Grace Napolitano

While listening to the speakers explain how important the Census forms are to Hacienda Heights, House Representative Grace Napolitano steps into the room to speak to the volunteers and students.

She explained what the census forms do for our community, and gave a little information on her job as Representative, and what she does, why she cares so much about the community and how every person can make a difference.

After her speech, the students and voluters left to start their door to door reminder of the residents to send in their census forms to help benefit our community. Jackie, Kevin and I traveled together, and met many different people, most of whom confirmed that they did send in their census forms already. When confronted with a language barrier, we gave the person the paper provided by the census volunteers to the individual's spoken language.

After the few hours of walking, the buddhist monks in hacienda heights treated the volunteers with some food donated by their temple.

Can you Identify this Military Guy?

Five dollars if you can.

HUGE IMMIGRATION MARCH IN WASHINGTON

On March 22, 2010 thousands of people marched on Washington to tell Congress to reform the laws on immigration. Marching on the same day as the health care bill was to be passed, their mission was to put immigration as the next big undertaking for the United States. Many of the protesters took out their frustrations on President Obama because of his promises to overhaul immigration in the United States. The deportation rate of Illegal immigrants has raised five percent under the Obama administration. “March for America,” the organization running the march, claimed that the immigrants retain jobs and help American businesses.

Immigration is definitely a really important issue in American, but I disagree with the protesters of this march. First, immigration in of itself is a great thing. It is what makes the United States the awesome nation that it is. However, these protesters are not really advocating immigration, they are advocating ILLEGAL immigration. They want President Obama to give illegal immigrants the rights of American citizens. This is simply wrong. There is a process for citizenship, and if immigrants would like to apply they can. Granting amnesty to illegal immigrants is also completely unfair to those who are legally waiting to become citizens. There has to be order, and there has to be rules and regulations followed for people to become citizens of the United States. If we let everyone who snuck into the U.S. become a citizen, our country would be uncontrollable. It just does not make sense to open our doors to anyone and everyone.

As it stands right now, Illegal immigrants are hurting the economy more than helping it. None of these immigrants pay taxes and they are also draining our health care funds. We are also in a recession where millions of Americans cannot find jobs. It does not make sense to keep them here when our own citizens cannot find work. Also, although I am sure many of the family member of these protesters are friendly, the immigrants could be criminals. Because they are here illegally, there is no way of us knowing. Recently, an Arizona rancher was just murdered by an illegal immigrant on his own ranch(which was near the border). Illegal immigration is not only bad financially, but unsafe as well.

Although the intentions of these Immigration marches may be good, it does not change the consequences of what they are fighting for. Also, as in the article from the LA times, they make the issue sound much more appealing by not calling illegal immigration by what it is, illegal! By doing this it draws to our emotions rather than our logic. After all, we are all immigrants. But these protesters wanted to make their point clear. They want to have the nearly 11 million illegal immigrants on the path to citizenship. And they will continue to push through protests and voting. They said that the politicians will pay the price at the polls if they keep putting immigration on the back-burner. If President Obama is not putting immigration on the forefront, their future does not look too bright. For now, I hope that deportation rates keep increasing and our border become more secure.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-immigration-march22-2010mar22,0,6442141.story

I Got Mugged at the D.C. Zoo

WARNING: IT'S LONG

I got mugged at the D.C. Zoo while buying Original Pringles for $1.50. Ting was with me when this happened.

It happened here:
I entered the zoo with the Gardena group that I came to D.C. with, but I split off from them because they wanted to look at boring sloths or something, while I wanted to search for some awesome Cheetahs and even more awesome Pandas. Mr. and Mrs. Park (no relation to our Mr. Park) was at the entrance waiting for us. I was chilling around with Ting when I spotted the Pringles Machine, and since it was nearly 12 hours since I last ate I didn't care how expensive the Pringles were. I went to buy some Pringles to fill my hunger.

Suddenly, a group of eight people swarmed me and asked me for a dollar, which I was going to give them since I always give dollars to people who ask for them (if I have money). Then they told me to give them my wallet and camera. My wallet had $150, and my camera was $300, so hell no was I going to give them my wallet and camera.

Seven of them surrounded me. Ting said one of them held them back. Thanks Ting, one person stopped you, while I successfully fended off seven people. Ting's either faced someone ten times his size, or I'm Superman. I'm pretty sure I'm Superman.

They tried to grab my wallet and camera from my hands, and miserably failed. These guys, the same age as me, were weak, probably weaker than Ting when he was five. Three of them held back my arms, while two of them tried to grab my wallet out of my left hand. It took five people to disable me and they still were unsuccessful in taking my wallet. One of these a******* blindside hit me on my upper left eyebrow. The punch didn't hurt at all, since I was sleepy, but I was pissed off at the fact that even though it was 7 against 1 with my arms held back, they still had to cheapshot me. If my arms weren't tied back, I would have thrown a fist and knocked someone out.

The other two decided to smacktalk me. I couldn't understand what they were saying, partly because they talked like they didn't pass the fifth grade. Too many grammatical mistakes made it impossible to comprehend them. I think one of them told me to give them my walrus or else he'll bill me up, or something like that.

Ting was still held back by that one person or something, I don't know what he was doing actually. I hope he was calling for help or something, or else I'll lose all respect for him for not standing up for someone who is ganged up by seven people. I managed to escape my five capturers, who still weren't able to knock the wallet OR my camera from my hands. I looked at one of them, who was still asking me for my wallet (if he wanted it he could have got it from my hands when his "friends" held me back), so I told him to f*** off. At that point, I was pissed off that I was in the middle of the freakin' park and NO ONE decided to help me, and the fact that I almost got mugged. I walked away, and Ting followed me, when one of those muggers decided AGAIN to blindside hit me, this time barely missing my temple and hitting my right ear.

The punch didn't hurt, it felt like getting slapped by a pillow, but that isn't the point- you have seven people with you, and you have to sock a skinny 5'10 Asian guy WITH AN ITEM IN BOTH OF HIS HANDS when he's back is turned to you? Maybe they were scared of Ting's blue jacket, since it looks like it can carry like 28 guns. If you're going to start a fight, at least fight fair.

I was going to throw a swing. I didn't care that it was 8 against 2 (well, more like 8 against 1), I probably could have knocked out two or three before getting owned by their numbers. They cheapshot me not once but twice, and they probably would have done it ten times more if I didn't turn to face them.

Luckily, a Smithsonian Zoo worker intervened, props to that guy. The muggers suddenly stopped "fighting" and accused me of calling them the n word and that I started it. Please, look at me, I'm going to be the one that starts stuff? They were wearing thug clothes, too, and talking like thugs, and acting like thugs, but they weren't thugs, they were lame ass posers who couldn't win a fight against two of the most passive guys in the world, even if it's 8 against 2.

One of them asked me for a buck again, so I gave him one. Not because I wanted to him to leave me alone, but because if I didn't, he'll probably cheapshot me again (probably knee me down under or something), and then I'll probably be so pissed off that I would have thrown a left hook and knock that f***** out. Then a fight would have erupted, and I probably win, but then I would have been questioned by the police, probably jailed for fighting on FEDERAL LAND (those muggers were flatout idiots), and be on the next flight back to Hacienda Heights (which I'll have to pay for), with a day left on the trip. I wasn't going to get a black mark on my name and pay $250 for a flight just because a guy decided to be a d******** and blindside hit me. I think one dollar was a decent price to avoid everything.

The muggers left soon after, like the wimps they are. I mean, it was only one guy that intervened, so it would still be 8 against 3. I'm guessing that they knew they couldn't win unless they had at least four people on one person. Hell, I'll be surprised if they ever won a fight fairly. I'm pretty sure a 10 year old girl scout could defeat all of them at once. They literally walked away, still talking trash, bragging about how they "won" even though they couldn't beat up ME. I was still walking. I was still breathing. I was still alive. Those two shots did nothing to me, and they still walked away. They can't even finish what they started. Those muggers were pathetic.

While Ting and I were walking back, I immediately asked him why he didn't help me. He said one of them held him back. Not wanting to flip out on him for being such a wimp (sorry Ting), I told him that if he was the one that got mugged, I would have defended him, and I mean it, I would have defended anyone in that situation. He told me to go to Mr. and Mrs. Park to tell them, and the first thought was "why the hell did you not do it, you could have ran to them", and my second though was "I didn't get hurt, so what's the point", but I decided to do it anyway because I reeeeeeally wanted my dollar back, because there was a poker game that night in my hotel room and that one dollar really could have helped me win more money (I'm +10). I reported it to Mr. and Mrs. Park, they became concerned and took me to officials, where I gave my report to a nice cop who sincerely wanted to help me. Also, the guy who helped stop everything also gave his report, so I shook his hand and thanked him for helping me. I wish there were more people like them at the park, it really could have helped.

Later, Mr. Park, Ting, and I went exploring in the park while the cops were looking for the muggers (they probably left through the back like cowards). Mrs. Park told me to leave my camera behind, so I don't have any pictures of the lazy panda or the millions of frogs in the reptile exhibit (God, I hate frogs). I only went exploring to look for the muggers. I wanted revenge so badly. I didn't want to do it the right way through the justice system, I wanted to do it the wrong way with my fists, black eyes, and maybe some bloody faces.

To cheer myself up, I bought a tiger at the shop. I named it Hobbes, so in the future, I'm going to name my son Calvin, and then give Calvin Hobbes so they can make their own comic book together (I know it sounds weird, but you'll be doing weird stuff too ten minutes after you got mugged). It looks like this:
While walking through the park, Mr. Park told me a lot of stuff about how the muggers would all become criminals doing time in jail, and that karma would benefit me (it sort of didn't, I was almost late for my plane back by ten minutes, my metro ticket didn't work so I always had to tell the metro operator to let me in, and I was always sleepy on the trip).

When the zoo trip ended, I admitted that a lot of s*** happened to me on this to D.C, but there were also a lot of good things, such as getting universal healthcare passed through a Mock House, even though I was like one of ten liberals while the other 130 people were hardcore conservatives who hate socialism and higher taxes. I saw a lot of memorials and monuments, and my favorite had to be FDR's, because FDR had so many quotes that were so quotable and awesome. I went to Capitol Hill, and went into the House Gallery and saw two or three people argue their point. I visited the Archives and passed the Devil Nancy Pelosi's office, went to the malls, and rode the smelly metro stations. I also stepped in the Senate, where I'll take over Sen. Boxer's office someday. Did I mention that Sen. Boxer passed us and no one recognized her, not even Mrs. Park or me (who loves California politics)? She dyed her hair blonde, that's why. Sen. Boxer, you're not famous enough for people to recognize your face yet. Everyone knows you as a brunette, so stay as one. She didn't even say hi to us, or acknowledge us. She just passed us with a cold shoulder. How did we elect a person like her? She's so fake, I hope she loses this year.

The best part of the trip was seeing the people. Our group saw the back of McCain's head (he's always smiling). Another group saw Barack Obama. We met with aids from Feinstein and Boxer (Feinstein's boring, but Boxer's kind of interesting in a way), and Maxine Watters, the representative from the 35th district of California (who is on the top 10 list of the most corrupt politicians in America, I knew I saw her name before). But none of these were involved with us, so Mr. Park, Ting, and I went off to our own adventure and met Grace Napolitano and Obama:
And this general guy, whose statue was so formidible it made me sweat. If he's fighting/eading in the conflict, I'm glad that we have soldiers like him fighting/leading for America.
And of course, we met Ron Paul, the most awesome politician in Congress.
Overall, this trip was definately worth $1400, even though it was awkard for only two people from LAHS to go to D.C. with 13 other kids from Gardena to met with 120+ kids (some deaf) from states like Minnesota (who has the nicest people ever), Nebraska (who has some of the nicest but also some of the most arrogant people ever), Illinois, North Dakota, Michigan, and New York. 138/140 of the people there were some of the coolest people you'll ever meet, it's sad that two of them were the kind you never ever wanted to meet.

You guys should have came. Ting's not liberal enough to debate all of those hardcore conservatives out there. We could have all brought some liberal blast from the West to counter the Reagan lovers (no hate on Reagan) of the Midwest. Literally, everyone was Republican. They asked all the people who were liberal to stand up, and I was the first one to do so, and then like nine other people did so, and when they asked for conservatives to stand up, 100+ people stood.

And because of this, I would have paid $100,000 to go to D.C. for the trip, because not only did I explore places like the Library of Congress, not only did I see and meet politicians like Ron Paul, not only did I partake in activities like Mock Congress to debate on Healthcare (which we should do in Government class by the way), but just meeting my roommates from Minnesota and just learning about their views of politics, along with the 100+ people that were not my roommates, made this trip totally awesome.

Plus, I missed a week of school and got extra credit for AP Government, so I couldn't lose on this trip anyway.

Health Care Vs. Republicans

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/22/health.care.lawsuit/index.html?hpt=T1

As the historical health care reform bill or also known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is being passed through congress, several state attorney general’s are preparing to sue the bill. The states include Florida, Alabama, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, and Washington. All the states are also known to be more Republican and the attorney generals in all the above states are Republican. Is this just fervor of “emotion” towards the bill or a plan assault by the Republicans to scrap the bill? The attorney general of Florida, Bill McCollum, described that they are filing the lawsuits against the bill out of rule of law, not politics.

The piece of legislation that was approved by the Senate, and also passed on March 21, 2010 by the House of Representatives with a vote of 219-212 which was faced with heavy resistance by Republicans. All the Republicans voted “nay” on the vote for passing the bill and some blue dog Democrats followed. The bill needed 216 votes to be passed, and even after passing, the Republicans wanted “motion to recommit” in which will restart the entire process. Luckily the Democrats gain 220 votes to stop the recommitting process and were able to pass the bill. This marked the bill was ready to be signed by Obama on March 23, 2010, two days after the historic accomplishment. Once the piece of legislation is signed, the state attorney general’s in the above states will begin filing lawsuits against the bill. This basically means that the states are going to sue the bill because of the provision of people purchasing health insurance. More specifically, the bill specified that people have to buy health insurance and force state governments to spend on health care services. It is believed by the attorney general that it is unconstitutional to tax and give penalty to people on their health. It is also true that the United States Constitution does not give the government the power to regulate people’s health in a way.

In my opinion, I find that it is true that the constitution did not give the power to the government to regulate people’s health. I find it that the Democrats are pushing a piece of legislation that is unpopular to gain some popularity to the Democrats. It also reaffirms Obama’s promise in delivering some sort of heath care bill and won’t be laminated as a lame duck President. I believe that the health care system needs to be improved, but not in a drastic change. The bill is considered to be a drastic change since now I am required by law to buy health insurance or I may get a penalty. The Republican attorney general also argued that the bill forces the states to spend money on the new health reform bill, and it is deemed unconstitutional by the 10^th Amendment. The 10^th Amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This means that the states could argue that the federal government is pushing the states to spend money they don’t have and would harm the states.

I believe that the ten states will reach the Supreme Court for the final verdict on the health care bill. The bill will most likely be on the hands of the Supreme Court Judges and will determine the fate, even though it was passed in Congress. In my opinion, I believe that the bill will pass in the Supreme Court since so far it’s only been Republican complaints on it. Most of the Republicans fight against the bill because of the national debt and the deficit we are incurring in the United States. The health care bill will add to the deficit by $940 billion. The Democrats on the other hand argue that the health care bill will reduce the deficit in the next 10 years by $143 billion projected by CBO. Most likely the health care bill will raise taxes and increase the premiums in health care plans. I believe that the bill has the potential to reduce the deficit. Overall, I believe that the bill will be considered constitutional if the Supreme Court judges use loose interpretation of the Constitution to compare it to the bill.

Things Are Looking Grim for Health Care

http://www.newsweek.com/id/234953?GT1=43002


In this article, Robert Samuelson, argues against universal health care and offers a new side to what U.S. citizens are being told about the presidents vow to "reform" health care. As I was reading the article, I couldn't help asking myself, "what does the proposed health care bill really offer?" No one really knows exactly what the reform bill includes except "universal" health care, and no "public option" yet, but what does that mean exactly. The American people are left in the dark when it comes to specifics of the bill. They're only told what they want to hear, that everyone will have some type of health care coverage. I can't make an educated decision on whether or not I am for or agianst Obama's universal health care system until I really understand who or what it will benefit or hurt. Since I really have no idea what exact details come with the bill, I decided to come up with ideas to solve the problem Congress states as issues.

I started to discuss the issue with my dad, and all the "reforms" I could think of lead to problems that he pointed out. I said "what if they just started a federal insurance company that offered low prices? Then insurance companies would be forced to lower their prices to compete." His rebutle was, that if the prices went to low, then companies would be forced to go out of business, I slowly started to realize this would only lead to a version of socialism, because the government would be in charge of health care, and it would no longer be a private business. It would also be hard to create a bill that forced insurance companies to comply with certain regulations because they are private companies. We do live in a country that believes in a "laissez faire" type of government, at least to a certain point. Even if laws were created to combat the high rates of these companies, it would be possible that some would be hurt to the point where they need to shut down. Everything I could think of that would "fix" the health care system didn't seem to work out for the better. Which leads me to believe that if nothing can make it better, it should be left the way it is.

Although, Dan Pfeiffer, White House Communications Director, does make a couple points in his blog about certain health care issues that I do think should addressed somehow. One being the ridiculous amount of money insurance companies make by having such high rates. Insurance companies should work to benefit their community, right? They should be compassionate and melt every time they hear a life changing story. I know I wouldn't want my family members lives or my life to suffer because some evil insurance company didn't insure us due to a high risk of diabetes. They're there to help sick people! But, we live in a capitalist nation, and however you can make big money, since it is the most important thing in the world, should be acceptable...right?

From my perspective now, reforming health care, it any type of way, will only hurt the federal budget and put the country into more debt by spending much needed currency on something I find to is not a very important issue when there are other, more drastic issues to worry about. I don't think the government taking months and months arguing over a health care bill is going to solve the recission we are in right now, or anything else for that matter. Though the American government system was built in order to slow decisions and stop haste, I think the lesson should from the dilemma President Obama is facing over his promise to reform health care should be; if it takes to long, maybe it shouldn't be forced. At least until the time calls for it. More pressing issues, like the devaluation of the dollar and the fact that, while the U.S. is spending millions keeping troops overseas, other countries are using their precious money and resources building bullet trains and things that will help their overall convenience in life while saving the environment and ensuring a future.

I know that Obama's presidency rides on his ability to make universal health care happen, and this weeked we'll know for sure what he is really capable of. But, the truth is, how can something that is being fought from all sides, Republicans and some Democrats alike, be beneficial? Even states are trying to combat health reform, preparing to sue the federal government if the health care bill passes. I believe that Obama should realize what he is up against, and slowly shift his focus to other matters that are obviously more pressing issues, like the country's debt and the ominous looming problem of the "baby boomers" getting old enough for social security. Acquiring this money should be the focous of the government now, not "spending our way out" of this recession. It won't work this time.

Play Basketball With Obama?

http://www.slashcontrol.com/free-tv-shows/the-buried-life/1041101967

Four guys on a missin to accomplish 100 things to do before they die.
One of them was to play basketball with the president.


This episode shows some people in politics.

It's a good show too. You should all watch it!

"A Plan to Talk About Jobs, Elbowed Aside by Health Care"

Yesterday, President Obama finally took a step away from the endless debate over health care to look at the problem of unemployment. Going along with the pleas of many and the White House's new plan to address the unemployment rate (still at 10 percent) ,Obama focused on the topic of jobs in a trip to Savannah, Georgia. Obama has begun an attempt to push through some legislation before having to begin the campaign process at the end of March. His trip to Georgia was only one of the stops along his “White House to Main Street” tour. In a speech to a crowd at Savannah Technical College, Obama proposed a "$6 billion proposal to provide cash rebates to homeowners who replace windows, insulate or install energy-saving heating and cooling systems." This proposal is being called cash-for-caulkers to imitate the previous cash-for-clunkers program. While Obama was on this tour, however, his advisers back in the White House proceeded to write a statement on why they should continue to harp on health care. Basically, the Obama administration has started to address the problem of unemployment, but have not and may not ever push aside the health care issue to take care of it. Obama's time to push through any bills through Congress is coming to an end and he may run out of time.

I think that is good to see that the issue of health care is finnally being put to the side for at least a second, and the Democrats are looking to place their focus on something else. It is depressing, however, to see that Obama's advisors look to push health care with the Democrats through, alone if necessary. As far as action goes, I think this is just more talk. People are getting tired of hearing about health care and how it's going no where, and Obama is giving them something else to hear. It looks as though the time to actually do something is running out, and nothing will be accomplished before that time runs out. This is a victory for the Republicans because the next election will most likely greatly favor the Republicans, and they will come back into power with the Democrats loosing their ability to push bills through in Congress. The Republicans seem to have come back from being a significant minority and come back to power without the Democrats being able to change much.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/us/politics/03obama.html?ref=politics

Obama calls for action on healthcare

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-obama-health4-2010mar04,0,2090378.story

Summary:

Today President Barack Obama stated, "I believe the United States Congress owes the American people a final vote on health care reform." With that in mind, Obama urged Congress to vote "up or down" on the health care legislation in the next several weeks. In doing this, Obama advocated a plan that denies Senate Republicans to vote around this and have the right to kill the bill by imposing an entirely new draft of the legislation.

My Opinion:

I do agree with Obama when he states that the American population deserves an answer. After months of heated debates and much controversy, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell made accusations that Democrats are ignoring the voices of the people, ""They think they are smarter than the American people," he said. "They think, 'We're going to give this to you, whether you want it or not," changed my perspective on Obama's healthcare legislation completely. I, now, have mixed feelings. I have always thought why not give everyone an equal opportunity to a healthy life, but my my mother, a democrat, made a good point today. Both my mother and father work hard both work 2 jobs each so that my sisters and I receive the health care and basic necessities. With that in mind, there are people who work hard and cannot afford it but there are also people who do not deserve live off of the hard work of people like my parents. On a side note, Obama continues to reject GOP calls to start all over and will rely on budget reconciliation to to prevent and avoid a Republican filibuster. In my opinion, I feel like there is no turning back for the Democratic party. This is evident when the Senate is limiting the debate to 20 hours and in desperate needs of a decision Obama states the best ideas of both Democrats and Republicans will be put into the legislation. This article changed my perspective on our president's healthcare reformation, indeed, there needs to be a decision because as a part of the next generation health care will affect our future.

"To Court Blacks, Foes of Abortion Make Racial Case"

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/27/us/27race.html?bl#

The battle over abortion rights has always been a fierce one. A new tactic developed by "pro-life" organizations was to target the black community by hiring more African Americans. When Georgia Right to Life's largely white staff attempted to reach out to the disproportionately high female Black population, they found themselves unsuccessful. However, the simple hiring of a black minority outreach coordinator led to better results for less money. Across the nation, other organizations do the same as the "white and Republican" anti-abortion movement advocates black supporters to become more active. Much more media is coming out about how abortion seems to be disproportionately high among blacks because the abortion clinics are targeting them. "Womb lynchings" seems to be the new term as more an more evidence supporting the theory is uncovered, such as taped recording of Planned Parenthood accepting donation specifically for black abortions. Surprisingly, black women receive almost 40 percent of the country's abortions but make up only 13 percent of the population. Some see this as support for the conspiracy theory that abortion clinics target black women. Others, "pro-choice" supporters, say that the high number of black women abortions is no fault of the clinics but simply the result of too many pregnancies. Proponents of the theory are quick to cite black leaders, such as Marcus Garvey, who were strictly against abortion and opponents cite black leaders as well, such as W.E.B. Du Bois and Dr. King, who applauded the efforts to give birth control to the black community. Which side is correct is unclear, but the conspiracy seems to have enough evidence to produce documentaries and movies upon it that are changing the way people think about abortion.

I found myself having mixed feelings as I read this article. I am a staunch supporter of the "pro-life" movement and feel that there is no reason to deprive a child of the right to live. However, I felt that this conspiracy theory may have been going too far. To characterize abortion clinics as some sort of genocidal group seemed to be placing undeserved blame upon a group that despite its faults has its own merits as well. Unnecessarily demonizing abortion clinics is the wrong way toward preventing abortion. Yes, it may achieve results, however, I feel that allowing people to have access the correct knowledge and then making their own decision is a much more moral and proper way to go about it. But the theory does have its strong points and I can see why it would be so easily convincing. The abortion movement has truly been lacking into inquiring why the Black community, which focuses heavily on the importance of family and religion, has such a disproportionately high percentage of abortions. The fact that the movement is realizing its follies and beginning to open its doors to the other ethnicities is a huge step in the right direction, and will have powerful consequences in the future. Saving lives is the, or should be, the goal of the "pro-life" movement and if this is currently an effective method, I say they should run with it. But they should be careful what information they give to the public and how the media will spin the issue, for misinformation can have powerful reprucussions and could lead to a loss of faith in the anti-abortion movement.

MEDICAL MARIJUANA IN CALIFORNIA

The battle over medical marijuana in Los Angeles took a new step today(March 2^nd) with an organization suing the city. Americans for Safe Access, the primary nonprofit advocate for medical marijuana, claimed the ordinance that will come into law later this month will make even the law-abiding businesses have to close. The law, due to be enforced March 14^th, gives dispensaries only seven days to move 1000 feet from schools, churches, and parks. The lawsuit said, “[it] severely restricts access to medical marijuana by effectively forcing plaintiffs, as well as the vast majority of collectives in the City, to close their doors.” The suit goes even further to claim that the new city ordinance violates the state law, so they are seeking a restraining order to prevent it from being imposed.

To begin, I believe that marijuana-even medical-should be made illegal. Clearly, many marijuana advocates have taken advantage of the “medical marijuana” system in order to make money, or use it themselves. I do not disregard the small population that honestly uses it for medicinal purposes, however; The United States has not had a problem with having marijuana illegal previously, and I do not see why we should lower our standards to create a loophole to make it as though it were legal. Since a law passed in 2007, the number of “medical marijuana” dispensaries has skyrocketed. Even in Hacienda Heights I have seen a few around. To me this shows the decline of morals within California. While reading this article I was surprised to hear that the lawsuit was being made by the marijuana advocates, and not those witnessing the corruption of the issue.

The new ordinance that requires medical marijuana dispensaries to be at least 1000 feet from school is a small step in the right direction. It only makes sense to move these often “easy access” marijuana suppliers from our country’s youth. Not only will it prevent some temptation by the dispensaries, but from the children as well. I hope the courts will see past the non-sense of this lawsuit and realized the difference between right and wrong. Ignorance of the fact of how these dispensaries are running, and making money, is completely wrong. On top of all of this it is against the federal law to use marijuana. I know we are learning about how normally the federal government reigns supreme. Interstate commerce should be able to kick in and make even medical marijuana illegal.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/03/medical-marijuana-advocates-file-lawsuit-challenging-los-angeles-ordinance.html

Summery:
The Obama’s Stimulus Package is a plan that will recover the “State of Crises” in our Economy. This is call American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan. This is a plan that will create jobs for middle class, and also assist the state to increase its yearly revenue. The plan is to have 40% of the stimulus bill go to tax break for middle wage worker. Not only that, but t will also create “Green” job for the people. Obama is planning to create more jobs and also contribute to decrease Global Warming. With the package, State can now increase their revenue, so they don’t have to lay off workers or cut spending on critical safety-net programs. However, as good the Package sound, there are some that disagree with the plan. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell felt that the attempt to put a quick relief on economic should not be rushes. "I believe the taxpayers deserve to know a lot more about where it will be spent before we consider passing it," he said. Not only the congress man feel the stimulus package is not a good idea, but also some Economic Professor feels the same way. New York University Economics Professor Nouriel Roubini has explained that failure to enact a fiscal stimulus could actually result in wider deficits, which would send the country into a "very severe recession."

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-progress-report/obamas-stimulus- package_b_155279.html

Personal comment:
I personally believe that Obama’s Stimulus Package is not a solution for solving our economic problem. Because by spending more, we only provide temporary solution. In fact it will worsen our Economic system. This is the time when we stop spending, and start focusing on the problem. We should start by paying off dept and cut government spending. Once the problem is fixed, then our economic will slowly revise its self. So, by stimulus the Economy will not help the citizen of the United States, but harm them in a very harsh way.

“Gun Case Likely to be Landmark Ruling”

“Gun Case Likely to be Landmark Ruling”
LA Times
By David Savage

Summary: The setting of this gun rights debate is that of infamous Chicago. Officially, this case is dubbed McDonald vs. Chicago but it obvious that this ruling is not meant just for the effect of 76 year plaintiff Otis McDonald. This case represents the population of those who feel that gun restrictions or becoming a bit ridiculous and possibly becoming more harmful to society than the firearms themselves. According to the article, McDonald only covets his right for a handgun just in his home for his protection. However, police, backing the defense (Chicago) table, say that the “city’s ban on handguns gives them a legal basis for confronting gang members and drug dealers. With the laws in place, a suspicious bulge in the pocket can warrant an officer to “stop-and-frisk” potential thugs. They also say that lifting this ban would increase violence in the area. Both of these arguments have legitimate points, but the fact of the matter is, this case involving the 2nd amendment will set the stage for further debates and rulings. Although the effects may seem simple right now, they will last through generations due to the interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

Argument: I first want to bring up the point that this article is completely bias towards the population of the nation who believe the ban on handguns in Chicago is completely legal and warranted. Every single quote stated for the defense side villianizes the effects that could come from this overturned legislation. Savage even brings up the fact that the Wild West had similar bans. The fact of the matter is, however, that whether or not you support the Chicago side morally, this is a complete and utter disregard for our beloved 2nd amendment. The right to bear arms is a fundamental right which should be kept and guarded as much as our right to speech. I like to compare this situation to a crack in a car windshield. At first it may seem to be insignificant and not worth the money or time to replace or fix it. If, however, it is not replaced, the heat of the day and wear of typical driving will expand the crack so much so that it will span across the entire windshield. Similarly, if we allow one of the rights which our forefathers ordained for every American to retain to let be infringed upon, the Supreme Court Justices will continue to do so on even more precious rights. We need to stop the bleeding now.
Now for the effects of the actual lifting of the law. It is true that there is a certain risk in allowing for handguns to reach the streets, but it is not that much different than it is now. Illegal guns already plague Chicago just as illegal drugs are seen throughout the nation. A law means absolutely nothing to a criminal other than it is something else to not be caught doing. Sure, the “stop-and-frisk” policy will no longer be effective, but this will only cause for different strategies to surface. Instead of isolating the firearms, we can track them. When someone buys any kind of gun, they have to register it to themselves, thus making them easily available to be weeded out. This archive will aid police in associating weapons with their owners. If gangs try to surpass these safety legislations with the disregard they are infamous for, it is no matter. These particular shipments will be easier to identify and will be marked from the beginning all the way to their intended owners. Then we bust them. I want to equate this to the marijuana situation. Although I am not a believer in legal marijuana, the benefits are pretty much similar. The only difference is that guns are not addictive and depend on the individual.
This leads me to the good in actually lifting this constitutionally restricting law. As the 76 year old McDonald stated, guns are good for self defense. I guarantee that if there is a possibility that someone has a gun in their home, break-ins will be just a bit more limited. Nobody wants to attempt to a plasma TV when they very well know and middle age woman could send a hot bullet through their heart. Death isn’t really that sweet. This is definitely a turnoff to victimizing certain citizens. Also as a benefit to the release of handguns would be the economic points. New products means more jobs and more money in a depleted economy. It will add to the market and allow for growth on the personal level. It also opens an opportunity for local and state governments to place a tax on them, further allowing for revenue to reach the dried up accounts of our government. The beneficial consequences are astounding.
If for nothing more, we, as Americans, need to stand up and protect our rights. Don’t let the opposition falsely appeal to your emotions and evoke a hatred for firearms, but rather embrace its good and strive to fix society through the individual. Remember McDonald vs. Chicago because it will effect how we live today.

Senator Dikembe Mutombo Good At Blocking Basketballs, Health Care Bills

"Get that weak-ass legislation out of my house"
- Sen. Dikembe Mutombo (R-CO)

"Sen. Mutombo's arms are so long that if legislation is introduced anywhere in his vicinity, he's probably going to knock it away. There's no way we are going to get health care through with Mutombo out there"

- Sen. John Kerry (D-MA)

"Sometimes I get the impression that he'll block something just because it's introduced by a Democrat or, quite frankly, just because he's taller than the rest of us. Why else would he reject a resolution supporting stability in Sudan?"
-Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA)

In this fictional article, The Onion satirizes the stalemate between the Democrats and the Republicans on Capitol Hill, using Dikembe Mutombo as a symbol to represent the Right Wing effort to deny any health care reform bill the Left Wing proposes. The Onion manages to highlight the incompetence of the Democrats to pass a bill (John Kerry quote), along with the belief that the Republicans are just rejecting the bill because the Democrats proposed it (Arlen Specter quote), even though Meet the Press reported that Republicans supported 80% of the bill.

I think both parties are at fault here on this health care crisis, but I'll like to take the Democrats side on the issue, and not just because I'm a "hardcore liberal" (according to that political spectrum test we took in class), but because I agree with most of Obama's new proposed health care plan.

The article by politico.com (Yes, I did two articles which both intertwine) can basically be summed up in a sentence: Republicans are saying that it's the same bill all over again, Democrats are unsure to support it, Obama saying he'll sign a bill without a public option, and experts stating a few facts about the proposed plan. There are good ideas on Obama's plan, such as allowing people to keep their preexisting medical insurance, investing in health centers, giving tax credits for families with medium income, fixing medicare, increasing taxes on large businesses but leaving small businesses alone, not providing a public option, and making insurance more affordable. All of the above sounds great, especially the removal of the public option, meaning the government doesn't have to interfere in a delicate private sector by creating its own health insurance agency. Allowing private companies to run health care is the smart way to go, because large government-run programs are usually poorly run (with the exception of some, like Medicare).

However, I believe the major fault of Obama's plan is the subtle mention that Obama is trying to make health care coverage mandatory. In Obama's plan, it states that the people who choose to be uninsured will still have to make a payment to "offset the cost of care they will inevitably need". In other words, "you still have to pay for health care, even if you don't want it". This seems more of a command to me, since it seems that you must pay for "future" coverage even if you don't have it. Those who choose not to have medical insurance shouldn't be expected to pay for it.

The availability of affordable medical insurance for all Americans is an unwritten but necessary and appropriate right. "All men and women must have health care even if they don't want it" isn't. It's like if the Second Amendment was written as "all people must bear and keep arms" instead of "all people have the right to bear and keep arms"- It wouldn't be a right anymore, but just another law.

Still, Obama's health care proposal is a step forward from the previous bills. All he needs to do is stop appealing to the super far, John Kerry left and drop his attempt of mandated health care, since Republicans will never approve of it (unless of course, they are secret Democrats). Hopefully, Dikembe Mutombo will suffer a session-ending injury soon, allowing Congress to pass the bill, or a similar one, in the near future.

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/senator_dikembe_mutombo_blocks

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/33322_Page3.html

Harold Ford Jr, NY Senate Candidate (Not)

This article reports on the final decision of former Congressman Harold Ford Jr. to opt out of the N.Y. senate race for Hillary Clinton’s senate seat. Ford’s decision to abandon his plans came as a result, not because of personal reasons or any real unfortunate circumstance, but because of a push by the Democratic Party leaders to make such a decision and give up his race for the seat. Ford was due to challenge senator Kirsten Gillibrand who took over Hillary Clinton’s seat when Clinton resigned for the Obama cabinet position of secretary of state in 2008.

The reason for this lack of support from the “party bosses” is mainly centered on one conclusion that Ford himself recognizes. “If I run, the likely result would be a brutal and highly negative Democratic primary — a primary where the winner emerges weakened and the Republican strengthened,” said Ford.

This occurrence of a politician being pressured by his party leaders to opt out of a race because of unwanted consequences in an election loss is intriguing to me. Ford had put a lot of effort in the primary elections and the party leaders did not like its chances of holding the crucial seat the Ford was very much vying for. I think Ford’s fortune was a result of present day’s politics in the United States where that one seat in senate is very much essential to the party’s goals and motives. Bottom line, it would be bad for a dramatic struggle for the democratic spot at this senate seat and party leaders already have a suitable candidate in mind; current seat holder Kirsten Gillibrand. Also, I think that Ford’s decision to run for a senate seat in a state which is not his own was somewhat of a bad decision. Ford’s would-be democratic challenger senator Gillibrand, born and raised in Albany, New York was committed to enacting her “strong record and vision for New York”. It just does not feel like a politically right thing to do. Gillibrand definitely had the geographical advantage in her campaign for this New York Senate seat.

This article definitely relates to the in-class learning material, chapter 7 to be concise. The highlighted event that was debated about was a primary election in which voters were to choose a representative for their political party, in this case, the democrats for a subsequent election, in this case, an election for the N.Y. senate seat. The occurrence here illustrates a potential result of the primaries as a result of the political leaders and unforeseeable situations.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/33721.html

By Sherard Cheung

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Link: http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/02/01/senators-clash-over-dont-ask-dont-tell-as-pentagon-readies-ann/
Title of the Article: Senators Clash Over Don't Ask, Don't Tell as Top Pentagon Brass Calls for Repeal
Date Published: February 1, 2010
By: Patricia Murphy

Summary: Many senators are in disagreement over whether or not the current Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy should be repealed. This 1993 law bans all openly gay Americans from serving in the military. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee of their support of the repeal of this law. "It is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military is the right thing to do," Mullen said." He added, "I have served with homosexuals in the military since 1968." President Obama has told the Department of Defense to begin the process of repealing the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law. Many others also support the repeal of this law including Senator Joe Lieberman, Senator Roland Burris, and committee Chairman Carl Levin. Senator Burris called the repeal of the law “a matter of basic fairness like the decision to allow African Americas to serve.” Though many people seem to be supporting the repeal of this law, some people like Senator John McCain and Senator Saxby Chambliss want the law to remain in place. McCain called Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell an "imperfect, but effective" policy. Senator Chambliss stated his belief that homosexuality creates an unacceptable risk to the high moral standards of the military." The specific action that will be taken concerning the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy is yet to be determined.

Opinion: I think that the law put into effect in 1993 should be repealed. A good soldier is one who is loyal to his country. Sexuality has nothing to do with the capability of a person to complete a job or task, and does not limit a person to do their best and make a difference. Though homosexuality goes against a higher, moral law, the United States government has no right to discriminate against gay people, especially those passionate about serving the country, and who are willing to give up their lives for the country. In a study by the RAND Corporation and the University of Florida, military personnel who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan were surveyed and the researchers found that having gay or lesbian colleagues had no significant impact on the readiness or cohesion of a unit. The United States needs as many people in the military as possible. Since this policy was first implemented, more that 13,500 gays and lesbians have been discharged from the military. Committee Chairman Carl Levin said that "We can end [the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy] and we should do it in a way that honors our nation's values." He is correct in this statement. The United States prides itself on not discriminating and being a land of opportunity. However, gays are being discriminated against in the military and are not given the same opportunity as everyone else.

Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen said "It comes down to integrity-- theirs as individuals and ours as an institution." The United States has to trust that by enrolling into the military, gays and lesbians are guaranteeing that they will have integrity, and have enough integrity to trust that they will adhere to all of the other high moral principles set forth by the military. The United States needs to realize that we are all American regardless of ethnicity, race, or sexuality, and those who want to defend our country should have the right to, regardless of their personal beliefs.

America's hidden debt bombs

Unsurprisingly, the United States is picking up more and more debt. The debt of the United States is estimated to be around $22 trillion from the current $13 trillion in the next 10 years. When talking about the debt of the United States, two things stick out, which are debt held by the public and money the government owes to trust funds, Medicare and Social Security. The first debt is roughly $8 trillion, the second nearing $5 trillion. Both are expected to be on the rise. Although these are already serious problems the United State, there are underlying problems that are not really brought to attention to fully realize the problem; therefore, a debt bomb waiting to go off. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, a large private mortgage company, had gone belly up and the federal government has stepped in to run it. Next debt problem the government will face are promises to Social Security, Medicare, tax breaks, and traditional IRAs converting towards a Roth IRA.

I may be getting completely wrong thoughts from this article, but from what I read, it is all gloom and rain for the rest of days in the US of A. Large debts are starting to stack up left and right. Medicare and Social Security are starting to increase the ever-large debt. United States digs a deeper and deeper whole, which is starting to look impossible to climb out of as government revenue is starting to slow while the debt just keeps on growing.

The quickest way to fix the problem is to drop expensive promises to the people such as Medicare and Social Security. It would eliminate a large portion of the debts, but at the same time create a firestorm of anger. There isn’t a miracle answer to solve all of the United States’ economic woes. I would suggest increase our productivity and get out of these debts by outgrowing the debt. Cutting back all the spending the United States are doing is just going to anger a lot of people. The next best choice is to then increase productivity and slowly, but surely work down the debts until the United States can climb out of the large ditch.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/01/news/economy/budget_debt/index.htm