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