Re: The Right to Be Gay

               I was pleased to discover my colleague’s recent editorial, “Your Right To Be Gay”; a commentary on the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' issue that is as concise and in-your-face as the title itself. I found it impossible to disagree with the main arguments presented and felt further obligated to recognize their validity after reading the criticisms that the editorial had already received.  

               The comparison of segregation in the past to the rights of homosexuals in the military today is an interesting perspective that not many people consider.  Both situations involve challenging a long-standing design, and the individuals who already endure discrimination must also withstand the struggle necessary to overcome the prejudice.  The point that this similarity makes is indisputable, but one difference between the compared situations (that perhaps weakens the main argument) is the choice associated with disclosing one’s sexual orientation.  In other words, African Americans who experienced segregation in the 1950’s had no choice but to do so. Homosexual orientation, on the other hand, is not as obvious as one’s race, so instead LGBT individuals in the military struggle with accepting the injustice that is feeling pressured to choose the hidden lifestyle.  Regardless, in both situations individuals are being subjected to discomforts that essentially degrade their ability to pursue happiness.  Not to mention the frustrating irony of DADT blatantly degrading the ability to pursue happiness for people who defend this right and everyone's ability to enjoy it safely.  

               An additional point to consider is the importance of whether or not the delay in repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is actually due to the given reason of the military not being prepared for implementing it.  It is not unheard of for the ulterior motives of political parties to become the civil injustices of the people, and the abundant evidence of such motives recently is hard to disregard.  

Verifiable Voting

               Representation of the public, whether directly or via elected leaders, is a fundamental aspect of democracy.  Yet, citizens who vote blindly trust that when they drop their ballot into the ballot box at the polls, their vote is counted. With current voting practices, this is about all one can do, but in my opinion something as important as voting should be an action that each voter can put full trust in as well as receive tangible conformation for.  Just as one receives a receipt for a purchase, it only seems logical that members of a democracy should be able to obtain similar physical evidence of their voting participation.
               
                Electoral fraud has happened in the past and inevitably contributes to a portion of the present decline in voting participation.  For example, during the presidential election of 2000, Florida’s ‘butterfly ballot’ was deemed confusing and some thought it even intentionally made voters mistakenly vote for the wrong candidate.  Such historical events make verifiable voting a necessary addition to the future of our government.  Recent advancements in voting technology as well as the inevitable transition towards an e-democracy have provided some options for such confirmable methods that are hard to ignore.
                
                 With a new method known as verifiable e-voting, voters could rest assured that their vote was not only counted, but also counted correctly and confidentially.  This advancement utilizes computers in such a way that avoids the fallible aspects of electronic voting encountered in the past and does so by not exclusively relying on technology alone.  Citizens would still vote on paper ballots, but the ballots used in this method are encrypted for privacy.  The candidate list for each ballot is shredded and poll workers scan the encrypted ballots into computers that decode and sum up votes.  After the ballot is scanned the individual can take take it home just as one can keep receipts for purchases. The electronic feature of this technique allows for a simple form of confirmation using unique bar code like images on each ballot kept by the respective voters.  These images can be compared and matched with the online database of votes and thus provide each voter with evidence that his or her vote was counted and cast correctly.
                
                 Advancements such as verifiable e-voting and other methods like it would allow citizens to be confident in their government and increase the level of trust the public has for the entire voting process. The mixture of both traditional and progressive voting methods provides the best of each approach, which in turn gives it more potential to be supported by individuals who prefer either method.           



CITATION
Electoral Fraud: Explanation and Examples
David Bismark on Fraud less E-Voting


 

Re: The Government's Response to Bullying Issue

                This past week, my colleague, Wolfgang Hanft wrote a commentary for his blog in which he argued that the actions taken by both state and local governments in response to the recent suicides of teen victims of bullying were a “step too far.”  He speaks to both the public and the government in hopes of convincing them that it is a “moral obligation” of “every adult” to be aware of and prevent this issue, but there is no need for governmental concern or laws that specifically address the situation.  In my opinion, the main argument of this commentary assumes first of all that every adult is willing to prevent or be aware of the issue of bullying, and secondly assumes that juveniles aren’t directly included in the persons recognized by the government to have an unalienable right to pursue happiness.  Hanft presents evidence that shows that the government has in fact reacted to the issue, but doesn’t present evidence that supports his main argument that government involvement is unnecessary or that it is mainly the responsibility of parents.  He concludes the commentary by agreeing that the situation is tragic, but “government involvement is not going to fix the problem” of bullying.  Although valid, the conclusion isn't logically sound because doesn’t address his primary argument.  His main argument wasn’t about whether or not the government’s involvement would fix the problem, but rather it said the government shouldn’t be concerned with the issue because it was the responsibility of the parents.  For that reason, as well as my disagreement with the assumptions made, this commentary made some valid points, but didn’t convince me or change my mind.  It remains my opinion that the right to pursue happiness belongs to all individuals, juvenile or otherwise.  Bullying impedes upon this right, and thus, the responsibility to address the issue belongs to the same government that recognized the right in the first place.  That having been said, any response or action taken by the government to improve the situation is by no means “a step too far”, but rather a necessity.   

Where in the Constitution is Regression?

          Members of the Tea Party movement vehemently support traditional constitutional values, and based on these values preach the importance of the status quo.  Yet, in my opinion, representatives of this growing party have displayed a frightening fundamental misunderstanding of what they so passionately defend. During a recent debate concerning the separation of church and state, republican senate candidate Christine O’Donnell proved that her level of ignorance towards the constitution was as reliable as her claimed level of expertise.  Despite previously qualifying herself with an extensive background in constitutional analysis, she asked her democratic opponent, Chris Coons, where one could find the separation of church and state in the Constitution.  Following Coon’s recitation and explanation of the 1^st amendment, O’Donnell continued to confirm her unfamiliarity by requesting further clarification and then mockingly apologizing for having forgot her copy of the document.   

          Christine O’Donnell has grossly overestimated her ability to represent the very document upon which her entire campaign is based. More importantly, she is hardly qualified to make extremist allegations in which she calls our current government “increasingly socialistic.”  The stress the Republican Party is experiencing from the current Democratic majority has caused them to similarly overestimate their ability to lead.  The quantity of O’Donnell-supporting Tea Partiers and the votes they will cast this November has attracted the Republican Party in its quest for a majority.  Regardless, their failure to find a competent candidate has left both O’Donnell and the Republicans looking uninformed.  

          Both Democrats and Republicans need proper competition for a two-party system to work correctly.  When the leader of a party is as contradictory as O’Donnell, one should naturally question the consistency of the values held by that party.  Progression is vital to maintain a successful governing body.  The Constitution that Tea Partiers are misrepresenting was made amendable for a reason.  The population of the United States is roughly one hundred times what it was when the document was drafted.  Like our growing population, every aspect of our country is constantly changing.  The writers of the Constitution were well aware that the document would need to accommodate the evolutions of a growing country.  It has become clear to the public that the Tea Party Movement is regressive in nature, but the Republican Party’s blunders should not be seen as an automatic win for Democrats.  Christine O’Donnell should serve as an example that uninformed voters will vote for uninformed candidates; a frightening prospect for the future of our country.

O'Donnell Debates:

    RE: Separation of Church and State

    RE: Socialism

Information:

    Tea Party Movement

Bike Lane Only

Ask any citizen who has lived in a large city for a few consecutive years and you’ll find that most have strikingly similar complaints concerning transportation issues.  With every passing year, commuters in growing cities experience an increase in number of cars on the road, a need for greater concern for the plight of our polluted planet, and an unwelcome extension tacked on to the length of the daily rush hour.  Yet while we sulk in our bumper-to-bumper idling vehicles and curse the ever-growing population, we often disregard the bikes and pedestrians as they pass us up.  When presented with such situations, it’s surprising that more drivers haven’t been forced to question the efficiency of the beloved automobile.  In my opinion, it is equally illogical that those who partake in self-fueled transportation aren’t better accommodated on the roads, given the traffic congestion in large cities everywhere.  
 
In a recent editorial that he wrote for the L.A. Times, journalist Dan Turner describes the experiences he had while participating in an event known as CicLAvia.  During this event in Los Angeles, a fifteen-mile stretch of road is closed to cars and reserved exclusively for those that prefer human-powered transportation.  Turner, along with a crowd of 100,000 other self-propelled participants, enjoyed a bike ride free of the hassling typically received from drivers of motor vehicles while sharing the streets.  Turner presents some astonishing statistics, supported by first hand observations of the occasion.  Throughout his ride, he saw abundant police forces, who’s service costs confirm his statistic that shows the event to have cost an estimated $120,000 dollars.  He explains that CicLAvia is primarily funded by donation and charitable foundations who support the cause.  After presenting and supporting this evidence, Turner proposes a more logical use for the intended monthly funding for CicLAvia.  


Turner expresses his support for CicLAvia and it’s primary motives, but goes further to present a more direct method of obtaining the same outcomes the occasion hoped to encourage.  His suggestion seems to be intended for those in financial control of the issue, as well as other individuals like himself that consider efforts of this kind to be important.  Turner proposes that the substantial monetary support seen for CicLAvia’s cause be directly and efficiently applied to physical solutions.  He argues that building more bike lanes with improved accessibility and quality wouldn’t be much more difficult or costly than pulling of the feat that was CicLAvia.  Those that have the ability to fund such projects have already shown their support for the cause, and it is now up to Dan Turner’s target audience to apply this ample funding to a more long-term solution.  The logical benefits of expediting such improvements include less traffic congestion, safer means of bicycle commuting (which encourages switching to this mode of transportation), more individuals reaping the health benefits of self-fueled transport, and less environmental damage.  In my opinion, Turner's logic is hard to disagree with and all of his arguments are undeniably sound.        


A Day Without Cars - Dan Turner, L.A. Times
CycLAvia Information and Videos
Support for CycLAvia Efforts
                           

Obstruction of 'Dont Ask, Dont Tell'

According to the editorial staff of the L.A. Times, when it comes to 'don't ask, don't tell', the republican party does just that in expressing their true motives behind delaying the bill to repeal the policy in the United State's Military.  This bill would reverse the legality of discharging service men and women of homosexual orientation who refuse to conceal their sexuality. The republican party's given reasoning for dragging their feet on the vote of the bill was recently discussed in an editorial linked below.  

Their reasons include a demand for the ability to add additional amendments to the legislation, as well as concerns about the military's readiness for implementing the change.  The authors go further to provide a possible third explanation for the delay which emphasizes what are seemingly partisan motives held by the republican party.  They support their assumption by highlighting the convenience of delaying the repeal until after the midterm elections so that republicans can prevent democrats from having any additional legislative accomplishments, possibly benefiting their campaign. The results of a study that republicans say will better prepare the military for implementing the change won't be completed and presented to the Pentagon until December.  It is undeniably convenient that this study won't be presented until after the midterm elections.  

I agree with the opinions expressed by the editorial staff of the L.A. Times and share the same hopes for future efforts made by Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, who the article calls on to continue to "press for repeal."  The editorial staff also supports their claim with simple logic concerning freedom in general that is hard to dispute.  It is unfortunate that those directly affected by this issue are fighting to preserve the freedoms that 'don't ask, don't tell' undermine.  

Partisanship on 'don't ask, don't tell' - L.A. Times

Cyber Insecurities

Concerns about the federal government's lack of effort to improve cyber-security are expressed in this article in The Washington Post. It has been a year since Obama called network protection a "priority" during a White House speech. The fact is, it should be a priority because strong security is necessary to prevent cyber attacks that the article says could easily "cripple the U.S. computer networks."  Unfortunately, the article goes further to describe efforts made by both the President and congress in the last year, most of which are preliminary, and few of which have yet to actually affect security levels. Although we are more secure electronically than we were a year ago, the government's unenthusiastic attitude towards the situation thus far hardly mirrors that of a priority. The security of our nation's computer networks has always been important but it is becoming an even bigger issue with the electronically inclined future of our government.