Post 6: Here comes Hawaii

 

 

In yet another unfortunate chapter in the story of homosexual legislation, Hawaii’s governor has the chance of signing into law a bill that would permit same-sex unions in the state.

Republican Gov. Linda Lingle (Yes, that name is for real), hasn’t said whether she will sign the bill or not yet, according to the Associated Press. The legislation glided through the house with a vote of 31-20. If the bill passes, gays and lesbians will receive the same privileges as married couples, without the actual title.

If this legislation passes, Hawaii will become the sixth state, next to California, Nevada, New Jersey, Washington and Oregon, to permit civil unions.

In some states, gay marriages, full name and all, are legal, specifically in Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut and Massachusetts.

Hawaii actually almost legalized same-sex marriage in 1993 in a Supreme Court ruling, which would have made the state the first to do so. But back then, the populous was wildly against the idea.

It’s kind of frightening to think how rapidly not just our government, but our people, have warmed to the idea of homosexuality. And the up-and-coming generations are more for it than any before them.

A study released in March by the Higher Education Research Institute at the University of California at Los Angeles found that 24 percent of college freshmen who align themselves with the “far right” approve of same-sex marriages. That’s 10 percent more than older generations who align themselves with the far right.

Overall, 65 percent of college freshmen approve of gay marriage, the study determined.

I would expect Liberals to warm to the idea, really. It’s the whole tolerance push in the Western world. I can see why it makes sense to them. But it’s horrible to think that conservatives are hopping on the bandwagon, too.

Even worse, Christians are warming to the idea of gay marriage.

It’s frustrating to see the basic principles of our Christian roots crumbling under our very feet. This nation, under God’s authority, no longer recognizes it. The Lord knew what he was doing when he established this world, and messing with that structure cannot help but have consequences.

As to Hawaii, we’ll have to see what happens. Unfortunately, I think it’s just one more step toward same-sex marriages becoming recognized nationwide.

Study:

http://chronicle.com/article/College-Freshmen-Approve-of/64685/

 

Associated Press article:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/30/hawaii-lawmakers-ok-civil-unions/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Post 5: Oh, illegal immigration

As I mentioned in an earlier blog post, Republicans need to get off of their butts.

Well, maybe I didn’t state it precisely like that, but a new Democratic initiative to reform illegal immigration just backs up my statement. Some of the top Democrats in the senate laid out a plan Thursday to reform immigration by beefing up border patrol and creating a fraud-resistant Social Security card.

Our immigration system is broken,” said majority leader Harry Reid.

Optimism was my first reaction. But then I had to think again. What lies behind this? Are Democrats really pushing for actual reform in the problem of illegal immigration.

And what chance does any such piece of legislation have, really? Republican representative John Boehner of Ohio accused Democrats of trying to sway some votes from conservative-leaning individuals before the November elections, calling the move, a “cynical ploy to try to engage voters, some segment of voters, to show up in this November’s elections.”

 Boehner also argued that the legislation wouldn’t make its way through Congress.

All this discussion takes place as the first legal challenges to Arizona’s stricter immigration laws popped up Thursday.

Just to catch anyone up to speed, last Friday, Jan Brewer, the governor of Arizona, signed a law prohibiting the harboring of illegal aliens and making it a state crime for any alien to carry out particular federal crimes. Perhaps most notably, however, the law allows police officers to detain people they think might be in the country illegally with no more than reasonable suspicion.

Personally, I am thrilled with Brewer’s decision. It makes me wonder if perhaps California could ever be on board with a plan like that. Likely not. But I think it’s worth a shot.

I firmly disagree with the New York Times editorial that chastises Arizona’s government for taking matters into their own hands and making aliens carry documentation with them. If the Feds can’t handle the problem, then more power to any state that can. And it is far from unreasonable to require people from out of the country to be able to verify their identity and place of origin.

I could probably spend the rest of my blog posts talking specifically about illegal immigration. But alas, I probably won’t. It’s an issue I’ve been arguing over since the beginning of high school, and one I have a very firm stance on.

If Arizona continues to be in the spotlight, I will likely expound upon that a little bit more.

 

 

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/us/politics/30immig.html?ref=politics

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/29/opinion/29kobach.html

Post 4: Supreme Court Shenanigans

So I apologize in advance for switching from topic to topic like this. I honestly am not ADD. But I do find a broad range of political topics interesting.

I was reminded at dinner today how much more closely I need to be following elections locally. I don’t even know who is running for Congress in my district. That, I realize, is a huge problem. If I consider myself to be interested in politics, what about the people who don’t consider themselves interested in politics at all?

That said, I will keep in step with my spastic blogs and discuss the short list for the Supreme Court.

Justice John Paul Stevens is set to retire at the end of this term, and seven candidates are vying for his position. Granted, it is time for the guy to go. He’s 90, for goodness’ sakes. He’s been there 34 years.

At this point, it’s basically choosing the least of the evils. All of them are liberal leaning, if not liberal the core.

Diane Wood has opposed some abortion restrictions and opposed conservative judges. Jennifer Granholm twice vetoed bans on partial-birth abortion. Janet Napolitano is straight up supportive of abortion rights. And that’s just a few of their doings in former and current positions.

Abortion is undoubtedly one of the biggest topics out there right now. And it’s frightening to think that these are the types of people with the potential of having one of the most powerful positions in the nation.

And it’s frightening that Obama, in such a short period of time, has the shot to appoint two Supreme Court justices.

It’ll be interesting to see how much Republicans backfire once a new liberal judge is appointed – it will happen.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/04/09/us/politics/20100409-stevens-candidates.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/10/us/politics/10stevens.html

Post 3: Oklahoma puts more parameters around abortion

In a vote that definitely brightened my day, the Oklahoma Senate voted Tuesday to override its governor’s vetoes and go through with two uncommonly strong anti-abortion issues.

 

The new laws require women to undergo an ultrasound examination and listen to a description of the readings before having an abortion. Not even victims of rape and incest are allowed to forgo the procedure, according to sources like CNN and the New York Times. The vote was 36-12.

 

Chris Benge, speaker of the house and a Republican, said this about Tuesday’s vote:

 

“We must move to stop the degradation of human life seen in recent years and stand up for those who cannot defend themselves.”

 

The governor, a Democrat, had a very polar view, however. Gov. Brad Henry called the law “an unconstitutional attempt by the Oklahoma legislature to insert government into the private lives and decisions of its citizens,” according to CNN.

 

As a conservative and a Christian, I have to side with Benge and the Republicans – and Democrats – who overrode this veto.

 

Perhaps it is an invasion of privacy, of sorts. But I am fully on board with the government intervening in someone’s personal decision when that decision involves the lives of others. Yes, a fetus is a life.

 

I can’t help but think of the scene from Juno in which the young pregnant teen sees her baby for the first time in an ultrasound, and realizes that she has a person, not an organism, inside of her. It’s a pivotal point in the movie, and ultimately leads her to choosing life for her unborn child.

 

There has been strong opposition, however – not necessarily from those in Oklahoma, but from liberal minds in other parts of the country. The Center for Reproductive Rights in New York has already filed a lawsuit.

 

The other part of the new legislation approved Tuesday prohibits pregnant women and their families from seeking legal damages if physicians deliberately withhold information from them about their pregnancies.

 

Oklahoma isn’t the first to pass laws regulating abortions like this. But it does have arguably the strongest laws. According to USA Today, at least 22 states have bills to increase counseling or waiting periods prior to abortions, and 18 states have bills to expand the use of ultrasound. Earlier this month, Nebraska’s governor signed into effect a law banning most abortions at 20 weeks of pregnancy based on the argument that the fetus is capable of feeling pain.

 

It’s exciting to see so much of our country implementing some common sense and watching out for the voiceless in society. And it’s exciting to see governments actually representing their people’s opinions on something.

 

A Gallup poll released in May 2009 reported that 51 percent of Americans described themselves as “pro-life,” while 42 percent of Americans described themselves as “pro-choice.”

 

Unfortunately, it’s very unlikely that any restrictions on abortion will be passed in the liberal state we know as California. But maybe, just maybe, there is hope.

 

 

Sources:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/27/oklahoma.abortion/index.html

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/us/28abortion.html

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-04-26-abortionbill_N.htm

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/05/15/gallup-more-americans-oppose-abortion-rights/tab/article/

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0467406/quotes

 

 

 

Post 2: Naysayers

Republicans are the party of “no.”

 

And I include myself in this party. However, it has recently come to my attention just how much we are a party of “no” and seemingly nothing else.

 

President Obama brought up that very topic in his State of the Union address in late January. And it was probably at that point that I first really gave thought to the matter. Democrats come up with bills and Republicans simply shoot them down — or anymore, attempt to shoot them down and fail miserably thanks to their limited presence in Washington.

Since Republicans won’t create their own thought-through bills, they just end up vetoing everything the Democrats come up with. Sure, I have been in agreement with Republican representatives in the major battles in Washington. But in the meantime, they are failing to produce anything noteworthy. Republicans stood unanimously against the March health bill (which would tell Washington something when not a single Republican votes ‘yes’). Republicans are fighting the finance bill, which Democrats just announced today they will be pushing in a united front. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/business/26regulate.html?hp

Under the Obama administration, Democrats have accused Republicans of just saying no to everything. And the saddest part is that they’re right. It’s time that Republicans started stepping up and devising reasonable initiatives.

 

Post 1: And so it begins...

My name is Katie Watson, in case anyone reading this doesn't actually know me.

I am a junior journalism major here at the beautiful Biola University. And I have set out on an endeavor for my Intro to Mass Communications class to blog on a very regular basis about one of my favorite topics -- politics.

I will be moving to Washington, D.C. for the summer in one month and five days (and counting), so I decided this class project would be an excellent excuse to analyze one of my favorite hobbies -- government. 

If I weren't a journalism major, I probably would have gone into politics. In fact, that was on my list of top three majors when I decided halfway through my fall freshman semester as an English major that reading and teaching English for the rest of my life would make me want to jump off a cliff. Thankfully, I was rescued from that ledge. =p

But seriously, politics have always been an interest of mine. I want to make a difference in this world, and I thought that was one way I could have done it. However, I have always and will always love writing. That, I decided, was my passion, and everything else had to follow behind.

Luckily, journalism can encompass just about any hobby, pastime or interest. Instead of actually doing politics, I can write about them. Instead of actually going into criminal law, I can write about justice. Instead of actually being a dusty old historian, I can write about history. To me, journalism is the best of both worlds because you can become an expert about just about anything just through researching it and interviewing the experts.

And that is how I intend to pursue both my interest in politics and my love for writing. 

Let's see if it works. =p This summer will really be a testing time for me to see if political writing is actually something I want to do. I used to be completely positive it was the beat for me, but after delving into in-depth crime and feature stories, in addition to a slew of general assignments, I really have no idea at the moment. And the trouble is, my current job in journalism takes up so much of my time (40 hours a week) on top of my 17 units, that I haven't had nearly as much time to keep up with politics as I should. I can't even remember then names of the three people on the short list!

But since I will be writing about all this in summer, I figured I'd give myself a bit of a crash course. So forgive me if I'm not as knowledgeable as you expected. Believe me, if I had time to breathe almost, I'd be more read up on everything.

But like I said, this is my excuse.

So here it goes!

(Disclaimer: I am a conservative Republican. I try to be as objective as possible and look at things from outside the confines of my current spectacles, but that isn't always possible. And to burst your bubble, there is no such thing as completely objective journalism. There just isn't. Ask me why and I'd be more than happy to explain it to you. 

Signing off for now,

                            Katie