Punitive damages is just a way to make people/businesses pay for their gross negligence beyond just paying off a set bill for injuries and damage they caused. It is an extra way to say you can't get away with your actions and continue them without paying the price.

"The deterrence justification for punitive damages is motivated by two objectives: (1) to deter the specific defendant in the case from repeating or continuing his, her, or its offensive behavior and (2) to deter, generally, other potential parties from committing similar offenses."

        http://www.cpmlegal.com/news-publications-17.html

It is not really effective because there is no guarantee the person/ business will listen. For instance, ask Mr. R. about the seat accident his father was in. The store just picked the seat up and kept it out for others to use.... Or you can just look at tobacco companies and all the cases they had against them, they are still selling cigarettes.  Then there is the fact that some punitive damage amounts are very extreme. This will encourage suing. If someone sees that someone else received money for something they have experienced then they will sue to. An example of this is the case Johnson v. Carmona. For one word (but offensive word) she received $30,000 in punitive damages. That word is tossed around all the time, sometimes kindly but others offensively, just like many other offensive terms. If people knew they can get money by videotaping the incident, there will be more trials and more people provoking and recording someone using offensive terms towards them. When the article was on my screen someone saw it and was joking around about how they can sue because they were called that before. That was just a joke but there are people who would just sue for the money.   

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/04/black-woman-n-word-court-case

It's Not Me, It's You

As many of you know this week congress did not pass a bill that would require more background checks on gun buyers. This has caused a huge outcry of anger and disappointing across the nation, in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings. While the emotional and hot-headed side of me is thinking "yeah! How could they do that?! The Senate is full of sleazy douchebags!" the more contemplative side of me is thinking "Well these aren't just random people doing this, these are senators...that the people voted for. so the people have no one to blame but themselves." I do understand that we can't expect our voted officials to do our bidding exactly, but the point of a democracy is to vote in people who we believe best serve the public interest. We voted these people in, and they didn't do what we wanted. Is that the fault of the senators themselves or the fault of a misinformed public with little knowledge of the actual working of the system. What do you guys think?

Equality? Not so sure

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/25/175252608/the-same-sex-marriage-cases-a-primer

A lot of the articles I found about the supreme court seemed to be old and irrelevant until I came across an article that seemed to lack bias and had a very detailed description of exactly what was going on with the supreme court ,rather than why it should be supported or not. The NPR article explained to me things I did not know about the case. I also found the DOMA definition of marriage to unconstitutional and oddly biased. When I thought about this definition I laughed a little bit because of the technologically advance world we live in who’s to say that a man was not once and originally defined as a woman and vice versa.  I also did not know that California once allowed same-sex marriage and is (was) now banning it under proposition 8. When reading the issue part of the first section of the NPR article it said that the Supreme Court could choose to rule in such a way that would only affect California or certain states or all of America. I’d rather it rule in such a way that guaranteed equal protection for all Americans.

Here is a map I found about same-sex marriage state by state:

http://www.npr.org/2009/12/15/112448663/state-by-state-the-legal-battle-over-gay-marriage

The New York Times article as it normally does offered me a large dose of bias. It was in the first sentence,” Beware of conservatives bearing gifts.” The author of this article also called bill Clinton a coward. So I’m not sure where her allegiance lies in terms of parties. This article stood out the most to me because we talk about federalism in class so much and that is the very basis upon which our country is built:

I thought that’s what the case was about, too [marriage equality]. But what reverberated from the bench was the discordant music of federalism – the federalism that almost sank the Affordable Care Act; the federalism that seems about to put a stake through the heart of the Voting Rights Act; the revival of the mid-1990s federalism revolution that had seemed, until recently, to have run its course at the Supreme Court with the departure of two of its most energetic guardians of states’ rights, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist.

The way the author presented this article made me realize, some people in certain states would be far worse or far better than a neighbor in a different state. How is that fair? I understand that some things should be left to the states, yes understandable. But as the author pointed out many times, and as the constitution states, the federal government JOB and MAIN purpose is equal protection for all its citizens. Another amazing and unbelievable take away:

And of course the most famous federal intervention of all was Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 decision (shockingly recent) that overturned the laws of Virginia and 15 other states prohibiting marriage between people of different races.

1967, Virginia, a white couldn’t marry a black. The federal courts intervened in that. What is the difference in my opinion?  It is my opinion that if you are over the age of 18 you should be able to sign a contract with whomever you want to sign it with, although my religious obligations says this is an abomination, well there’s a separation of church and state for a reason.

Proposition 8

I decided to look up articles on Proposition 8 on the economist website and PBS website. Both gave interesting information in different ways. I found that the PBS article was biased and informed you of the benefits that everyone gets if same sex couples get married and how we all lose out if they do not. The economist article surprisingly tried to stay unbiased. It gave you the history of Proposition 8, and talked about the options the court has and how those options will change society.

In 2008 the Supreme Court of California overturned a gay marriage ban in California. Five months later the state decided to put it to a vote to whether they should ban gay marriage or not. Though the California Supreme Court overturned a gay marriage ban years earlier, California citizens still put it to a vote and 52% did don’t want gay marriage. The result was Proposition 8, the first same sex marriage case to get to the US Supreme Court. California officials won’t defend Proposition 8 in court though, Protectmarriage.com will. From this site I learned of the options the court has. I was surprised that one of them was not to legalize it in every state but to ban it in all states was (this being the 50-state solution).  The other three options were, the 9 states solution, California- only verdict, and to just let California voters decide for themselves (that would mean Proposition 8 WOULD stand).  The 9 states solution would overturn marriage bans in California and eight other states. They would have to recognize same sex unions but not marriages. The California- only verdict would overturn Proposition 8 and only make same sex marriage legal in California. Whatever the outcome maybe, according to this site, we will have to wait until June for the court’s decision.  Based on polls the author of the article predicts that no matter what happens Ballot Box would soon overturn Proposition 8 anyway.

The PBS site only focused on the money opportunities that allowing same sex couples to marry would bring. The author points out that same sex couples do not get the same benefits making it so that many are uninsured because they can’t go under their spouse’s healthcare. If they can’t pay when they are ill then taxes go up to cover what they cannot pay.  An Economist Analysis of the Congressional Budget Office along with the author believes that state and federal budgets will improve. Their point is that spending on benefits would be outweighed by saving from lower cash assistance and Medicare spending, plus tax revenue will increase because of the marriage penalty in our tax system.  The site also goes on to say that same sex marriage will help businesses and put more money back in the economy. Big name stores are in favor of the marriages because they feel that if it is legal, then their workers who are in same sex relationship can focus on their job instead of worrying about if they have the option to get married. The convincing argument the author makes is about money going back into the economy because there is proof this will happen. If gay marriage is legal then there will be more weddings, more money spent on vacations, gifts, dresses, flowers and etc. The proof that this would occur can be found actually in the economist article.   “Some 18,000 couples took the opportunity to get married before Proposition 8.”  That is 18000 couples in one state within five years. That is 3600 weddings a year.     

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21574510-same-sex-marriage-reaches-highest-court-first-time-justices-may-rule

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/businessdesk/2013/03/the-economic-benefits-of-gay-m.html

                   

We get up, but we fall, we come back up, but...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-case.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/03/supreme-court-hears-second-gay-marriage-case-on-defense-of-marriage-act.html


The first article that I read with regards to the Supeme Court was in the New York Times site. It's been days with so much info about marriage equality because there's still conflict and disagreement within the states and in the Supreme Court about this issue. As I was reading this article, it definitely reminded me of the article we read in AP last week with regards to the nine justices and Mr. Cooper. If you read the article, you'll definitely think about the appellate jurisdiction questions from study guide 2. I know when I read the article, I definitely remembered about those questions, like the Supreme Court only hearing 85 cases out of 8,000 a year. As you read the quotes from the justices, you'll get a message about if this case is necessary. These were some questions I asked as I read: Is it necessary to argue about gay marriage now? If so, why? Why don't people truly understand equality? Why wasn't this conflict an issue ten years ago? Why can we just be nice to each other?

In the second article on the PBS site, I was very amazed at the picture of the married couple (colored husband, and white wife) holding a marriage equality sign. I thought about the day I helped Ms. Athon in her class just a week ago and the freshmen were talking about the segregation in the south or Jim crow states. In one moment of the class, the students were talking about how marriage wasn't equal, like a white man could not marry a colored woman, because it was against the law. Now I see why those couple on the picture are standing up for marriage equality because they want history and justice to be made. Those two people are probably blessed to be together today, so why should others be thrown away?

I truly believe that the author in the first article is moderate just because of the mixed reviews and quotes from the justices. When you read, you can tell that the author is uncertain. The author tried to make a point that divided government is going to hold our country still. However in the second article you can tell that this person supports marriage equality because of the picture and even when you read about the Supreme Court tackling DOMA. These articles can resemble and reflect towards you and many people, but it can also just represent one person.

I'm going to keep this plain and simple. I know biblical beliefs are pervading across the country with regards to marriage equality and I've experienced in person. I'm a Christian and yes I know that in the Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman, but we all must understand that yes it says that, but doesn't mean we disrespect them. Remember, "YOU are the only one who can take charge of YOU." Allow others to be in peace. In reality, if Christians or Catholics were being discriminated here in America and people didn't want us, then how would we grow our seed?

When will America be on the same page? Why suffer others when we've been suffered already?

Too Much Conflict, Too Little Progress

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/28/175580938/martin-recalls-the-supreme-court-34-years-ago
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/26/us/cold-wet-wait-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases.html

When I typed "Supreme Court" into the search bar of both NPR.org and The New York Times, I found numerous articles, many of them being recent. And, about the same topic: same-sex marriage. That's the hot topic of the Supreme Court recently. I first read this editorial from NPR's Michel Martin, which explains how   seeing photos of people standing outside the Supreme Court in cold March weather brought back memories of when she and her friend did the same thing, but for a different issue: affirmative action. She goes on to explain what the scenario they were taking action against was. Also, she talked about how it relates to the world today, and that there are still issues with affirmative action. But the problem that is being focused on today is same-sex marriage, while there are still race-related issues. The quote that sticks with me most is: "the jury is still out on how to rectify the centuries of exclusion from the basic opportunities to be a part of the American dream", which I believe means that many people are still, as she said, excluded from basic opportunities, in this case, marriage. Opportunities that many people have come here for but have not gotten. Opportunities that many people have been seeking for their whole life, but just keep slipping away from them for whatever reason. One thing's for sure: we, as a country, have A LOT of work to do.

The other article I read, this one on New York Times, was about the advocates for same-sex marriage and the hardships they have to go through to try to get their message to the Supreme Court. Because we're just coming out of winter and into the Spring, temperatures are still cold at night, there is still snow and rain, all of which create a very messy and uncomfortable situation for everyone. But guess what? That's not stopping people from standing by the issues they care about. No, not at all. While it may be difficult to deal with these conditions, it can still be done. The article then goes on to explain some of the details about these protests, such as the fact that all electronic devices are banned from inside the Court, about some of the different groups attending the event, and a lot of other relevant information.

So as you can see, these two articles are quite different from each other in terms of their focus. The first one is more like a story, whereas the second one is more factual but has somewhat of a story element to it as well. But they both focus on the same-sex marriage issue, just in different ways. They both have a sense of bias, however the editorial from Michel has much more bias then the NYT article.

To me, as the title indicates, there is too much conflict in our political world, and not enough progress. I personally believe that all states should allow same-sex marriages. I understand the arguments that people have against it, but my main point is that America is a diverse country, perhaps the most diverse country in the world, in terms of race, religion, and sexual orientation. So, whether people like it or not, we need to accept the fact that times are changing. As President Obama said in his speech: "Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law". And I agree with that 100%. We are spending too much time on issues like this, that shouldn't have been issues in the first place. These issues have been going on for far too long, and it's time for something significant to get done.

So what do you think? Is same-sex marriage like modern-day civil rights? Is conflict in the political world natural, or is it excessive at this point? Can anything really be done to speed up the process? Do you believe that gay marriage should be legalized in all states, or should the decision to recognize it be up to each individual state? Do biblical values matter in this changing world?

Gun Control: A Mystery Wrapped in an Enigma Inside a Riddle with a side of Perplexity

Lately I've been thinking a lot about gun control. Yes I know pretty much everyone and there mother has too, but I've been trying to look at the issue from another perspective. Maybe gun violence is the result of some deeper problem. In the book :Better Angels of Our Nature" psychologist Steven Pinker points out that we currently live in the most peaceful time in all of human history. Now before you reach through your computer screen allow me to make my point.

There was a time about 100 years ago that seeing someone get mugged and stabbed was very common and forensics was limited to nothing because no one cared enough to investigate. In today's society we are constantly scared by the news we watch. Although the Aurora and Newton massacres were awful tragedies we need to understand that these were isolated events. In my own personal opinion we do not need any kind of legislation on gun's. I personally don't like guns, and I will probably never shoot a gun, but I also don't like sushi. Does that mean that we need new legislation on sushi, no. All joking aside if we look at other countries that allow their citizens to buy guns, we see that they have a lot less gun violence than our country. Why is this? I think that I may have an answer. Drugs. Now bear with me as I explain this thought.

 a large chunk of gun violence in America is directly related to gangs. What do gangs fight for? power? control of an area? while all of these are true, the biggest reason is to distribute drugs.  Think about this for a second in the 1920s America tried to ban alcohol. Many bars became havens for bootleggers that illegally made and distributed alcohol. It also brought about the classic era of gangsters like Al Capone. When the Prohibition Act was repealed the alcohol black market more or less vanished overnight. If we just made recreational drugs legal we could essentially make gangs a thing of the past. Back on the subject of gun control. Banning assault weapons may save some lives temporarily but it will inevitably create a black market that will end up spreading gang activity even further here in the states. Finally I know I've been defending gun owners throughout this but I feel I need to address one more thing to people who argue that assault weapons are alright for hunters to own. If you need AR-15 Assault rifle with a night vision scope and 100 round magazine in order to hunt, you're a shitty hunter. the deer doesn't shoot back.

Link to Mr.Pinker's website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature

Homework Due Monday, April 1, 2013

There is so much in the news media about the Supreme Court.  In order to make continued connections between what we are learning and what is really going in in politics and government, please spend some time reading about the Supreme Court on a credible and challenging news site.  Please choose two of the sites below and find one related article on each of the two sites:

• The Economist:  http://www.economist.com/
• National Public Radio:  http://www.npr.org/
• The New York Times:  http://www.nytimes.com/
• PBS Newshour:  http://www.pbs.org/newshour/
• The Wall Street Journal:  http://online.wsj.com/home-page

Write a brief review of the two articles you find, including takeaways and critical questions.  Then, compare and contrast the information and bias/lack of bias you find in each of the articles.  What does your comparative analysis tell you about the similarities and differences between the two news sites you analyzed?  Post your links and analysis on the blog.  You will respond to each other's posts for homework later in the week.

Will 'Sea Change' in Public Opinion Matter in Same-Sex Marriage Ruling? | PBS NewsHour

For extra credit on your homework grade, respond to the article below.  Add your opinion and/or key takeaways.  I love how this article merges our study of public opinion back in the fall with our current study of the Supreme Court.  Government and politics in action!

Will 'Sea Change' in Public Opinion Matter in Same-Sex Marriage Ruling? | PBS NewsHour

Learning Log—Judicial branch

The courts are in place for justice. They punish people for their crimes and settle disputes between people or parties. The Supreme Court plays a major role in which laws we follow because they interpret the constitution and have the power of judicial review. (Judicial review- being able to strike down any laws or executive actions that are unconstitutional). The Framers decided that the courts will get their independence from other branches by giving federal judges lifetime terms. They did not touch on the issue of judicial review because they couldn't agree whether or not the Supreme Court should have that power, considering many wanted them to be the weakest branch. The only reason it gained power was because John Marshall became the chief Justice and a Mr. Marbury was cheated out of his job as a judge. Marbury took the case to court (Marbury v Madison). The Supreme Court thought that Marbury should get his job but they believed that if that was their decision, then the president would ignore their ruling and undermined them. They decided that Marbury deserved his commission but that they could not give him his job because that was unconstitutional. It was the first of many times that they declared something unconstitutional throughout the years and in the decision Marshall established their right to judicial review. What I don’t understand is why everyone listened to them and let them declare that they have the power to say if a law is unconstitutional, if they were supposed to be so weak and the constitution didn't touch on the power? It doesn't make sense; they won’t give Marbury his job because they fear the president will undermine them by ignoring the decision, and then they flat out declared something unconstitutional for the first time and gave themselves the power of judicial review.  Did they also declare that they had the final decision, and what they say goes, in Marbury v Madison?  If that rule was already put into place before the case then there would not be the issue of questioning if the president would honor their decision. The President may not like it and try to put it off but there would be no way around not giving Marbury his job.          

Helpful Link

Hey guys I was searching up supreme justices and I found this great website that lists all the justices in our U.S history and give quick details about them if you click on their name. Please check it out it will help you a lot on the homework!

http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/members.aspx

Senate Passes First Budget in 4 Years!

I woke up to this on the radio and in my email inbox.  It is BIG NEWS (even though the Senate and the House will most likely not be able to reconcile their budgets.)  They stayed up all night to do this.

If you are still making an effort to understand how Congress works, it is important that you read about Congress' current work.  Read this article, make connections to our study of Congress and comment below for extra credit.  

BREAKING NEWS Saturday, March 23, 2013 5:30 AM EDT

Senate Passes $3.7 Trillion Budget, Its First in 4 Years After an all-night debate that ended close to 5 a.m., the Senate on Saturday adopted its first budget in four years, a $3.7 trillion blueprint for 2014 that would fast-track passage of tax increases, trim spending gingerly and leave the government deeply in debt a decade from now. The 50-49 vote sets up contentious — and potentially fruitless — negotiations with the Republican-dominated House to reconcile two different visions for dealing with the nation’s economic and budgetary problems. No Republicans voted for the Senate plan, and four Democrats, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Mark Begich of Alaska, and Max Baucus of Montana, also opposed it. All four are Red State Democrats up for re-election in 2014. In contrast, the House plan ostensibly brings the government’s taxes and spending into balance by 2023 with cuts to domestic spending even below levels the automatic “sequestration” levels roiling federal programs now, and it orders up significant changes to Medicare and the tax code. READ MORE » http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/24/us/politics/senate-passes-3-7-trillion-budget-its-first-in-4-years.html?emc=na

Get to Know the Filibuster In Real Time

Republican Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky filibusters the Obama nomination of John O. Brennan as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Link to filibuster video:  http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/

Link to article:  http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/06/rand-paul-filibusters-brennan-nomination/

Questions to Consider:

1. What does this political update tell you about the roles and responsibilities of Senators?
2. According to the article, why does Senator Paul oppose the nomination of Brennan?
3. Using evidence from the article, identify what is noteworthy about this filibuster.

Share your answers in the comments below for extra homework/classwork credit.

Obama's Inauguration

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/chris-christie-obama_n_2544725.html#slide=2007450

Chris Christie, previously alienated by the GOP for his support of Obama's reelection and criticisms of the Republican Party's response to Hurricane Sandy relief efforts, stands out in full opposition to Obama now.  He said "its my way or the highway" pertaining to the president's objective of his speech.  Rep. Boehner said Obama was on a mission to "annihilate the Republican Party." Similarly, Sn. McConnell claimed that Obama is attempting to invoke an "era of liberalism."  

Obama's Immigration Plan

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-immigration-reform-speech-20130129,0,3033072.story

http://timelines.latimes.com/obama-speech-immigration-reform/

The first link is a video of President Obama's speech in Las Vegas about immigration plan.
In the second link you will be able to see a transcript of his speech. I couldn't find a video with the transcript but you could minimize both of these windows to fit your screen.

On January 29, 2013 at Del Sol High School in Las Vegas, Nevada President Obama spoke about how he will be dealing with immigrants in this country. His plan for immigration reform is similar to the one that was dictated by the bipartisan group of senators on January 20, 2013. First of all, as President Obama says in his speech, we will have to work on tightening the security at the borders which has been unsuccessful since the year 2000 and businesses will have to check people's employment statues before hiring anyone because even if it's unknowingly businesses hire illegal immigrants because they have no proof of who they are. Finally, it maybe be a long process but if people want a green card that leads up to a citizenship then they are going to have to get their background checked, pay all the taxes that own since they have been living here in America, pay a penalty for coming illegally, learn English and will have to wait until the people who are waiting in line to come to America legally.  

 

President Obama clearly states that yes the immigrants have broken the rules but they have done so much to help America. I was amazed to find out that Google and Yahoo we both created by an immigrant and so were Intel and Instagram and these immigrants studied in the United States and stayed here. However, people that were born here, studied here decide to go an work of other countries so basically we are creating our competitors. America is a nation of immigrants, it is a place where people can  make a future. Coming from different countries it not easy because they face many problems such as racism and because they are here to earn for their lives and families, people take advantage of them by paying them low wages for double the work but the immigrants do it because they have no other choice.

 

According to President Obama's plan he believes that immigrant will be able to come out of their shadows and show that they also exist. They will also be able to know that we do care for them and know that they are also one of us. I am very happy to see President Obama doing such a difficult task that can takes years to happen but he is taking the risk. The best thing is that Democrats and Republicans are working together on this so it might be better and more successful than any other plan ever made.

 

Now my question to you is what is this process takes too long maybe more that four years than what will happen to the immigrants if a Republican is a President and is very conservative? Is it really a good idea by letting more immigrants coming in the country when we already have 11 million illegal immigrants in this country? How will citizens of America react to this plan? Will it create more chaos and problem for the economy?

Some Helpful Links

Hello everyone. During today's class when everyone was doing the current events check-in, were you confused about a topic or two? Three or four topics? Perhaps all of them? Well, have no fear, I have found several links that should help you gain enough knowledge to easily answer those questions.

Also, in addition to the two links Ms. Blatteau gave us in our lesson plan (on bottom of post), I highly recommend using Google News as a way of finding out more information about current topics. All of the links to the answers of the questions below were found using that resource. I never knew until today how great of a news search engine it is, so I recommend checking it out!

1. What major issues was President Obama speaking about in Las Vegas this week?
http://www.voanews.com/content/obama_focuses_on_us_immigration_reform/1592944.html
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/01/30/immi-j30.html

2. What is going on with local New Haven politics?
http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/politics/destefano-wont-seek-reelection#.UQw4CKVZXSg
http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/new_haven_cty/candidates-to-replace-mayor-destefano#.UQw4xaVZXSg

3. In Connecticut, what is the topic of multiple public hearings that are happening in Hartford different parts of the state?
http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/politics/public-hearing-on-mental-health-issues#.UQw6LaVZXSg
http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Father-of-Newtown-victim-heckled-at-hearing-4228992.php

4. Who did the Senate confirm for Secretary of State? Whom did he replace?
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/01/opinion/brazile-hillary-clinton/index.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/01/hillary-clinton-resigns_n_2600344.html

5. Why is Chuck Hagel in the news?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/01/31/chuck-hagel-was-bad-and-it-doesnt-matter/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ken-blackwell/mr-president-chuck-hagel_b_2599752.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-hagel-confirmation-hearings-20130201,0,7189272.story

Links to Review (from lesson plan)
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/

I hope everyone has a nice, productive weekend!

Conservatives Criticize the "Overly Partisan" Nature of Obama's Inaugural Speech

I read an article on the Huffington Post website entitled, "Chris Christie: Obama Inauguration Address Was 'Manifesto' Saying 'My Way Or The Highway'". 
The link to the article is:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/chris-christie-obama_n_2544725.html

Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey and other conservatives are castigating President Obama's second inaugural speech for its "absolutist" nature. They believe that the speech only catered to liberal views and did not propose to work together with the Republican Party. Chris Christie publicly stated, "Instead of trying to bring people together, it a was manifesto for 'Hey, it's my way or the highway!" Basically, Chris Christie thinks that the underlying message in Obama's speech was that he is unwilling to compromise and take other viewpoints into consideration. John Boehner, Speaker of the House of Representatives, stated that Obama's persuasive speech was evidence that he is out to "annihilate the Republican Party." Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky stated that Obama's speech showed that he was seeking to , start an "era of liberalism" that would perpetuate the divided government. As a whole, many conservatives are disillusioned by Obama's speech.

I strongly disagree with Chris Christie and other conservatives' opinions on this speech. I think that Obama's inaugural speech was masterful and extremely eloquent. He addressed a plethora of issues that the country is facing in a very poetic way. I felt that the tone of Obama's speech was urgent and pragmatic, but also very hopeful. His words were realistic and truthful, but not discouraging. I think that Obama addressed important issues that he will tackle in his second term, such as immigration, the environment, gay rights, equal pay, and et cetera.One of my favorite lines from Obama's speech is,"My oath is not so different from the pledge we all make to the flag that waves above and that fills our hearts with pride. They are the words of citizens, and they represent our greatest hope. You and I, as citizens, have the power to set this country's course." President Obama's speech left me feeling very optimistic and sanguine about the future of the United States of America.

Furthemore, I am a very befuddled and frustrated by the criticism of Obama's speech by conservatives. I do not intend to offend anyone, but I feel that the conservatives are bitter because of their loss in the presidential election and the decadence of the GOP. I feel that the Republican Party is on life support right now and needs to seriously reevaluate what they stand for. Our nation has become extremely diverse. Statistics prove that Caucasians account for under half of the births in the United States. Our country is filled with African-Americans, Latinos, Muslims, Asians, gays, lesbians, and many different types of people. We need leaders that support every type of person in the United States. I personally do not feel that the Republican Party supports minorities, thus why they are losing support rapidly.

In addition, I think another problem with Republican leaders is their loyalty to their party over the people. Right now, the government is in a gridlock and minimal progress is being made. I feel that the Republican Party is mostly to blame because of their unwillingness to give up tradition for the current problems that our country is facing. Twenty innocent children were murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. That event should have been a wake-up call that high powered guns should not be available to regular citizens, but many Republicans still oppose these ideas. How can we progress and fix serious problems if we cannot agree on the simplest ones? Republican or Democrat, the safety of children should be of the utmost importance. If you can look at the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and dismiss it as one of the inescapable tragedies of our world, I question if you have a heart at all.

President Obama's speech calls for the government to put their differences aside and work together for the benefit of the people. In his speech Obama said, "Progress does not compel us to settle centuries-long debates about the role of government for all time, but it does require us to act in our time." I hope that the divided government can come together and improve our nation.

What do you think about Obama's second inaugural speech? Do you believe that it was too partisan?

The Civil Rights Issue Of Our Day.

 President Obama's Speech  targeted many  Issues that  were brought to light ,  some even brought tears to citizens eyes across the nation. As we all know Equality is something that all Americans strive and thirst for , President Obama spoke heavy life changing words during his speech and struck the nation . Meghan Stabler, A transgender women and member of  the Board of  Directors for the Human Rights Campaign attended the Inauguration seated with gay and lesbian people waiting to hear the words that would forever break the barrier Gays all over . Meghan stated " We were all waiting for the word gay to come up, and then we heard Stonewall and a few of us had tears and our eyes"  During the speech Meghan and others waited for the moment . " Then we heard gay " she explained , " and we just lost it" . Just a few words spoken on the Equality of all took believers by storm. With full hope that Obama's actions would create a movement.  " Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law-for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well" . No words made a bigger impact than these spoken that day . All signs of Equality are important , but for this new day and age Marriage Equality  and Gay rights takes a big chunk of  society's thoughts . Never really paying attention to issues that hover around me , I feel like there has been a door opened to my understanding on issues similar to this one. I think President Obama has a free flowing mind full of ideas that can help create a successful nation that will hopefully run smoothly . Putting his beliefs aside is what makes a great president , President Barack Obama will help gays make a change and bring that equality to them. " We, The people, declare today that the most evident of truths--that all of us are created equal --is the star that guides us still ; Just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma , and Stonewall,"  .  Obama shoots straight to the point , Same sex couples should have equal benefits and should be treated as nothing less than equal American citizens.  He is Showing how far we have truly come.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/22/lgbt-obama-inauguration_n_2528918.html

Inaugural Invitation to Activism

Article *SOURCE* : Obama's Invitation to Activism

 I found this article to be most relevant to me and my thoughts on Obama's Inauguration Speech because, both the author and I had similar take a ways and thoughts. 

The author made a strong reference to Obama calling upon how principle of equality guided out ancestors.Obama made a strong statement of our ancestors of men and women joined together at Seneca Falls, New York to protest the perversion of women in different areas of life, from social to political and economic to religious. Even though some rejoice at his notable words, not everyone is happy and not everyone will be. Words of negativity went about, something like "He's a lame duck; nothing will get through Congress; he's all talk and no fight; he's lip-syncing like Beyoncé." 

I think he needs time to do all he has planned for this country. In time equality of women's rights, our gay brothers and sisters will be treated like everyone else under the law. Like the author Richard J. Rosendall noted that there's always more to be done and we all know that with what's already done, there's room for improvement. 

As you guys read the article, Richard J. Rosendall said "In doing so he rebuked hostility toward science, defended the social safety net as a source of national strength, and rejected the false theme of "makers" versus "takers." , What do you think he meant?

The Man Behind The Address

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/obamas-inaugural-address-jon-favreau_n_2545236.html

In this article you'll meet Jon Favreau, If you don't know him he is the director of speechwriting for the White House. Jon Favreau has written many speeches for President Obama, dating back to 2005 when he was the senator of Illinois; but this one, he says was the hardest. The difficultly in Mr.Favreau writing has been arrayed before us, whether it be this inaugural address or the one before, it is no easy task to write for the President. In this article, Mr. Favreau discusses why, after so many speeches, this one was the hardest; he also talks about the process of writing this address and where the inspiration came from. This article to me, shows the structure of the great speeches President Obama has given. The talents of Jon Favreau, not only gave us an exceptional speech, but also gave us an outline of our work in AP Gov.

Will there Ever be an Immigration Reform ?!

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/News/president-barack-obamas-years-immigration/story?id=18265091


When it comes to major issues and concerns in the United States and President Obama's plan as he stated in his Inauguration speech.  Immigration comes to my mind.  Why? Because just as this ABC News Article stated. "When President Barack Obama took the oath of office four years ago, immigration reform seemed possible, if not a high priority on the president's agenda.  But immigration took a backseat to healthcare and the economy. Reform went nowhere."  So the questions for many are, What now? Will this happen again? Will President Obama actually do something about an Immigration Reform in his second term?  

This article I read was very informative.  Stating both positive and negative news on the issue of a a possible Immigration reform.

Facts also state that Barack Obama has been the president in office to deport the most amount of people.  With 1.6 million deportations in his 4 yr. term in office. A reason why people probably don't know what to believe or think.  I've also heard many people say this as well.

With President Obama approving the the Dream Act last year in August, also gives people hope and faith that there may be a possible Immigration Reform.

 Sometimes I just think its not an easy task.  Immigration Reform would be a HUGE IMPACT on the nation, but I do believe it is possible and for the nations best.  It probably will take a while to put into effect.  But this will benefit the nation in many ways, like economically which is also one of the top issues our nation faces.  Like spending less money on immigration enforcement and prisons.

Is There A Middle Class?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/21/inauguration-speech-inequality-middle-class_n_2521489.html#slide=more275945

In this article, it summarizes Obama's Inauguration speech focusing on income inequality. He addresses how the president said in his speech that the richest 1 percent are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Emphasizing on the fact that the only way to reach prosperity is to expand the middle class or in his words, "rest upon the broad shoulders of a rising middle class". 
In my opinion, I see how building up the middle class can help the economy, but i don't like how many people make it sound like trying to build the middle class means no more poverty. There is even question as to if a middle class even exists. You are either trying to make ends meet or bathing in money. My question is, is there even a middle class?  

Taking Small Steps to Equality

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/28/opinion/beyond-mr-obamas-inaugural-message-on-gay-rights.html?_r=0

President Barack Obama gave a powerful and informative Inaugural speech on Monday, January 21st. He spoke as if he were a professional in literature. In his speech he talked about some our our core values like liberty and equality.

My biggest takeaway in this article is that it wasn't until 1967 that people of different races were allowed to marry each other, like President Obama's parents (his mom being American and his dad being African American). I can defiantly tell that the world has moved on but if it took people to allow interracial marriages how long will it take for marriages for the same sex will be legal?

President Obama does talks about how our work as citizens of this country is not complete until everyone is treated the same. I mean why shouldn't they be? Aren't they human beings after all? 

One thing that confuses me is if President Obama is talking about taking action together to bring equality then why does, according to his spokesperson Jay Carney, say that next day, after his inaugural speech President Obama speaks about how the decision of allowing same-sex marriage should be left up to states?

Overall I believe that President did a wonderful thing to start his work by starting with the minorities. How do you think this will affect the lives of majorities? Will their support for President Obama decrease after knowing that he is helping minorities first? Will they support President Obama in his decisions or give up on him right at the beginning?

Obama's Speech

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/22/us/politics/obamas-speech-is-urgent-call-for-progressive-values.html?_r=0

As I read this article I began to get these flashbacks Obama's first inauguration speech. I remember how he explained his solutions for the problems that he inherited  I remember how he the nation was on edge and clung to every word he said. I feel that in his first inauguration Obama had the weight of the issues he inherited from bush on his shoulders, but now he's telling us what he really wants to focus on. I think that because this was Obama's final inauguration speech he really wanted to make sure that he left a big impression in Washington and prove o the American people that he was the right choice. Obama's speech really showed us that Obama is no longer tied down to the ideals of his party and because there is no immediate problem that we must deal with, Obama was really able to get the fact that he has a lot of things (more gay rights, gun control, etc.)  that he wants to work on, across through his speech.

What do you guys think about his speech? Do you think that Obama will be able to pull through with his promises?

Our Democratic Friends from NewsHour

(Story behind the title - according to statistics, PBS NewsHour is 34% Democrats and 16% Republicans (Chart 6.5, page 208)

Clicked open YouTube and proceeded to typed "obamas inauguration speech analysis". I found this interesting analysis video done by PBS's very own NewsHour. While the congressional lunch seemed quite tasty, I thought the Declaration along with American exceptionalism were two very interesting topics because Annette Gordon Reed of Harvard University said that, "he invoked the Declaration of Independence and to weave this thread and all the things you are talking about through the Declaration of Independence... a lot of people think that he doesn't believe that America is an exceptional nation, it's very clear that he does", when I heard that, I instantly connected to last class where we were also analyzing Obama’s Inauguration Speech. He definitely flowed connecting our time period back to the time of the Declaration. Lastly, when she brought up American exceptionalism, I thought equality and how Americans accept other Americans (or should); connecting back to how Obama mentioned womens rights and “our gay brothers and sisters”. I too, thought his speech was very exceptional and a blast from the past! If you developed your own takeaway(s), please leave it in the comments section below vvvvvvvvvv

Fighting From the Outside In

As Timothy Shriver points out, Obama’s speech would best be remembered for the words he said than the ideals he promotes. While some presidents give a quick statement or two about what they wish to accomplish, Obama made a statement by crafting elegant words around ideals that were too controversial or had the potential to be. I’m not sure where everyone stands as oppose to democrats and republicans but I’m pretty sure almost everyone in class had something positive to say about some part of the speech.

 The article was used to point out the shift in where the power is coming/should be coming from. Mr. Shriver wanted people to notice that the issues in Obama’s speech were issues that were not being traditionally fought for (this meaning by politicians and political parties. So the government didn't attack the issue). This may sound a little confusing; the point is that these issues where brought up by and fought for from people who had no part in government or any political organization. The author would say they are fighting for their cause from the outside in. To tell you the truth, it sounds like lobbyists or interest groups but I think they would count as part of the government because of their connection to politics/politicians. It is believed that issues like:  gay rights, disability rights, and environmental protection were included in the speech for more than just their need to be improved. The author believes these issues were specifically picked because they were examples of issues that were fought for by regular people. The importance of this would be that Obama wants to take over non-government “concerned” issues and help in their cause or even pay more attention to issues raised by the people instead just raised by someone in politics.

I would agree with Mr. Shriver that there were hidden messages or meanings besides the ones intended in Obama’s speech. We tried to decode some of it ourselves even. In this particular case I’m not quite sure I agree with this thought. It doesn't seem to add up at times. I mention my thoughts up above about interest groups. Isn't any group of people that form together to create change of some kind in society an interest group? They have a lot of power so his idea of fighting from the outside in would be wrong because they are just as important as political parties. The other thing that does not make sense is I don’t remember Obama talking about all of those three issues (these issues where the ex. in this article). Maybe I didn't focus enough on those sections to get what he was talking about or I didn't understand his wording.  Mr. Shriver would understand his words more than I would but we all know the media can make mistakes so you can’t take everything you read to heart.    

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-p-shriver/an-inaugural-shift_b_2554278.html

President Obama's Inaugural Address Analysis

So I found this video on YouTube that connects perfectly to what we were speaking about Monday in class,  President Obama's inaugural address. The speakers connect directly with what Kayla stated in class, about the President's value to equality in our country. It is pretty short but it is very interesting because it is like literally what we talked about (gun violence, equality, etc.)
link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vEhC9dU00U

What do you guys think President Obama did in his address? What do you all think of this video?

My opinion on video = I actually agree almost completely with the people speaking, I do think that after all of the horrible events like the shooting in Newtown, Obama has planed to make a change in our country to not just unite us all but protect our schools and public places from shootings.

My opinion on gun control = I do not think taking away guns from the public will make anything better. Do people really believe that prohibiting guns will stop killings? I believe that the police should do a better job in securing our streets, its the people that kill. And if we actually take the time to think, we can see that the killers in that majority of the massacres that have occurred had mental problems, so why doesn't the government keep an eye out for people that have psychological problems? (this is my opinion) I think we should be able to have a few guns at home, I think we should at least have that right. If we do take away guns, what happens when someone intrudes into our houses? Do we just scream and let them kill us because we have no weapons?  Or do we defend ourselves with a fire arm? I am not stating that it is fine to kill someone, but if someone gets into your house you have the right to shoot them, if you feel like you are in danger. But if a person shoots an intruder in the back it is automatically murder because the person was leaving and there is no proof that you were in danger. Anyways, I think we should not prohibit fire arms from our country, if a city wants to, it's fine; but the entire country?! I don't think so.

~Shirley-Ann Feliciano :)

Those Crazy Conservatives

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/conservatives-react-obama-inaugural-speech-161537952--election.html

On Monday, January 21st, President Obama gave a speech at his inauguration. It was a powerful - stern yet hopeful - speech. It was very liberal, however, which set off a fire in the conservative world. As Niorgie mentioned, Republican (Conservative) governor Chris Christie didn't care for his speech. Neither did many other Republicans. Remember John McCain? He had something to say about it: "“I would have liked to see a little more on outreach and working together. There was not, as I've seen in other inaugural speeches, ‘I want to work with my colleagues.’”

What? Is it just me or does that not make any sense at all?

Obama mentioned working together in several different ways in his speech. In fact, he seemed to talk more about what we American citizens have to do than what he has to do. He mentioned "We, the people", "Our generation's task", "Our", "We","You and I" was said a few times. Obama constantly talked about working together.

I think John McCain needs to brush up on his listening skills.

Conservative commentator called the speech an "ode to big government" on none other than Fox News. Andy Card, President George W. Bush's former chief of staff, called a the speech a "parallel universe speech", criticizing it for not addressing economic and security problems with our nation.

Those are typical reactions, all to be expected. What really surprised me is the fact that former Republican Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich actually LIKED the speech. "I thought it was very, very good", he said. What a surprise! I can't believe it, a Republican approving of something from the Democrats??!! He didn't even think it was very liberal! He said it "was classically American, emphasizing hard work, emphasizing self-reliance, emphasizing doing things together. I thought it was a good speech." Take that John McCain!

But really, a Republican approving of something a Democrat did? What kind of Republican is he?

What Did You Expect?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/01/25/how-republicans-have-attacked-obamas-inaugural-address-and-what-it-means/


I took Ms. Blatteau's challenge and searched for reactions by conservatives from President Obama's speech and luckily I found an article on Washington Post on different GOP reps, such as John Boehner, Chris Christie, and even Paul Ryan. For many of you that watched and witnessed the inauguration speech, it made us feel great that there's still more to overcome our obstacles, but it will take time to proceed on. Remember, how Obama described our "political trek", "Our Journey has not been complete." The person that had me off my seat was Chris Christie. I was very, somewhat, surprised. I thought of this as, Christie going for what he believes in but yet supporting Obama. Don't you see that as well? I was shocked to read a response with regards to equality, that I can't believe someone is opposing equality? Well, if I had a moment to ask a question to Chris, I would ask him, "If you were a minority from another country and just recently moved to America, but you're being treated differently than others, how would you feel?" People, whether you support or not support LGBT or minorities, you still have to treat them with respect. It's like you may be a Christian, but dislike Hinduism, but that does not mean you throw someone to the ground. Our equality tower has been broken, but what does it take now to rebuild it? Will we ever rebuild it? It's not up to Obama, it's up to our awareness. You may disagree to what I am saying, but the right thing must be accomplished.

My Way or the Highway...

Republican Chris Christie says that Obama's inauguration speech was not uniting, and was somewhat aggressive  Christie said this on his monthly call-in show. He wasn't really bashing the speech, it was more of an opinion just thrown in the air. He wants to see how Obama will follow through with his speech. I just don't see how Obama's speech could not be unifying  and Christi doesn't really explain which part of the speech he felt that way about. Maybe its just Christi being stubborn and not accepting his speech, he doesn't even seem to think the poetry within the speech, was significant. What doe you guys think?

My Way or the Highway

Seneca Falls, Selma and Stonewall

I subscribe to the New York Times through email; which means that every morning I get an email with all of the day's headlines.  Even if I don't have time to read the articles in detail, I still get a sense of the day's news by browsing the stories and seeing what they are all about.  And then, if something really captures my eye I can click on the link and read the entire story.  After class this morning, I checked my email and scrolled down the the editorials in today's issue of the Times.  This headline caught my eye:  

Beyond Selma-to-Stonewall:  President Obama's elevating inaugural message on gay rights needs legal follow-through.

This is exactly what we were discussing in class today!  I can make the quick connection between Selma and Stonewall:  These are two important events in American history, both in the 1960s, where attacks on the civil rights of minority groups made headlines.  

And then it got me thinking, what kind of legal follow-through do the editors of the New York Times recommend?  What will Obama's role be in ensuring equality for LGBTQ Americans?  Was it just part of his Inauguration Day speech or is he going to make this issue central to this second term?

Here is the link:  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/28/opinion/beyond-mr-obamas-inaugural-message-on-gay-rights.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130128&_r=0

From what I read, I now know that the Supreme Court is hearing a case on marriage equality.  From what I can decipher, the constitutionality of California's ban on same-sex marriage is being tested.  

To put it simply, in 2008 Californians voted to support an amendment to their state constitution that defined marriage between a man and a woman.  This means that same-sex marriage became illegal in their state.  Now, the issue is being heard by the United States Supreme Court and it could have implications for marriage equality issues nationwide.

I love this article because it makes me think of federalism.  The states have the right to regulate marriage; but only to a certain extent.  The Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia in 1967 ruled that states cannot outlaw interracial marriage.  So yes, states can regulate marriage.  But no, states cannot go too far.

So I guess the question now is:  How far is too far?  Is Proposition 8 too far?  What can President Obama do to voice his support of marriage equality?  This editorial states that "he should have his solicitor general file a brief...saying that California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage in unconstitutional."  It seems like the editors at the Times want to build on Obama's message and hold him accountable. They highlight his stand on same-sex marriage and make it clear what they think the next step should be:

"Mr. Obama’s Inaugural Address appeared to reflect a deepened understanding that the right to marry the person of one’s choice is a fundamental right “under the law.” He needs to make sure his solicitor general conveys that sound legal view loud and clear in the Proposition 8 case."

I am looking forward to following this Supreme Court case more closely, not to mention whether or not the President uses the power of his own opinion to try to influence the court.