To End Mass Incarceration, The Country Needs Community Policing

         The United States has a severe problem on its hands. It is not the budget deficit or even the skyrocketing unemployment rate. It is the corrections system that has devolved into more of just a mass incarceration system. Today, nearly 1 percent of the American adult population is imprisoned and $68 billion is spent on the country's various corrections systems annually. Many people are finally starting to ask why the number of American adults who are imprisoned has risen so high when the crime rate has not, and why many of the imprisoned are repeat offenders of nonviolent crimes. The nation must find some way to help solve this problem before the rates grow even higher.
         Right now something in the corrections system is not working, though it is hard to know what. It is not difficult to figure out, however, that "ending mass incarceration and reducing crime rates are not mutually exclusive goals" (Rebecca Ruiz, The American Prospect). The overall crime rate continues to drop, but the populations of the prisons only increases. In 2008 the prison population had grown by 708% since 1972. It is possible to lower both the prison population and the crime rate at the same time, but smarter crime-control strategies must be put in place.
         Smarter crime-control strategies that are know to work include a "tipping" model, and programs like Project HOPE. "Many crimes are attractive to offenders only when others are also doing them, diluting the risk of punishment. This creates a dynamic in which both high crime rates and low crime rates tend to be self-sustaining. It turns out to be possible to "tip" behavior from high-violation to low-violation without using a lot of punishment; the key is issuing specific and credible threats directly to the people whose behavior you want to change" (Mark A.R. Kleiman, The American Prospect). In the early 1990s the New York City Transit Police labeled a number of subway cars as "clean." If these cars were ever vandalized or defaced, they would never leave the yard until they were cleaned. The taggers quickly learned it was a waste of time and money to tag a "clean" car, because it would never be seen by an audience. The police then added to the number of "clean" cars until they made of a whole fleet of "clean" cars. Another program that has been proven to work is Project HOPE-- Hawaii's Opportunity Probation with Enforcement-- illustrates how strict and consistent sanctions for probation violators can truly improve behavior of repeat-offenders while saving money. It has clear rules and monitoring, as well as quick, predictable and unpleasant punishments for every mistake. The hey to these types of programs are that sanctions happen every time and right away. Both of these programs are proof that there are effective ways of reversing mass incarceration with a community-based policing and corrections system. Now, these programs just need to spread to reach more of the hot-spots for crime in the United States to prove if they can truly help the nation's problem of mass incarceration.

A Country With A Future or The Sacred Cows?

         The United States of America has long struggled to keep its budget and debts in check, and recently it has failed to do just that. The country's debt is now $13.8 trillion dollars. According to David Walker, former chairman of the Congressional Budget Office, "[the Country is] accumulating debt burdens that will rival those of a third world nation within 10 years. Alone, the cost of the Defense department, home-mortgage interest deduction, and social security takes up about 40% of the nation's budget for 2010. Now the country is at a junction in which it must choose to either make the necessary, yet unpopular, budget and program cuts or let the national debt reach an even higher level.

         The government needs to take responsibility for its part in the deficit and work to fix the country's ailing budget. The government must reel in its spending, especially in terms of the defense department's budget. The defense department is spending money on things that they do not have a significant possibility of ever needing. The Navy recently spent on $600 million littoral combat ship; the Marines just finished construction on a $13 billion fleet of amphibious landing vehicles. Many people in government have questioned the spending habits of the department, but have refused to do anything more than that for fear of rocking the boat. Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma  believes that "taking defense spending off the table is indefensible. We need to protect our nation, not the Pentagon's sacred cows." I concur.

Foreclosures and Missing Mortgages

       During this recession, there is not only a problem with homes being foreclosed upon, but also with documents surrounding the mortgage and who really owns them. The recovery from the foreclosure crisis is slowed by these missing promissory notes-- the original document that is legal proof of who the loan holder is and that the loan holder is entitled either to be repaid or to take back the house. Many cases of the million homes that have gone into foreclosure this year are challenged because of insufficient or lack of proper documentation.
         Many corporations, such as JP Morgan Chase and Bank of America, have acknowledged that their systems were very flawed and have actually suspended their foreclosures while they review them. But their attempts to fix the problem now do not help with the millions of foreclosures that already occurred. This problem would not have occurred had the financial institutions not failed to process loans properly. Many of the documents are missing because of the process of securization, in which mortgage bond are made and then sold to investors. As is the case with many foreclosures, the mortgage changed hands so many times and so quickly that the promissory note could not make it to all destinations or was filed away in a warehouse instead of being sent to the next place. More problems occurred when the banks themselves were trying to stay afloat and save money, or were being dissolved or taken over by a different corporation. "In early 2007, Washington Mutual shipped 1 million loan files from a document warehouse in Houston that it was shutting down to save money. The documents were supposed to go to Juarez, but according to a local news report at the time, WaMu lost track of 100,000 files during the move to Mexico" (Stepen Gandel). This situation was made yet worse by the fact that the files backed-up and saved in the Mortgage Electronic Registry cannot be used in foreclosure cases because its replacement of paper documents was deemed illegal under the Constitution.  This is good news for the homeowners of foreclosed homes but bad for the financial institutions and the economy because many of the foreclosure cases cannot make it through court. Now the banks may have to buy back billions of dollars worth of faulty mortgages which would just further halt the recovery from the recession.

Foreclosures in 2007 (above). Foreclosures in late 2008 (below).

Are American Motivated By Self-Interest or Will They Make Sacrifices?

         In the past few years, as we all know, the economic sector of our society has come under increased scrutiny. The woes of the economy reached an all-time low, in 2008, with the housing crisis and the concurrent recession. Now in 2010, the government is struggling to agree upon and adopt measure through which the economy and society at large can be healed, both in the short term and long term. The deficit-reduction commission recently published their ideas and opinions on the most effective and popular means to achieve stability in the economy.
         As a people, Americans have an "appetite for government benefits that greatly exceeds their appetite for taxes" (Fareed Zakaria). As a result, the country has borrowed vast sums of money to bandage up this issue. The government will not be able to simply patch thing up for much longer, because in 75 years benefits from entitlement programs will be over the government revenue by about $50 trillion, and the deficit, if not attended to, will be equivalnet to about 24% of GDP in 2040 (Time). If the deficit of the economy is allowed to reach these levels, then 2 cures for the economy would be 70% tax hikes or 50% spending cuts which would just harm the country even more. The inequities between the capacity of the economy and its spending must be resolved now and not later. 
         These problems that are a part of the American economy and society today can be remedied by a combination of the measures the deficit-reduction commission recommends. No matter how many programs are cut, a significantly large amount of revenue must be generated. A sound measure to generate more revenue is a national sales tax. Not only would it be efficient, it would also be applied to what any person bought and therefore would be fair to all classes. Another possibility is, in 2050, to raise the social security retirement age by just one year. Even being one of the millions of current young people who would be affected by the measure, I am in support of it. I am willing to make that personal sacrifice, even though many people would be unwilling to sacrifice some of their own personal comforts or luxuries for the benefit of their society. There needs to be a different mindset in the United States, if any new agenda or measure is going to work. I know people are motivated ultimately by self-interest, but when did the health of one's society and the welfare of its people stop being a matter of personal interest?        

Medal of Honor, Representative of Disgrace

        Oh, the society that we live in. At the same time that the Medal of Honor is is given out for the first time in decades, a member of the House of Representatives is reelected and then found guilty of 11 counts of ethics violations. Never can there be a time of just pride and honor in the United States, there is always a shadow looming. Although nothing came be taken away from the event of receiving the Medal of Honor, its reflection on the country can be diminished by the conviction of Charles Rangel.
        On November 16th, President Obama awarded the Medal of Honor to Staff Sergeant Salvatore Giunta. The recipient still says that even with his new title he will never be more than Sal to those that are truly important to him. He is just a simple and humble 25-year-old from Iowa, but when his country needed him, he grew into "a soldier as humble as he is heroic" (President Barrack Obama). At the age of 22 in 2007, he ran into enemy fire to help and rescue fellows soldiers when his team was ambushed by insurgents. He continued to complete 2 tours in Afghanistan. He is the first living person to receive the award since the Vietnam War.What he chose to do for his comrades and his country is heroic in and of itself and is made even more so amidst all the skepticism and doubts about the morality and motives behind the mission. He was willing to sacrifice his safety and his life, and did not respect anything in return.  In witnessing his devotion to his country and his mission, I was able to accept the conflict in Afghanistan as more valid then I ever have before. To me, the fact that he was willing to literally put himself in harm's way to protect others, gives more support to the efforts in Afghanistan; because if the American soldiers involved, who have actually witnessed what is going on are willing to do that, then the war must be valid.

      It is just sad to me that something was taken away from the pride that should accompany this event because of what Charles Rangel chose to do and how he betrayed the trust of the country. It is all just in a week of America, I suppose.

How Long Will The Tea Boil?

         

          Recently, an evangelization of the Tea Party agenda has occurred. It is essentially a revolt against the Washington government, large governmental spending, and even the Republican Party. One must ask what they can accomplish by themselves. Well, a good number of them, including Marco Rubio and Rand Paul, got themselves elected last week. They saluted the movement that fueled their victory and the people who voted them in and said “We’ve come to take our government back” (Rand Paul). But just how will they do that, because actually achieving change in government is a lot harder than just decrying the previous Congress and administration. Up to this point they have acted as a mob trying to enrage the people to rally behind their cause, without offering any coherent, legitimate or reasonable means to actually achieve their goals. Will the movement be different now that they actually have members in positions of some kind of power in government? Will they actually achieve change? Will they have to abandon some of their principles to do so? The nation will have to wait and see.

          What the new government must do to actually change the current state of the government and the country are, many times, contrary to what the Tea Party activists have proclaimed as the only means they would be willing to adopt. All through the recent campaigning season leading up to the election on November 4^th, Tea Party candidates were advocating lower taxes and spending cuts but they did not say how they would take action.  To save the economy, as any reasonably- minded person knows, the government must raise taxes and encourage spending by its people in order to increase revenue for the government, but also lower its own spending. Are they will to do these things, even though it would most likely turn their volatile support base against them? They must be willing to raise the taxes on the very same people that elected them, because the deficit will just keep widening if they don’t. They must be prepared to cut middle-class entitlements, such as Medicare and Social Security, against the efforts of almost all democrats. They must be ready to take on the Pentagon, as well, because its spending, at $717 billion, accounts for “half of all discretionary spending” (Fareed Zakaria, Time).  They also must be ready to make concessions to the president; otherwise they will have to work over him which would surely cause major problems. They must work hard to halt a government shutdown, like that of 1995. They must refuse any and all earmarks that could further curtail funds from the national government. They need to weary and work hard to reduce the national debt, because it is getting close to the $ 14.3 trillion national debt ceiling. If not dealt with quickly and effectively, and if the ceiling is not increased, it has the potential to cause a global financial crisis. The current situation of the United States has a very grave potential, made all the worse by the national government’s history with bipartisanship. “If this looks like a prescription for gridlock, it is. It could leave independent voters disappointed that Washington isn’t delivering solutions. And it could leave the Tea Party’s activist base as frustrated with the pace of change as the hopeful democrats who preceded them” (Michael Crowley, Time). Hopefully this will not happen again.

Only In America...

      Only in America could it be viewed as a good thing to be a political candidate with no previous ties to the national or any level of government. Even though this seems like a complete paradox to me, not to mention bad critical thinking, many candidates are endorsing this title, and what's more, it seems to be helping them in their races.
      Why would any American citizen want a mayor, representative, senator, or governor with no political experience? Is it because they believe successfully running a multi-billion dollar corporation  warrants them the abilities needed to be elected on principle alone? Or, is it because being wealthy automatically means one is wise and trustworthy?
     The truth of the matter, whether one is conservative or liberal, is that in these challenging and awesome economic times, our society needs governmental leaders who are experienced and have exhibited loyalty  and dedication to our governmental system. Candidates such as Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina have not done this. They decry the woes of the present status of our society, but fail to offer legitimate and sound plans to help our states and country recover. Should not this be a warning sign of their inadequate knowledge of how to correctly  govern?
      I am by no means saying that having been previously active in politics  warrants one an automatic spot in  government, but it does lend to their knowledge of what to and not to do in government. I do believe that if someone wishes to be elected to government, he or she should have at least consistently voted in past elections which Meg Whitman has not. He or she should also have showed concern for those that they have previously been in control of which, when they were CEOs of EBAY and HP, Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina did not do. I could go on and on, but I will not.
      In conclusion, citizens should be weary of newcomers to government who have no experience to back-up their assurances that they will make great political leaders who will guide us in the right direction; they have no evidence that they will! Citizens need to truly research all their political candidates, and propositions, for that matter,  so that they will be able to adequately choose the right candidate for their community.

Don't Be A Goat

      I am not all that surprised that all the thingspeople want to hear from the candidates are about America's decline, jobs, and the economy. People just want simple, clear responses to the extremely complex issues that are present in our society. This is the wrong view to have. People must stick with the government and support it the best they can, if they want things to get better in our society.
      People currently have a completely wrong view of government and believe that they are completely right in that view, even though they only have a remedial understanding of it. People do not want to elect individuals who have been present in Washington government recently, or even government at all, because of what has happened in society lately. But one would think, citizens would want elected officials with as much experience as possible. At least, I would. Another bothersome and rather annoying thing about American society at large is that they forget that they are the reason that the country has the government that it does. If they had not previously elected the people who elected those officials, they would not be in government and in control of the country.
      Finally, here is my appeal to my fellow democrats out there... Historically, when a president's rating have been low (like right now), the president's party has lost a significant number of seats in both the House and the Senate. Also Tea Party messages and candidates are pretty popular among all conservatives and are likely to win. But that can all be changed if democrats, especially the younger ones, get out and go vote. If this does not happen democratic views will not be as well represented in the government, and the programs and policies that we cherish could be endangered. And no democrats would be able to complain, because every democrats would be at fault. So, as a democrat who is too young to vote, I really hope that everyone who is able to will take advantage of this privilege and get out to vote.  

Thank God For DNA Testing and Civil Rights Cases

  
     Since 1989, DNA exoneration has freed 248 prisoners, and 17 who were serving on death row (Innocent Project). Just think, what if those people had not been released? What if some, if not all, of the death row inmates had been killed? What about all those that did not have the privilege of DNA testing??
      With those two simple statistics above, I cannot believe that there are still people who do not think that Hank Skinner, a inmate on death row in Texas, has the right to have all the evidence from the crime scene tested. The worst part is that he is not even asking to be freed, he simply wants to have the results; he just does not want to be killed. I do not know who would have the right to argue with that, although I guess someone does. I think that people forget that, even though he is a convicted murderer, he is still a human being who deserves some dignity. I know that the Texas D.A. does not think the same way I do.
      The main reason that the Texas District Attorney said no to Hank Skinner's request is that he did not entirely meet all of the requirements to get DNA testing done. According to Texas's post-conviction testing law, a convicted criminal can only get the evidence questioned if the inmate had not been at fault for the evidence not having been tested for the trial. Since Skinner's lawyer, not him, by the way, would not allow the evidence to be tested, the Texas D. A. says that he is a fault and cannot receive the testing. The evidence that is in question is DNA found on the knife used to kill to of the victims and from a rape-kit used on the last victim. This evidence seems like it could really possibly help Skinner and that he should have a right, not just a privilege, to it. This is the case that Skinner's present lawyer is making for his case, whose claim is that Skinner's due process right is being violated. I do not see what the harm could possibly be in letting a human being try and save his own life, especially since it could prove that he did not end three other lives.

     
      I am very happy that, this week, a "Federal Judge from California issued an injunction barring the U.S. military worldwide from further implementing the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Policy" (Jim Lehrer). The judge said that the policy infringed upon the fundamental rights of U.S. service members. Now, the policy will go to the President, who has less than 60 days to repeal the decision. Secretary Gates believes that Congress should decide and not the President; he said that it was a legislative matter, not a judicial one. Earlier yesterday, the U.S. press secretary said that the President would also prefer to have the policy end in the legislature; that the President was simply looking for the judicial system to give an indication of the path that this form of policy and legislation was taking, relative to the Constitution. It is said that the policy will end in Congress during the lame duck period at the end of this year.
      I do not care how this legislation ends, as long as it ends. I believe that this kind of policy is completely immoral and am proud that it is not deemed constitutional, though am sad that it was still put into place by people of my country. It is also reassuring that as many people in my country believe this is wrong as they do, even if there is a significant amount that still believe that gays should not serve in the military. The policy is on its last day, and knowing that is good enough for me, at least for right now.

Yet More Ways To Possibly Help The Economy

     

       Recently Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, said that he is concerned that the economy is not "bouncing back" fast enough, even with all the funds and other things being pumped into it. Although every American knows that this economic crisis is a very serious situation, many do not understand how hard it is to pull a country out of a recession like this one. The FED  and experts have a few ideas for what could successfully and efficiently get the economy and the country out of this recession.
      All of the ideas being purposed are very complex and have quite a few risks, easily said, they are not fool-proof, but they are progress. The FED proposed, this week, that it might purchase more national debt, otherwise  known as quantitative easing. This sounds like a great idea and like it could help, even though many people have no idea what "quantitative easing" really means. It is essentially creating more money and buying more assets. Then, when it has served its purpose, the money is taken back. But in reality they are tons of risks with this approach because it has not been done many times. An even more daunting risk is that when it needs to be undone, if it is done in a wrong way or at a wrong time, it could provide another joint to the economy, that could just undo all the good it just did. Another proposal to further ease the economic problems of the country was inflation. This is normally seen as a bad thing, something which should not be done. However, the FED deems it an acceptable suggestion, because the inflation level is still lower than what they consider to be stable, which it 1.5-2%. The current inflation level is less than 1%. Even though this may seem like a good idea to some, there is a much more significant risk in deflation, which could potentially harm the country. Less risky approaches to helping the economy include the FED buying private assets or lowering the interest rates, even past zero, so they could push more money out into the country.
      I am personally in favor of whichever solution has the least risk, relatively to its possible reward; this seems like a fool-proof plan, to me.

Beyond Babyland

      A few days ago I watched a rerun of a PBS documentary, called "Beyond Babyland." I remember when I watched it the first time, I just thought it was extremely sad. This time, I saw more than that. I saw how completely wrong it is that one zip code in Memphis, Tennessee, has the highest infant mortality rate in the country. This zip code is 38108, and that neighborhood is filled, almost exclusively, with African American families with a single mom at their head. Also, anywhere there is a high concentration of African Americans, there is a higher level of infant mortality.
      This documentary seeks to understand the culture of poverty and teen pregnancy that is behind this health crisis. The narrator mentioned that one of the impetuses for this was the deep segregation of this city, with nearly all the white families and middle/upper class black families fleeing for the suburbs. Another impetus was the 1968 sanitation strike in the city. What was left in the inner city was a community of uneducated, underrepresented, and uncared-for people, who live in a city with the second highest homicide rate. These women that are left in the community tend to either miscarry or go into labor early because of stress or because of their inability to receive prenatal care. If the babies survive birth, they are almost all taken to one hospital, the MED, which is struggling to pay its bills, because of the lack of revenue coming from these uninsured women. The babies that do not make it are sent to basically one cemetery, which has been unofficially renamed as Babyland, because of the thousands of babies that are buried there. What is even more sad is that these babies lie in simple wooden boxes and were buried by the county morgue, because their parents cannot afford a funeral. These babies should never had died, they and their mothers should have received the care that they deserve, simply because they are Americans and human beings.
      If anything could be a reason for universal health care in this country I believe that the high infant mortality rates in African American communities would be it. I would hope that anyone who saw this documentary would support giving health care to these women and their babies, no matter how much it cost. If not, I would be very disappointed in the citizens of this country.

What Causes The Whooping Cough Epidemic To Spread: Inconsistent and Uncoherent Religious Beliefs or Illegal Immigrants?

      Right now there is a whooping cough epidemic spreading across our state of California and many other states in our nation. The many reason why this epidemic exists is that parents are choosing not to immunize their children which puts them and all the other children around them at a higher risk of contracting the disease. All of the whooping cough-related deaths in California occurred in babies too young to be fully immunized against the illness which makes it hard to rationalize parents not vaccinating there older children  to protect these youngsters. Many district courts have found, however, that parents have an option, interpreted from the constitution, to not immunize their children. But how can something which is causing deaths be constitutional?
   
      The first 16 words of the First Amendment give people the right to not vaccinate their kids thus putting most if not all of the children in their society at risk. It states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." This right has also been extended to include personal religious beliefs, which in our country could be almost anything. These beliefs, both institutional and personal, do not have to be consistent, coherent, or even understandable to other, as said by one of the lawyers who won the cases, James Filenbaum. This makes absolutely no sense to me, but as the courts found, it does not have to.

      Many of these people who believe that they should not have to vaccinate their children also believe that it is not their children that are causing this whooping cough epidemic in our country; they believe that it is the illegal immigrants in this country, and this claim is being supported by many people outside of their group. A concerned reader recently asked the Los Angeles Times what role illegal immigrants play in starting and spreading the epidemic. Although state officials are attempting to assure people that illegal immigrants play no significant part in this epidemic, many people continue to use illegal immigrants as their scapegoats. Just a fun fact: immunizations are among the highest in Hispanic children and are lowest in Caucasian children.  I am baffled by people's reasons for doing and believing what they do, because they are not rational at all and can potentially harm the weakest in our society, but I guess that is one of the risks of living in a country that encourages freedom in its people.

       
     

All Other Persons...

     "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included in this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons" (Constitution of The United States Article I Section 2).

     I, being a product of the 1990s, find it so strange that at one point people of another race could be counted as anything less than equal. I am not naive; I know that even 50 years ago this was still the case, but, like most people of today, I write it off, saying that those people were just ignorant and just did not know better. This is a much harder thing to accept as true, when it is the people who created my government that are those people. One would think and at least hope that the framers of the constitution would have a more open mindset, but then on the other hand they did have to get the states to ratify the Constitution so they might have just sacrificed their true beliefs. But if history is any indication as to what a people feel or believe, than the framers of the constitution, along with many Americans past, did not find these minorities equal. What is so sad is that they still do not today.

      Even now, the minorities so discriminated against in the original constitution are being exploited. Although we have an African American for a president, African Americans, as a whole, are a minority ridden by poverty and unequal education. African American households make a little over half the national average and their poverty rate is nearly triple that of whites. These disturbing inequalities are nothing compared to the social and political discrimination that their race has experienced over this nation's long and arduous history. The reasons for these statistics and events are linked directly to the exploitation that they experienced in early America and in the constitution. Although Native Americans are discriminated against in our current society as well, I believe they are more exploited and used than anything else. Just recall the many times that they were forced to move farther away from their ancestral land, because the government wanted the land that they had previously promised the Native Americans would be their new home. When our nation has no more use for them, they are simply forgotten, left to struggle in poverty. If an individual makes less than $9,000 a year or a family of four makes less than $18,000 a year they are in poverty. The nation poverty rate is 13.1%, as of 2000.According to the 2000 census, for the 25 most populous tribes, the lowest poverty rate was 20.1% (Iroquois) and the highest was 48.8% (Navajo). With their poverty being so deep and their struggles so large, one must ask, why them? Why are we as a nation allowing the real first Americans to be living in this way? Why do we keep discriminating against African Americans when it is so clear that they are equal to us. Afterall, "Ho! Mitakuye Oyasin!" We are all related!  

Illegal Immigrants Consuming Our Nation??

         In a recent article from Newsweek, the idea that illegal immigrants are rushing into our nation in record breaking number, destroying our economy, and threatening our values were deemed and proven untrue. With all the hype about illegal immigration that is present in almost every single candidate's campaign, it can become difficult for citizens to keep a level head on and purely examine the facts. That is what needs to be done, because the facts could change how much of the population views illegal immigrants.
         Most of the claims that have been and are being made by the candidates and citizens are false. The truth is that illegal immigrants are not harming this country and are actually doing things that are benefiting the country, many if them things that the average legal citizen would not do.... but that is a whole other can of worms. The number of illegal immigrants entering this country is declining for the first time in two decades, not increasing. Also there are about 1 million undocumented immigrants residing in the United States than there were 3 years ago. There is little evidence to support the claim that those that are still in this country are taking away employment opportunities from our citizens. It has been proven by a study conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco that, "Immigrants expand the economy's productive capacity by stimulating investment and promoting specialization. This produces efficiency gains and boosts income per worker." A different study by the Center For American Progress found that  the "immigrants today are integrating just as rapidly as their predecessors in past decades." So, it is easy to infer, they are not posing any more of a threat to our society's values than they were, say, twenty years ago..... So much for those on-rushing hordes of criminals. But with all the evidence, one logically has to ask the question, then, why are these political candidates still making these ridiculous claims?
     As with almost anything that politicians say, I do not think we will ever know.

Clouded Judgements Can Lead To Clear Decisions

As many know, the argument over whether or not same-sex marriage is legal or illegal, or constitutional or unconstitutional, has truly become come to a head. Recently a justice in the state judicial system proclaimed the infamous prop 8 unconstitutional; this decision virtually overrules the votes of 52% of California citizens, because that is no matter to me. The next step for this lawsuit is a set of hearings at the District Courts whose jurisdiction covers a large portion of the west coast. As this lawsuit continues to move on up the judicial food chain, most likely resulting in a case in the Supreme Court, more and more is becoming clear about our society and how little that society truly knows and comprehends about our government and its constitution.

The essence of the government that was built in 1787 is often lost on much of today's society. We, as a collective people, as so concerned with our own self-interest and benefit that we often forget what the laws of this country are and why they were written in the first place. Our government was meant to protect the unalienable rights of all of our citizens, no matter how small of a minority they belong to. A system of checks and balances was enacted to reinforce the defending of these rights, among others. With checks and balances, power never resides in only one part of the government, or the people for that matter, but instead in many different areas that have the power and legitimate authority to override or "check" another's decision. This is what occurred with the lawsuit against proposition 8; a number of families felt that the "persecution" they were experiencing must be illegal, so they sued. The court's decision "checked" that of the populace of the state and declared it unconstitutional. If this system had not been put in place centuries ago, then many families and regular human beings would still be denied the opportunity to equality. This case against an unjust law is at the end of a long line of laws that have been overturned by the judicial system because of this system of checks and balances. I will stop my long rant with one thought: What would the society we know today be like, if issues such as civil and women's rights had not been resolved?
The decision in this case will soon seem as clearly right and just as did the decisions in those two areas; at least I hope it does.