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