ban every act that could possibly be interpreted as sin.
Thirdly, there are many, many verses in the Bible condoning things which - in no way - should be accepted today. Exodus 21:20-21, for instance, says (in simple terms) that a man may strike his slave with a rod. If the slaves dies, then the man shall be punished. If the slave recovers after a day or two, however, then the man shall not be punished, because his slave is his property. Realistically, the anti-gay marriage crowd would argue that we should not follow that rule, but we should follow the one which denounces a man lying with another man. But how can we pick and choose which verses by which to govern and which to not? It's one thing for an individual to pick and choose the standards by which to live, but it's impossible for a government to objectively do so.
Fourthly, the Bible is a largely symbolic and allegorical book. Again, I have no intentions of criticizing or denouncing anyone's religion, but many of the stories which take place in the Bible are not intended to be taken literally. For instance, most people know that the burning bush is a literary symbol, but many of the same people vehemently believe that Egyptians were turning sticks into snakes. My point is, much like my previous example, there's no objective way of determining which stories should be interpreted literally and which should be interpreted figuratively, and it certainly is not the role of the government to do so.
Lastly, I'm tired of hearing "we are a Christian nation and were founded on Christian ideals." For one, Egypt was founded on polytheism and Pharaonic beliefs but is now predominantly Sunni Muslim; does that mean their laws should be rooted in polytheism? America is and always has been predominantly Protestant Christian, but there's no such thing as a right or wrong religion. Yet formulating governing laws based on just one religion implies that there is, and it is grossly unfair to those who do not subscribe to Christianity. Furthermore, the belief that our founding fathers were ubiquitously Christian is simply false.
Spoiler Alert: This will rain on your parade.
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Thomas Paine, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, and Abraham Lincoln (though not a founding father) were all deists. What is a deist, you may ask. Though they were considered the atheists of their times, deists - in the simplest of explanations - believe in two major things. First, God exists but does not interfere with the world; in other words, He got the ball rolling and hasn't touched it since. Secondly, books, scriptures, and individuals claiming to reveal the word of God are completely bogus. Yes, that means that they did not believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God or a prophet of any type, and yes, they rejected the Bible. If you don't believe me, you can see for yourself. Thomas Paine, writer of Common Sense and one of the key initiators of the American revolution, wrote "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of...Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."
Now, although this has been a somewhat long-winded response to the challenges to gay marriage, I believe it's warranted. There are a million and one reasons which I haven't even had the chance to touch on, such as the fact that government has no right interfering with the institution of marriage in the first place, the tax benefits for individuals, and the role of federalism which undoubtedly defines this as a state's rights issue rather than a federal one.
But, aside from that, even if you're uncomfortable being pro-gay marriage, it doesn't mean that you have to be anti-gay marriage. It's perfectly okay to simply not care. If you or I wake up one day and gay people can suddenly get married, what will change in our lives? Nothing that I can think of. This is a futile fight for those that oppose the right, as we all know that it is a social change which is inevitable. The sooner we can learn to accept the issue and understand that homosexuals are normal people rather than a bunch of flamboyant, in-your-face, rainbow-wearing freaks, the sooner our country can focus on more important issues.
Wednesday, July 9, 2014
Sensible Immigration Reform
Along with the Hobby Lobby decision, one of the most rampant topics in the current news is the humanitarian crisis occurring at the Mexican border and the need for immigration reform. Before diving into the issue and discussing a pragmatic solution, I'd like to point out some interesting facts and statistics.
Firstly, there are an estimated 11.4 million illegal immigrants in the United States. With a total population of about 315 million individuals, that means that about 1 out of every 25 people in the U.S. is an illegal immigrant. Approximately 6.7 million of these individuals are from Mexico; 1.3 million are from Central America; 575,000 are from South America; and, shockingly, about 1.2 million are from South and East Asia. The last statistic alone indicates to me that while there is undoubtedly a Mexican border crisis, with such a high number of illegal immigrants from Asia, the Mexican border is not our only issue.
Despite claims that we're not doing anything to deport illegal immigrants, we - on average - deport about 1 million immigrants each year. While that is not enough to reverse the rising trend of immigration, it is still a substantial number. Customs and Border Protection, alone, receives over $10 billion each year. They are responsible for "securing" a border with Mexico that stretches 2,000 miles, and currently the number of border patrol agents exceeds 20,000.
It's also worth pointing out that despite misconceptions that the United States provides an exceptional amount of foreign aid to nations in Central and South America, the only nation on either the North or South American continent which receives more than $200 million (which in federal budget terms is miniscule) is Colombia, who receives about $550 million in economic aid from the U.S. This is worth noting because a common solution to resolving the ongoing humanitarian crisis is diverting foreign aid to fuel border protection, however, these foreign aid amounts are very insignificant.
So now that the facts and figures have been laid out, let's ask the most important question of all. No, not the question of how tall our fence will be. Rather, we should ask why these immigrants are leaving their nations. Now, of course, immigrants have fled to the U.S. for centuries to seek a better life, but the current influx of Central American immigrants (particularly youth) indicates that there is something else going on.
Due to ongoing crises in Central American nations, an estimated 60,000 unaccompanied children will attempt to cross the border into the United States in 2014. You think you feel lonely walking to work by yourself? Imagine being an 8 year old crossing into the United States completely alone, not knowing anyone or where to go—it's a terrifying thought. Now, certainly President Obama's amnesty plan to provide all 11 million illegal immigrants an expedited path to citizenship is partly to blame for this surge of immigrants. But the poor political and social conditions of places such as Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras are also major contributors to these astounding numbers.
An obvious issue arises due to the substantial number of children who are migrating to the United States. Naturally, imprisoning or holding captive thousands of children for extended periods of time only to send them back into the awful conditions of their home countries seems rather dark and unfortunate. After all, even the most staunch of conservatives who believe our borders should be tight as a tick can empathize with parents sending their children away in pursuit of a better, safer life. But simply allowing children to illegally enter and settle in America sets a dangerous precedent. The reality is, there simply aren't enough Madonnas to take care of these children, and something needs to be done.
Another issue arises due to the fact that a law signed by President Bush in 2008 requires that children of nations which do not border the U.S. must undergo a deportation hearing before being sent back to their home country. This, of course, drastically slows the process for ridding these youths from the United States, and as a result, hundreds and thousands of children are being crammed into overcrowded facilities while they await their trial.
President Obama has recently requested $3.7 billion in emergency funds, $1.8 billion of which will be utilized to provide better facilities and resources for these children while they are being processed. Most of the remaining funds would be allocated to the Department of Homeland Security to further tighten security on our borders to ensure that less illegal immigrants find their way into the U.S. Despite bipartisan calls to resolve the immigration crisis, Democrats and Republicans are having a great deal of trouble agreeing on how exactly to do that.
So, in essence, it seems that there are four main problems arising from this broad crisis:
1) The 11.4 million illegal immigrants who live and work within the United States despite a lack of citizenship.
2) An exposed border which is clearly susceptible to crossing by illegal immigrants.
3) Poor economic, social, and political conditions in Latin American nations.
4) A substantial overwhelming of Customs and Border Protection facilities due to the housing and processing of an exceptionally high number of illegal youth.
Unfortunately, there is no perfect solution, and there is no magical wand that can be waved to make all of these problems disappear. I do, however, have a number of solutions that - in my opinion - address these dire issues in a reasonable and appropriate manner.
Firstly, I think that it is important that we address this as a humanitarian crisis rather than a border crisis, and treat the appropriate individuals (both children and adults) as refugees rather than simply illegal immigrants. To be granted asylum in the United States, individuals must prove three things: he or she fears persecution; he or she would be persecuted on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or social group; and the government within his or her nation is either responsible for the persecution or is unable to stop it. These requirements are incredibly broad, and based upon the conditions of nations in Central and South America, a very high number of individuals meet these qualifications and could legally settle in the U.S. following an appropriate trial.
Secondly, I do not believe that universal amnesty for all current residents is in line with the objective which we are attempting to achieve. I believe that families consisting of a parent(s) and child(ren) who have resided in the United States for 5 years or more should be granted amnesty. Families who have not met the 5 year mark, however, should be deported, and all other illegal individuals who do not have a family (regardless of how long they have resided here) should also be deported. Our most important goal, in my opinion, is doing everything in our power to ensure that families are not divided.
Thirdly, I believe that U.S. foreign aid to nations such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Egypt, and Russia should be drastically decreased in order to reallocate those funds to nations in Central and South America. The most effective way to prevent illegal immigration to the United States is to improve the conditions in the home countries of these immigrants. I believe also that - where necessary - the United Nations (despite its inefficiency) should intervene in places like Colombia and Guatemala to ensure the safety and prosperity of the citizens.
Fourthly, it would be wise to continue to fund Customs and Border Protection in order to secure our border with Mexico. I would like to see a joint program established with Mexico to encourage their support. Perhaps, establish a deal with the Mexican government under the conditions that increased security efforts on their side of the border to prevent illegal crossings will result in increased foreign aid and/or economic investments in Mexican industries and exports. We should also continue to work vigorously to quell these drug cartels and sex traffickers in Mexico and ensure that innocent children do not become drug mules or sex slaves as so often is the case.
Lastly, I support increased funding to Customs and Border Protection to improve housing facilities for children waiting to be processed, as well as to expedite the hearing process. While many oppose the implementation of a hearing process, it is important to evaluate and determine the conditions of these children in their home country and grant political asylum when appropriate. As we work to improve conditions in Central and South America, the need for asylums will decrease accordingly.
Is this plan of mine expensive? Perhaps. But the deportation of several million illegal immigrants coupled with slowing the trend of incoming immigrants will have incredibly beneficial impacts on the economy in terms of jobs. It will also decrease the frequency of tax fraud, decrease crime and the importation of illegal drugs and firearms, and decrease expenditures for things like long term deportation trials, federally funded ESL programs, and emergency healthcare for illegal immigrants. So while the short term plan may be expensive, the long term results balance out.
Of course, this is just my opinion. And who cares what I think? The important thing to remember is that this is a very fragile issue, and it needs to be treated accordingly. Both sides of the aisle should work to prevent illegal immigration in humane and thoughtful ways. We must also consider the environments of those living in these respective nations and work to improve their conditions and lives. No matter your opinion on the issue, we can all agree that we should work collectively to improve the lives of Americans, as well as all human beings.
Firstly, there are an estimated 11.4 million illegal immigrants in the United States. With a total population of about 315 million individuals, that means that about 1 out of every 25 people in the U.S. is an illegal immigrant. Approximately 6.7 million of these individuals are from Mexico; 1.3 million are from Central America; 575,000 are from South America; and, shockingly, about 1.2 million are from South and East Asia. The last statistic alone indicates to me that while there is undoubtedly a Mexican border crisis, with such a high number of illegal immigrants from Asia, the Mexican border is not our only issue.
Despite claims that we're not doing anything to deport illegal immigrants, we - on average - deport about 1 million immigrants each year. While that is not enough to reverse the rising trend of immigration, it is still a substantial number. Customs and Border Protection, alone, receives over $10 billion each year. They are responsible for "securing" a border with Mexico that stretches 2,000 miles, and currently the number of border patrol agents exceeds 20,000.
It's also worth pointing out that despite misconceptions that the United States provides an exceptional amount of foreign aid to nations in Central and South America, the only nation on either the North or South American continent which receives more than $200 million (which in federal budget terms is miniscule) is Colombia, who receives about $550 million in economic aid from the U.S. This is worth noting because a common solution to resolving the ongoing humanitarian crisis is diverting foreign aid to fuel border protection, however, these foreign aid amounts are very insignificant.
So now that the facts and figures have been laid out, let's ask the most important question of all. No, not the question of how tall our fence will be. Rather, we should ask why these immigrants are leaving their nations. Now, of course, immigrants have fled to the U.S. for centuries to seek a better life, but the current influx of Central American immigrants (particularly youth) indicates that there is something else going on.
Due to ongoing crises in Central American nations, an estimated 60,000 unaccompanied children will attempt to cross the border into the United States in 2014. You think you feel lonely walking to work by yourself? Imagine being an 8 year old crossing into the United States completely alone, not knowing anyone or where to go—it's a terrifying thought. Now, certainly President Obama's amnesty plan to provide all 11 million illegal immigrants an expedited path to citizenship is partly to blame for this surge of immigrants. But the poor political and social conditions of places such as Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras are also major contributors to these astounding numbers.
An obvious issue arises due to the substantial number of children who are migrating to the United States. Naturally, imprisoning or holding captive thousands of children for extended periods of time only to send them back into the awful conditions of their home countries seems rather dark and unfortunate. After all, even the most staunch of conservatives who believe our borders should be tight as a tick can empathize with parents sending their children away in pursuit of a better, safer life. But simply allowing children to illegally enter and settle in America sets a dangerous precedent. The reality is, there simply aren't enough Madonnas to take care of these children, and something needs to be done.
Another issue arises due to the fact that a law signed by President Bush in 2008 requires that children of nations which do not border the U.S. must undergo a deportation hearing before being sent back to their home country. This, of course, drastically slows the process for ridding these youths from the United States, and as a result, hundreds and thousands of children are being crammed into overcrowded facilities while they await their trial.
President Obama has recently requested $3.7 billion in emergency funds, $1.8 billion of which will be utilized to provide better facilities and resources for these children while they are being processed. Most of the remaining funds would be allocated to the Department of Homeland Security to further tighten security on our borders to ensure that less illegal immigrants find their way into the U.S. Despite bipartisan calls to resolve the immigration crisis, Democrats and Republicans are having a great deal of trouble agreeing on how exactly to do that.
So, in essence, it seems that there are four main problems arising from this broad crisis:
1) The 11.4 million illegal immigrants who live and work within the United States despite a lack of citizenship.
2) An exposed border which is clearly susceptible to crossing by illegal immigrants.
3) Poor economic, social, and political conditions in Latin American nations.
4) A substantial overwhelming of Customs and Border Protection facilities due to the housing and processing of an exceptionally high number of illegal youth.
Unfortunately, there is no perfect solution, and there is no magical wand that can be waved to make all of these problems disappear. I do, however, have a number of solutions that - in my opinion - address these dire issues in a reasonable and appropriate manner.
Firstly, I think that it is important that we address this as a humanitarian crisis rather than a border crisis, and treat the appropriate individuals (both children and adults) as refugees rather than simply illegal immigrants. To be granted asylum in the United States, individuals must prove three things: he or she fears persecution; he or she would be persecuted on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or social group; and the government within his or her nation is either responsible for the persecution or is unable to stop it. These requirements are incredibly broad, and based upon the conditions of nations in Central and South America, a very high number of individuals meet these qualifications and could legally settle in the U.S. following an appropriate trial.
Secondly, I do not believe that universal amnesty for all current residents is in line with the objective which we are attempting to achieve. I believe that families consisting of a parent(s) and child(ren) who have resided in the United States for 5 years or more should be granted amnesty. Families who have not met the 5 year mark, however, should be deported, and all other illegal individuals who do not have a family (regardless of how long they have resided here) should also be deported. Our most important goal, in my opinion, is doing everything in our power to ensure that families are not divided.
Thirdly, I believe that U.S. foreign aid to nations such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Egypt, and Russia should be drastically decreased in order to reallocate those funds to nations in Central and South America. The most effective way to prevent illegal immigration to the United States is to improve the conditions in the home countries of these immigrants. I believe also that - where necessary - the United Nations (despite its inefficiency) should intervene in places like Colombia and Guatemala to ensure the safety and prosperity of the citizens.
Fourthly, it would be wise to continue to fund Customs and Border Protection in order to secure our border with Mexico. I would like to see a joint program established with Mexico to encourage their support. Perhaps, establish a deal with the Mexican government under the conditions that increased security efforts on their side of the border to prevent illegal crossings will result in increased foreign aid and/or economic investments in Mexican industries and exports. We should also continue to work vigorously to quell these drug cartels and sex traffickers in Mexico and ensure that innocent children do not become drug mules or sex slaves as so often is the case.
Lastly, I support increased funding to Customs and Border Protection to improve housing facilities for children waiting to be processed, as well as to expedite the hearing process. While many oppose the implementation of a hearing process, it is important to evaluate and determine the conditions of these children in their home country and grant political asylum when appropriate. As we work to improve conditions in Central and South America, the need for asylums will decrease accordingly.
Is this plan of mine expensive? Perhaps. But the deportation of several million illegal immigrants coupled with slowing the trend of incoming immigrants will have incredibly beneficial impacts on the economy in terms of jobs. It will also decrease the frequency of tax fraud, decrease crime and the importation of illegal drugs and firearms, and decrease expenditures for things like long term deportation trials, federally funded ESL programs, and emergency healthcare for illegal immigrants. So while the short term plan may be expensive, the long term results balance out.
Of course, this is just my opinion. And who cares what I think? The important thing to remember is that this is a very fragile issue, and it needs to be treated accordingly. Both sides of the aisle should work to prevent illegal immigration in humane and thoughtful ways. We must also consider the environments of those living in these respective nations and work to improve their conditions and lives. No matter your opinion on the issue, we can all agree that we should work collectively to improve the lives of Americans, as well as all human beings.
Tuesday, July 8, 2014
Hobby Lobby Explained
The now famous case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (colloquially known as simply the Hobby Lobby case) was decided by the Supreme Court a little over a week ago. For those of you who don't live under a rock, you're well aware of the political and social turmoil that has resulted following the decision offered by the Supreme Court. Despite supporters arguing for Hobby Lobby's First Amendment rights and oppositionists arguing for individual (namely female) rights, it seems that the general public has a lack of understanding of the ins and outs of the case. It's my goal to remedy that.
First, I'd like to begin by explaining what exactly the terms of the suit were. Under the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare), employers are mandated to provide employees with no-cost access to about 20 different forms of contraceptives. These include traditional forms of birth control that act proactively; that is, they are intended to prevent pregnancy from occurring. They also include four forms of retroactive birth control, also known as "the morning after pill" which terminate pregnancy at its earliest stages.
Due to the fact that Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties (a cabinetry company also involved in the suit) are owned by conservative Christians, the religious beliefs of the owners contradict the use of the morning after pill. Therefore, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga argued that, due to their protection of religious freedom under the First Amendment, they should not be required to provide no-cost access to these four types of medicine and only these four types of morning after pills. These two companies were and are still completely willing to subsidize costs for traditional birth control.
The First Amendment rights of these corporations are further protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Although the federal government argued that Hobby Lobby and Conestoga - being corporations - do not receive protection under the RFRA, the Court disagreed. The Court stated that if this was the case, then companies would either forfeit their right to judicial protection of religious freedom or forfeit their status as companies. This, according to the Court, was not a fair choice for companies to face.
Not only is the RFRA broad in its general language, it also undoubtedly applies to individual persons. And according to the Dictionary Act and the general notion of corporate personhood, corporations are people. To quote the decision handed down by the Supreme Court: "a corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings to achieve desired ends. An established body of law specifies the rights and obligations of the people (including shareholders, officers, and employees) who are associated with a corporation in one way or another. When rights, whether constitutional or statutory, are extended to corporations, the purpose is to protect the rights of these people."
So it's already clear that corporations, as extensions of human beings, are treated under the law as people and have the same constitutional rights as people. This is not an issue that applies to most large, publicly owned corporations such as Apple, Microsoft, or IBM due to the fact that they are owned by many shareholders who all share different religious beliefs. For family owned companies, however, such as Hobby Lobby, Conestoga, or Chick-fil-A, whose owners have a well-defined and distinguishable religious ideology, the RFRA clearly applies.
Next, the Court was forced to consider whether a government mandate for these companies to provide the morning after pill imposed a substantial burden on the corporations' ability to exercise their religion. Due to the fact that the religious beliefs of Christianity are rather cut and dry, this was an easy question to answer: yes, a mandate does impose a substantial burden on their religious freedom.
Lastly, the Court considered whether the federal government has a considerable interest in ensuring that female employees receive the morning after pill and that they receive it in the least restrictive way possible. The Court found that the government, in fact, does have a reasonable interest in making sure that women receive the morning after pill. However, mandating companies to provide the medicine, in their opinion, is not the least restrictive way to provide it.
Instead, corporations can address the issue the same way that non-profits that are religiously opposed do. While still providing full health insurance, they may opt out of providing no-cost morning after pills, and the women, instead, can still receive coverage for these medicines by either the insurance company or the government paying for the medicine. Yes, that's right, women that work for Hobby Lobby or Conestoga can still receive no-cost morning after medicine.
Now, before you begin asking, "what if I work for a Christian Scientist or a Quaker? Can they choose not to provide vaccinations or any forms of medicine at all?" The answer, plainly, is no. The Court expressly stated that if there is a government interest to prevent disease, death, etc. and there is no less restrictive method of providing the appropriate medical care, then corporations very well may have to act outside of their religious ideology—whether they like it or not.
You've likely read on Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and the like that this decision is a drastic blow to women's rights. You probably also read that corporations no longer have to provide any form of contraception and that women, now, will have to find alternative ways to purchase expensive birth control. That simply is not true. In its simplest form, the Supreme Court stated that corporations that have clear, well-intended religious objections to providing no-cost access to the morning after pill can opt out of doing so in the case that there is a less restrictive way to offer the same access to the same medicine for the same women.
Lastly, it's worth considering what this means for businesses and corporations. While the ruling has been generally viewed in a negative light by the American public, it has tremendous benefits for businesses. The most significant, of course, being that businesses have First Amendment rights. Say, for instance, you are a small business owner and you place a campaign sticker on your door, supporting a candidate. Without First Amendment rights for your business, your store could be shut down.
I support the idea that women should have access to all forms of health care and contraceptives if they desire it. I also support the idea that businesses and corporations should be protected, as people, under the First Amendment. Though you won't find it written in many other places, this decision is a universal win for everyone. Businesses get their way, women still get their way, and everyone's rights are still protected.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)