Critique #2: Second Civil Right Movement

From the blog, We the People, an article titled, Second Civil Right Movement, written by Tin Nguyen addresses the issue about the widely known topic of gays and lesbians. The writer emphasizes the importance of allowing gay marriages because he notes that it is one of the civil rights that people are entitled to. The writer ties the idea of civil rights and gay marriages together by the notion that people should be recognized and respected no matter whom they marry. This leads to a controversial question about gay marriages, how does it truly affect our society in the future?

In this article about gay marriages, the writer shows full support and respect for gay marriages. Opposing the idea of using religion as the base to critique gays and lesbians, the writer states that the Framers wanted separation of state and church in order to prevent the violations of individuals rights. In other words, if the Americans do use religion to condemn the lifestyles of gays and lesbians, then that have violated what the Framers intended. Not only that, but doesn't our constitution declared the establishment clause? This clause states that our country can not establish a national religion nor can we have preference towards a particular religion. If Americans do cite that gays and lesbians are wrong from the Bible, then haven't they just violated the establishment clause as well? I agree with the writer about the ridiculous idea of using religion to judge somebody. How do we know which religion then we must use to base our facts? Because the answer is we don't know. All religions are different, and people are taught different ideas, so we can never use religion to judge a person.

The writer also defends his stance by stating how gays and lesbians are not morally wrong. Once again, the writer believes that declaring the fact that gays can jeopardize family values is wrong. The writer provides a similar dilemmia centuries ago, when black and white people could not be interracially married. Yet now, we see many people marry interraccially, and the writer believes that maybe after the society learns to accept it, then gay marriage will be more acceptable. Acceptable is fine with me, but I wouldn't like it if it was the norm. Everybody's values are different, and I hold a more traditional view about this. Yet I do think that gay marriages should be more open and accepted in this chaotic society.

Therefore, I strongly support the writer about granting gays and lesbians the right to marry whom they choose to. We live in a free world, then why must this simple matter be on headline news every time? To exclude someone because of their sexual orientation is not just, and this brings more discrimination and hatred that we hold for each other. Why must we care what others want to do about their lives, when it doesn't even terrorize our own lives? All in all, this creates more discrimination and rebellious attitudes among the people living together in this country. We are called the United States. Then why can't we civilly unite among the states and pass a law that guarantees that gays are allow the same privileges as other people when they move from states to states? Didn't the 14th amendment guarantee the equal protection for everyone, privileges and immunities to all, and due process clause for one's life, liberty, and property? Why do people violate such laws and act like that they are doing us all a favor? Simply put that no matter what the law said about the equal protection and privileges and immunities for everyone, but there are some Americans that still find gays and lesbians a terrible deed. Who are they to judge what's right and wrong, when we all know that humans are imperfect?

Commentary #2: Homeless

There are countless people out in America that are homeless, and reside under bridges. Anywhere there is a freeway, you'll likely see homeless people wandering around. Is this the image that America wants to give to visitors from foreign countries who respect the United States because of our leadership skills? Picturing a homeless person holding a sign begging for spare change, is not an attractive image that can show visitors the high leadership skills and quality we have apart from other countries. Shouldn't America focus on improving the basic standards of living for these people and weed out all the frauds that stand there to make money? Many celebrities have donated millions of dollars to research organizations and other undeveloped countries, then why not help our own country first?

Many people don't trust the homeless because of the rumored scandals that the people standing out there are actually people that are financially well off. Yet there are some people that are really homeless, and need our help. There's nothing glamorous about being a homeless. As homeless, they have no stable place to call home and no clean food to eat. Their life is constantly twirling around in chaotic and people back away from them because they are scare that these homeless carry contagious germs that can spread. Driving down the road, I'm sure we all have seen people standing out there holding a sign. The people we see aren't in the cleanest clothes and aren't the healthiest people we met for sure. It might be their own fault for standing out in the heated sun or in the cold winter, but no matter who's fault it really is, we must help them in order to help our country. Good or bad, we all must help them make the best of their lives.

I personally think that having people standing by freeways and roads holding signs should be ban. For one, this cause distraction. Homeless people wander about and affect the drivers. Some homeless people are aggressive and some seldom watch for the roads. It's already against the law to ride a bike on the freeway, then why can't this be ban as well? Not only do they cause distraction, but they once again show visitors the different side of America. America can offer more sheltering and housing for the homeless, but it's not wise to call the streets your home, right? There are many assistance programs in America that I think these homeless should be aware about. As citizens we can tell the homeless the programs that are offered specifically for them, and this can help America. Every organization nowadays focuses on research and donations for the undeveloped countries, but hardly any organization sets foot in promoting for the homeless. Why is that? Just because they had a rough life doesn't mean that it'll never change. Hopefully one day, organizations and sponsors can promote and actively participate in fundraising for the homeless. As the United Stated Government, shouldn't they pay close attention to the welfare of the people? Therefore, I strongly encourage more methods of helping the homeless and give them something they have lost. After all, a small difference can mean the world to them.

Critque #1: Texting While Driving

From the blog, The Earhorn, an article titled, Texting While Driving is on the Chopping Block, written by Curtis Chapman, addressing the issue about the main problem of texting while driving. The writer addresses an important issue about texting and the enforcement that states need to issue in order to receive federal funding for highways. The writer mentions the role of the federal government in funding for highways, given in forms of grants known as categorical grants that require the states to oblige to the federal government before receiving any grant.

In the article about texting written by Chapman, the writer shows support for passing a law that bans texting while driving. Using statistic as the leading evidence, he states how texting while driving is eight times the sources of distraction, and twice as dangerous. This clearly shows that texting while driving is severe and brings many negative consequences. Yet almost every Americans here in the United States have their own cell phones, and a vast majority of those that use cell phones are the younger ones. People as young as middle schoolers own cell phones, and though presently there seems to be no danger with the possession of cell phones, but the danger is actually growing as they age. Texting is not a problem if that person is situated in a stable place, not driving on the hectic road, whirling the wheel left and right is no where being stable. Teenagers as young as 16 can already drive behind the wheel, but as mentioned, young middle schoolers already owned cell phones. With inexperience driving skills, this would leave many teenagers in accidents and collisions. For this reason, I understand why Chapman would support in favor of banning texting while driving.

Yet passing a law does not mean that the people will oblige and do as follow. Law states that there can't be anyone driving while under the influence, but people still do. That's why driving while intoxicated remains the number one reason for car wrecks. Law states that there can't be anyone drinking under the age of 21, but I am pretty sure that the vast majority of teenagers have already taken a sip of their first or maybe many cups of alcohol. Even if the law does get pass, that simply can't reduce people from not doing, especially since cell phones have become so vital to many Americans' lives. Instead, I think that passing the law is one thing, but the enforcement must be strict and effective. What does this mean? This means that the punishment must be suitable and police officers do not just randomly pull someone's car over just so they can reach a certain number of tickets for each month. The police officers can start by becoming role models and they should also be ban from using cell phones while driving. If police officials were given special privilege, how must one expect the Americans to respect them if they do not oblige with the law as well? If there is something call justice, then firm regulation must be monitored, and this is regardless of their backgrounds, jobs, ethnicity, or status in America. Therefore, I agree with Curtis Chapman in his blog entry about texting while driving, and the danger that will happen. For this reason, it is important that we all understand what's at stake in this game: everyone's lives. Why everyone's lives? Because you may not be texting, but the person in front of you or behind you were, and could have hit your car. Protect yourself, and the lives of others by supporting the ban of texting while driving. Surely you wouldn't want the person in the wreck to have been you, or a special someone of yours because of someone's foolishness to text while driving, right?

Commentary #1: American Discrimination

Freedom is a privilege that all Americans are blessed with, but it's also something that Americans take for granted and overtime abuse. Many recognized people fought for the American freedom in hope that one day everybody would be equal and that everybody would treat one another equally. People like Rosa Parks, Harriet Truman, and Martin Luther King Jr. all courageously put their lives at risk in hope that the future generations will have a brighter future. They all want to seek equality, to cease discrimination, and to promote unity. Yet it seems that their dream is actually far from being accomplished. It's true that people now have the freedom to make choices, do the things they want, and aim for a higher goal. Yet it's also true that people are not seeking enough equality, not ending discrimination, and not advocating unity.

Being given the simple word of freedom, many Americans still fail to achieve the simple dreams that others once fought for our freedom. What does it mean by fail? It means that there are people out there that still discriminates other race and ethnicity. It also means that there people that still treats females as a minority. It also means that people discriminate others because of their own choices. Shouldn't all of this come to an end already? Why must other race and ethnicity be laugh at and point out? Why should males always think that females are inferior and be best suited at home? Freedom gives people the ability to make choices, so why must other still discriminate when others have opposing views?

Instead Americans should stop all the discrimination, whether it be against someone's race, or against someone's opinion. Everyone is born different and this is what makes us and the world a unique place. People shouldn't be judgemental against others' race or ethnicity. Instead,we should all respect different races and their cultures. Back then it was the norm for females to stay at home and tend for her children and husband, but now things have changed. More females are seeking higher education and becoming more independent, and for this reason we should admire them for their independence. At the same time, we should respect other people's opinion, whether we agree or disagree. Many people show complete disagreement to situations regarding things like abortions and gay marriages. These are all personal situations, so why must the nation put their opinions and tainted eye at those that agree with matters like abortions and gay marriages? Simply put, this nation is far from accomplishing the dreams of Martin Luther King Jr. that one day we all can join hands, regardless of race or color. Being given too much freedom, we don't understand that there are some things that are meant to be respected and kept private. Shouldn't we ask ourselves if we have ever discriminate others or been discriminated by others? Who are we to judge others when in reality we are imperfect human beings? All in all, the fight that many people once fought for the termination of discrimination is actually the start of new discrimination among people. When will discrimination finally be over?

Article #3:Obama's Team

In the blog, Washington Monthly, Steve Benen wrote an article on June 7, 2009 titled, Picking Players From The Other Team, to support Obama's decision in nominating five influential Republicans to work in the Obama administration. Benen claims that having Republicans collaborate with Obama will result in many benefits for both parties including: decrease in minority of party, increase in the president's appearance of nobility and forgiveness, but most importantly is to increase bipartisan administration. Benen argues that having powerful Republicans including McHugh, Leach, Gates, and LaHood in the Obama administration can show that this country is bipartisan. In other words, Benen claims that bringing in Republicans can strengthen the nation and increase equality. Benen points out that Obama remains different from other modern president for choosing Republicans, and this shows that Obama is fair because he nominates those with the capability to perform the task. By doing so, Benen includes an article from the New York Times that stresses out the benefits of including opposing members in the administration as evidence to support his stance.

It is important to understand that Benen asserts that the inclusion of Republicans under the Obama administration as the possible solution to the nation's division of political parties. In other words, Benen agrees with Obama's actions. Therefore, this article by Benen directs towards more democratic and more liberal people for many reasons. First, the author wants to explain to the Democratic the reasons behind Obama's decisions. Benen understands that the Democratic might feel unfair and questions Obama's decision in nominating Republicans to work for his administration. At the same time, Benen shows readers that this can increase bipartisan incredibility and make the nation a stronger country. Second, the author provides readers with reasons and benefits of having Republicans under the Obama administration in order to prevent any breakouts from the Democratic. Therefore, Benen's article is to support Obama and prevent the Democratic from any breakouts.

After finishing the article, I agree with Benen about how it can benefit the nation and both parties. I think that Obama's decision in picking members from the other side is a smart move. For one, these Republicans that he picked aren't any ordinary guys, but powerful people that have high ranking status and jobs. With such a high position, it can benefit the country because they have skills and experience to help Obama. This also shows that Obama is not favoring anyone, but he stands on equality and picks those that are capable of performing the best.

Article #2: Taxing Drinks

An editorial from the New York Times titled, A Healthy Tax, published on page A26 on June 3, 2009 argues the benefits of increasing taxes on sodas and any sugared liquids in order to reduce the level of obesity in America. In this article, the author claims that if the government does increase taxes on sodas, then less people will buy the drinks due to its high cost. The author uses Michael Jacobson, who is an executive director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest to support his claim that increase in tax for drinks will decrease in consumptions, and resulting in a decrease in calories. The author also provides readers with evidence stating that Americans spend about $50 billion per year on nondiet sodas, sugared teas, and sport drinks. Clearly from this evidence, it is obvious that sodas do have a connection with obesity in this country.

After reading this article, the author's intended audience is everyone in America for different reasons. First, the author wants to direct the purpose of the article towards the government to raise their awareness that the majority of Americans are obese, and this means that the nation must do something. Second, the author aims toward more general readers, who are advocates for increasing the quality of people's health. Therefore, the author incorporates information that can suit the readers of all kind in order for them to agree that an excise tax on drinks is the best answer for reduction in obesity. Because the author is able to provide various evidences about placing taxes on drinks, this draws attention from the two kinds of audiences and at the same time raise his credibility.

From my own perspective, I agree with the author to reduce the level of obesity in America and promote healthier lifestyles. It is shocking to know that Americans would spend such a great sum of money on sugared drinks, especially during an economic situation that's occurring right now. At the same time, I disagree with how the author recommends that increase in tax is the correct solution to the health care problem in America. It may make sense that increase in taxes can reduce in levels of consumptions, but will it last in the long run? Increase in taxes on drinks can result in many negative impacts for our economy as well, including the employment level for beverage industries and the impact for low-income families. Not only that, I think that sodas are not the prime cause for people's obesity, but their lack of exercise and effort to eat healthier foods. Therefore, reducing the obesity level is a must, but at the same time it must be the people's willingness to watch their diets in order to maintain healthier lives.

Article #1: Abortion

From the article, Abortion Doctor George Tiller is Killed, the title suggested the death of Doctor George Tiller, and the controversial debate about abortion that has resulted in many violent actions. In this article, authors Robin Abcarian and Nicholas Riccardi describe how Tiller performed abortions for women beyond the 22nd weeks of pregnancy. In other words, Tiller operated on late-term pregnancies for women compared to early abortions. Abcarian and Riccardi also state how much other people despise Tiller by targeting his clinic and Tiller in many ways, including bombing, threatening, shooting Tiller in the arms, but worse of all is killing him during a church service. Most importantly, Tiller's best friend, Warren Hern, emphasizes how inevitable Tiller's death is because of Tiller's willingness to perform late-term abortions for 35 years.

From the death of Tiller, it is clear that many people in America have opposing views, and consequentially can damage many lives. In the article President Obama expresses his point of view about abortion and the death of Tiller. Obama feels outraged that there are people out in this country that would kill others because of different perspectives.

Therefore, I highly recommend everyone to read this article about the death of Doctor Tiller, and understand the controversial issue of abortion at a personal scale. Reading this article can enhance the readers' awareness of how the problem of abortion is escalating nationwide. It is also worth the time to read this article because as citizens of America, we should do something for or against the sudden death of Tiller.