Blog Stage 8

Conspiracy theories have also been of great interest to me. I have spoken briefly with Professor Seago concerning the nature of these theories. I've concluded that humans have always been and will always be skeptical by nature. It is quite natural to question the world around us, and it is only right to question the legitimacy of our leaders. The fact that we, as American citizens, always do not receive the complete truth gives us this right to question. You mention fighting for change in the case that we don't believe in the legitimacy of our President. I think this feeling of illegitimacy goes hand in hand with lack of political participation. Hypothetically, if I feel distrust in the government and President, I will most likely not feel the need to participate in politics. At the end of the day, I take conspiracy theories with a grain of salt. They sure are interesting, though.

Prop 8

On August 4, 2010, Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Proposition 8, a California measure that states "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California". As I have stated my views before, I am wholly against discrimination and fully support equality for all individuals. I am a heterosexual male that supports same-sex marriage. All in all, I believe most opponents are simply uncomfortable with the lifestyle choices of homosexual and bisexual individuals; therefore, I cannot fathom why most opponents care as much as they do.

One major aspect of this debate is the role of religion; in this case, it is the Bible. Without a doubt, religion has played a huge role for American history. Many early Americans first migrated across the Atlantic Ocean, because of religious persecution; they desired religious freedom. To this day, most Americans would consider themselves to be religious, and in fact, most politicians would say they follow a particular faith. Much of the debate comes from certain text in the Bible that denounces homosexuality. Opponents believe homosexuality, in its essence, is a sin. From their perspective, "it's not what God wanted". I have controversial views on religion and I am quite aware of it. Most people would find my views foolish and would quickly proclaim that I'm going to Hell. In my opinion, I think certain parts of the Bible are clearly outdated and I believe you cannot take the Bible too literally. Society and culture has changed so much, that you cannot possibly apply the Bible to every situation. In some ways to me, I think of it like our Constitution. The founding fathers set down some basic rules and over time, our government has had to adapt to societal changes. I'm aware that many people believe it's "the word of God", but I think there comes a point where I believe people should just look at the Bible at face value, and look at its teachings in a more general sense. As you are reading this, (assuming you are religious), I'm assuming your head is filled with anger because of my beliefs. Essentially, that's also one of my gripes with religion. There are too many people that like to force their beliefs unto others and quickly denounce those that do not share their beliefs. Personally, I don't have a problem with anyone's beliefs, so long as you respect mine. I only say that, because I know there are individuals that have very strong beliefs in religion. I respect that.

Back on the topic of same-sex marriage, I don't believe it should be a religious issue. Inherently, it SHOULD be a human rights issue. However, like I've stated, this country is still very much religious, as a whole. Because of that, I believe that will be the downfall of same-sex legislation for the future. I don't understand why opponents believe it is moral and ethical to dictate how someone else lives their life, in regards to marriage. I understand that they think it's a sin, but it shouldn't be like that. People should be allowed to live their life as they please. Also, let's face it, homosexuality won't go away. It's not a disease that you can cure. Why don't we start respecting the human rights of homosexuals and let them live how they want to? Without the role of religion. Hopefully, states will follow California's lead and allow same-sex marriage.

(My opinion. Don't attack me with your religious beliefs, please?)

Blog Stage 6: DADT

I am fairly new to this concept of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". As a heterosexual male, I support the inclusion of homosexual and bisexual individuals in the military. From my perspective, I view it as another form of discrimination - nothing new in the history of America. In the Civil War, the inclusion of black soldiers in the forces was a very controversial topic. Surely, the majority of soldiers were uncomfortable fighting alongside those, who in normal times, were their servants and slaves. During the Spanish-American war, our forces were in need of men and looked for help from black volunteers. However, unsurprisingly, this met with much opposition. Ultimately, more than ten thousand black soldiers were recruited to fight in the battlefield.

In regards to homosexuality and bisexuality, I believe people are entitled to their own personal sexual preferences. I truly do not understand why people are bothered by the sexual preferences of someone other than themselves. From a religious perspective, I can understand; however, religion does not play a significant role in my life to dictate how I perceive other people. 

In my opinion, in times of need, I think soldiers should suspend their personal beliefs, for the sake of our country. However, I realize that most people are not comfortable enough to do that. I think it's fairly obvious that I am all for equality. I believe DADT is merely modern-day discrimination and with time, I hope the military will someday realize this. 

Blog Stage 5: To Trust or Distrust The Government?

At this very moment, I am quite unsure of how to perceive our government and whether to trust or distrust it. I believe this confusion has to do with my age. Being 21 years old, I am at the age where I am starting to question the world around me. As I learn more about the world and its complexities, I've realized that the larger organizations and corporations have a vast amount of power. In general, I do not believe that the government is always truthful; I believe there are hidden agendas in the background. What are these agendas about? I don't know, and that is why I don't know whether to trust or distrust the government.

I will admit that exposure to certain conspiracy theories have influenced me to think like this. However, I don't necessarily believe in them, but I do acknowledge the possibilities. There have been various examples, in recent years, that have caused me to question the motives of our government. For example, there are the controversial 9/11 conspiracy theories. These theories question whether the attacks were truly an act of terrorism or something the government had planned all along. Some people believe that we invaded Iraq for the interest of oil. Another example is the 2000 election between Gore and Bush and the controversial debate regarding the Florida recount. Though Gore had more popular votes than Bush, Bush received more electoral votes with the help of Florida.

Hopefully, sometime in the future, the truth will come out about the actions and motives of our government.

MediaMatters - Rinse, repeat: Right-wing media just can't stop pushing fake stories

Source: http://mediamatters.org/research/201007260051

For this blog post, the author argues that recent media, aimed towards Conservatives, have been publishing fabricated news stories. The blog post argues that Republicans have falsely published a story of a "Mexican invasion" on two ranches in Laredo, Texas; the author also says that Republicans falsely claimed that Obama supported the release of Lockerbie bomber, Abdel Baset al-Megrahi. Admittedly, as the stereotypical college student, I have not paid close attention to the most recent stories from the world of politics. I consider myself to be more liberal-minded; however, it is difficult to gauge the level of bias in this article, as I am not politically educated enough to make that judgment. Even though the author states that the Republicans have "confessed", I truly do not know of the truthfulness of this statement, as MediaMatters is a more liberal-minded blog. Perhaps, this whole story is fabricated. Naturally, I want to sway towards the opinion of the author, as my political ideology guides me to do so. Being that MediaMatters is more left-wing than right-wing, I also want to discredit the author's claims of the Republicans running fake news stories. It is more than likely that both parties publish these types of stories to tarnish the image of the other. I am quite aware that certain news providers (ie: CNN, Fox News) and certain television programs (Daily Show with John Stewart, Bill O'Reilly), tend to target a certain political audience; therefore, with my lack of knowledge on the situation and my lack of trust in both parties, I truly do not know whether to agree or disagree with the author, even though I consider myself to be more liberal. As much as I want to admit that these stories are true, I cannot do so.

NY Times: Free Speech for Broadcasters, Too

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/opinion/18sun1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

The author is arguing that the Supreme Court should put a stop on all regulation regarding broadcast television. The main argument is that new media sources, such as the Internet, are not limited by the First Amendment, whereas broadcast television still suffers from it. The Internet, in general, provides access to countless media where speech is not regulated. According to the author, censorship in broadcast television is highly inconsistent; some words can be said, while some words cannot be said; some  programs have the ability to have their characters speak freely, while some don't, because of artistic value. Personally, I do not have a clear stance on this topic. As a college student, I could argue for the end of free speech regulation in broadcast television, as it would not affect me personally. However, as a probable parent in the future, I surely do not want my children to hear certain expletives on television. I do agree that it is unfair for the Internet to be mostly uncensored, while broadcast television must follow certain regulations. Television censorship, I believe, is for the benefit of our children. In today’s world, the Internet is becoming more and more an essential component in American lives. I would assume today’s children to be much more involved with the Internet than I was at that age. Therefore, I do believe that there should be censorship on the Internet as well. Overall, I believe free speech should still be regulated in broadcast television, as I believe it protects our children. 

CNN: Obama vacation brings rest, relaxation and rebuke

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/07/16/obama.vacation/index.html

The Obama family has recently departed to Maine for a brief family getaway. This has sparked controversy, as many are concerned with the infamous oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico. This is the President’s third vacation since the oil first started leaking three months ago. Some say the President is entitled to a vacation, while some believe that the President should focus his efforts on the oil leak. Recently, the infamous oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico has, for the first time in three months, stopped leaking. Ships are expected to receive oil from leak. BP’s recent effort has allowed the world to be hopeful of the future. Hopefully, the leak will be handled as quickly and as efficiently as possible.