Contraceptive pill controversy

Article 1
Article 2




“Seventeen-year-olds will soon be allowed to buy morning-after contraceptive pills without a doctor’s prescription after federal drug regulators complied with a judge’s order and lowered the age limit by a year.”

Do you sense the controversy?

Conservatives are going crazy over this decision. They believe that lowering the age will lead to more teen sex and promiscuity, but there is no scientific evidence that this will occur at all. They are appealing to the worried mothers and fathers of Christian America, hoping that Judge Edward R. Korman will hear the public outcry and repent.

In 2006, the decision to allow 18-year-olds and older to buy the contraceptive “Plan B” pills without a doctor’s prescription was extremely controversial, politicized, and not scientific at all. Top scientists called for lower-age restrictions on the Plan B pill, but “FDA officials told their subordinates that no approval could be issued at the time, and the decision would be made at a higher level. That's considered highly unusual, since the FDA usually has the last word on drug decisions.”

The White House—politics—had prevented a health-related decision to be passed for three years. Hm, that’s interesting. Since when were most top government officials experts on health issues? Let me think...um...never!

Alas, here is another example of the ineffectiveness of American government. Different competing interests can be a bad thing.

Am I being biased? I do not mean to show any liberal tendencies. I just hate culture wars. Compromise is what made America what it is today, but things like abortion and morning-after pills make it hard for anything to pass without a fight.

In my opinion, lowering the age to seventeen will not make much of a difference. I don’t think it will increase teen sex or lower abortions. It’s just an alternative, but of course, ideologies must play a factor.

Innocent until proven guilty...except we can take your DNA

“F.B.I. and States Vastly Expand DNA Databases”

Published by the New York Times on April 18^th 2009

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/us/19DNA.html?_r=1&hp

In an effort to more easily find perpetrators of violent crimes the F.B.I. had decided to expand the database of DNA. Some states are already collecting DNA samples from minors, people convicted of misdemeanors and even persons who have been arrested and not yet convicted. Firstly, minors are supposed to have more protection under the law, for example, you cannot print the name of a minor who has been arrested in a newspaper.

Second, people who have not been convicted of a crime are supposed to be “innocent until proven guilty,” obviously conducting DNA swabs does not uphold this. This practice could erode away the strong parts of our legal system: the rights of the individual.

The article starts off by listing mostly negatives of this program, as would be expected of the Times. But, the bias of this article becomes most clear when the F.BI.’s perspective is finally addressed. This is more than half way through the article, after most people reading will have formed an opinion. ‘“I’ve watched women go from mug-book to mug-book looking for the man who raped her,’ said the Denver district attorney.” Especially for women that is a hard-hitting and emotional statement that at the beginning of the article may have had a different effect.

Yet, the question of efficiency still comes to mind. How much do these extra entries help? They expect the number of entries to go “from 80,000 new entries a year to 1.2 million by 2012 — a 17-fold increase. F.B.I. officials say they expect DNA processing backlogs — which now stand at more than 500,000 cases — to increase.” Besides backlogs and the never ending problem of the slow speed of government I believe studies should be done to determine if a person arrested by the police is much more likely to commit another crime than anyone else. Surely, there is not much difference between the probability of a person committing a violent crime if they were wrongly arrested once or if they weren’t.

If their goal is simply to increase the database in number and not by people likely to commit crimes, a more efficient way of doing it would be to put everyone’s DNA on file when they’re born. Politically, it could actually be an easier sell. It does not infringe upon the “innocent until proven guilty” idea, and it treats everyone equally. Of course there would still be the pesky issue of privacy, but since that president was created by an extremely activist court, it might hold less merit up against the notion of a much safer society.

Tax Code May Be Getting Simpler?

After this most recent "tax day", President Obama has stated that he aims to rework the tax code so that it is simpler and easier to understand. Obama wishes to make it so that Americans no longer fear the date of April 15th and instead feel good about paying their taxes, which he says will reward work and the pursuit of the American dream. Now, I can get behind a simpler tax code, as i know too well how much stress my own mother goes through trying to get them done right and on time. One look at all the forms you have to fill out and you get this feeling of incompetence and feel like you will be getting cheated out of your money. A simpler code will be great, but in my opinion i think we should scrap income tax all together. Now I realize that the government needs a source of income from its citizens and that with the bailouts and "socialist" policies that are being implemented scrapping the income tax seems like economic suicide, however, I suggest that instead of an income tax that confuses the American people we implement a straight consumption tax. This consumption tax would be, of course, higher then the sales tax we have on goods now, but think about it this way; you earned $100,000 and you get to keep $100,000. You would only get taxed when you purchased goods which is a lot more fair then getting taxed automatically. Plus, if Americans have $100,000, they will spend $100,000 which will stimulate the economy. anyway I'll stop this rant short and just say that I applaud Obama's attempt to simplify the tax code.

LINK TO ARTICLE

Spain May Stop Prosecution Against "Bush Six"

During the Bush administration the term "torture" was narrowly defined so that pretty much nothing could be considered torture. During Bush's reign as president, there were a lot of international grievances with the way in which the United States treated its terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay. Now, the United States never really faced opposition with teeth behind it until recently when a few Spanish attorneys attempted to use the Universal Justice clause in their court system to extend their jurisdiction beyond their national borders and file suit against the bush six. The Bush six are Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, ex-Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith; former Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, David Addington; Justice Department officials John Yoo and Jay S. Bybee; and Pentagon lawyer William Haynes. The Spanish lawyers are trying to bring suit against those six men for the authorization of torture of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. This is a bold move to say the least as one asks the question, who the hell is Spain to be trying to prosecute high ranking U.S officials? I agree with what Feith had to say on the issue, which was that it is a huge national insult with harmful implications. Whether or not the six men cleared the path for torture by claiming in advice and legal opinions that the president could ignore the Geneva Conventions, it is just not these Spanish lawyers place to be getting involved. Luckily, Spanish prosecutors will be advising against this ridiculous suit so most likely nothing will come of it. I just don't understand what these lawyers were thinking in the first place. It is just one of those situations where you step away with your head cocked and just utter, "really? really Spain? are you serious?" I guess it is admirable to try and take a stand against torture, but we have our own court system that is independent of our executive branch. This whole situation is just baffling to me.

LINK TO ARTICLE

The Economic Downturn Continues

Recently, General Growth Properties Inc. has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy due in part to the harsh economic environment. As some of us have realized it is near impossible to get a loan currently since the housing collapse has left banks cautious and scarred. General Growth Properties Inc. is the second largest mall operator in the united States and it was unable to convince investors that it would be able to refinance after a poor last quarter. If this mall giant is unable to secure a good loan who is eligible to get one then? It is devastating to see a company who just recently had enough surplus to buy out its competitors in 2004 to go from around $44 on the market to $1 on the market. The economy is definitely headed to its low point still and i do not see any sign of turn around in the near future. The stimulus package designed to give banks money in hopes that they would continue to lend has backfired in the sense that banks are just holding onto their new found help instead of pumping it back into the economy. The banks need to learn that it was partially their fault that bad credit risks were receiving loans in the first place and that in order for anything to start getting better they are going to have to stop making so difficult to get a loan. I understand that they are hurt and are hesitant after they just screwed themselves over but someone needs to step in and tell the banks to start going toward equilibrium as the pendulum has swung in the complete opposite direction. Regulating the banks is against some of my ideals of limited government interference, however, the banking industry does need some regulation and it appears as though it is not happening correctly. Hopefully The banks let their guard down soon or the housing market will continue to drop and people will just file bankruptcy instead of selling their home at a loss.

LINK TO ARTICLE

Tax Day and Tea Parties

The deadline for filing tax returns this Wednesday created an opportunity for Americans to voice their opinions and frustrations with the failing economy. Tax protesters made their way to the White House calling their protest the "Tea Party". This revolutionary metaphor stands for "Taxed Enough Already". This event was created to protest against the Obama administration's $787 billion stimulus package and $3.5 trillion budget.

“Our main goal as far as a national organization is just to facilitate an environment where a new movement would be born,” stated Eric Odom, the administrator of TaxDayTeaParty.com. “We’re confident that we’ll see taxpayer coalitions at the local level starting tomorrow.”

The protests have involved wearing tea bags on hats or littering the White House area with tea bags. People dressed up in colonial outfits to fit with the theme of the Boston Tea Party. Over 3,000 people gathered to fight against excessive government spending at the capitol. People say that they are being pressed too hard and getting slammed with taxes and bills that they just can't pay.

President Obama tried to reassure Americans that the stimulus plan was meant to help middle class families and the bill had cut taxes for 95% of the nation's workers, and offered tax credits for first time home owners.

“We’ve passed tax cuts that will help our economy grow,” he said. “We’ve made a clear promise that families that earn less than $250,000 a year will not see their taxes increase by a single dime. We’ve given tax relief to the Americans who need it and the workers who have earned it.”

Eric Odom tried to convince everyone that the protests were not directed to Mr. Obama, but to the government in general. The protest has been rising up for years, and the economic downturn has just unleashed it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/us/politics/16taxday.html?_r=1

Glimmers of Hope

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30151505/

We are starting to see "glimmers of hope" across the economy, that's what Barack Obama said in a meeting with his economic team on Friday, April 10. He had often taken a pessimistic view of our position in the recession, this statement has given Americans reason to have a small new found sense of optimism. We need to realize we aren't out of the hole we dug ourselves in yet however, the economy is taking a turn for the better. Obama stated that workers should be recieving tax cuts in the mail soon, credit is starting to stabilize. The American public will see the light at the end of the tunnel, it may not be today, and it may not be tomorrow but we shall persevere.

N.Y. governor to introduce gay marriage bill

In 2007, a bill died in New York which proposed legalization of same-sex marriage. However, this week New York Governor David Paterson plans to revive this bill with a proposition of new legislation which would legalize same-sex marriage in the state of New York. The bill still faces opposition despite the fact that there is a new Democratic congress. On the issue, Paterson said, "The timing was always right. It's just who is willing to take that step, and I am, I think it is, as other states are showing, the only ethical way to treat people who want to live together in peace under the civil law. So my general feeling about all these issues is the right ethical decision will inevitably be the right political decision." In interviews Paterson has said that he believes that same-sex marriage will become legalized. However, polls have shown that the issue is still very controversial in New York. This is surprising because New York is usually seen as liberal on most issues. Some people are skeptic that if the idea to legalize same-sex marriage has been proposed too soon it may cause setbacks within the state as well as for other states.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30217305/

Barack Obama bowed to the Saudi King

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEUif1--r38

As you can see from the link above President Barack Obama may have bowed to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Whether the assumption made that he was bowing is true or not the fact remains that our president may have bowed to a leader of another country. Now what does this actually mean to you? Do you feel that his bowing was a sign of weakness, and subservience or is it just a simple sign of respect to another leader. Realistically Barack Obama's bowing is in direct contradiction of our nation's Declaration of Independence, in the United States we observe that all men and women are created eaqual, therefore we bow to no man or woman or show subservience to any being as they did in the colonial era. However, if one thinks about what President Obama did, who cares, it shows nothing, it means nothing. This doesn't affect his ability to lead, it doesn't affect our standing in the world at any level what so ever. If you think about it a little bow to the King of Saudi Arabia by the President of the United States may be looked favorably upon by those in the Arab/Muslim world. It shows that the United States is looking towards a respectful relationship in the Arab/Muslim world one not seen in recent years.

Micheal Goodwin's Daily News article, Is Barack Tough Enough To Lead The World? discusses Barack Obama's policy of peace making, which is a stark contrast to the policies of George W. Bush. The author points to instances such as the Somalian pirates as evidence that President Obama may not be as strong of a leader as the American people may have hoped. This article is very fair critiquing both Obama's peace keeping approach and Bush's "cowboy diplomacy." Goodwin raises good points regarding Obama's strategy, pointing out that waiting for approval from everyone before taking action could be just as harmful as acting without any support at all. Personally, I am divided on the issue, I was never in favor of George W. Bush doing whatever he felt was right and neglecting our allies, however, Goodwin is correct in saying that the majority's opinion might not always be what is right for America. Personally, I believe we need to find a medium and I believe in the coming years President Obama will learn to care about his allies' opinions, yet not solely depend on them. President Obama has only been president for nearly four months and it is imposable to judge his leadership skills on just this short time. I am interested, as is the rest of the world on how the President will change his policies as time goes on.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/columnists/goodwin/index.html

Rowan Scarborough's article The Great Left Smear Machine is one of the most blatantly biased articles I have ever read. Ironically, the article is actually about leftists and their massive smearing of the seemingly innocent right. Scarborough depicts liberals as an alliance whose main purpose is to smear conservatives. The bias in the article is clear as Scarborough vilifies Fenton Communications, a contributor to the Democratic party by stating they funded "gay and abortion advocates and anti-war protesters." The article also goes on to address, "abortion providing Planned Parenthood and the anti bush ACLU." This article addresses anything non conservative as wrong and shameful. However, the loaded language does not stop there as it describes the Obama administration calling it, "President Obama's government-expansion agenda." As if President Obama's goal was to expand government and do nothing more. Sadly, in just the next paragraph Scarborough states the founder of Moveon.org George Soros is using his money to, "try and institute socialism." The article then goes on to criticize Fenton Communications for attempting to outlaw a BPA, as if it had some motive to outlaw the proven harmful substance besides the good of the people. The smears go on and on to the point that the article actually becomes The Great Right Smear Fest. Sure, the liberals are not innocent regarding negative journalism and slinging mud but the conservatives are not innocent either as this article shows. It is ironic to see the website this article was published on advertising for Anne Coulter, the right wing pundit who stated the jews should be purified from the earth. The only moral that can be pulled from this article is that both sides of the spectrum smear. This article did nothing but add fuel to the fire.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31396

Cynthia Tucker's article Shootings are insane, but so is response critiques America's current gun policies, as well as the country's indifferent reactions to gun violence. The article takes aim largely on home owned assault riffles; calling for the outlawing of such weapons. The article lists many instances which lax gun laws have led to violence as support for the author's argument. However, this article ignores the fact that people can commit crimes with things other than guns. People rape, people stab and people strangle, people don't just shoot. Though I do agree that the owning of assault riffles is dangerous to our country's well being I do not believe that outlawing them will just make violence disappear. Furthermore, this article ignores the fact that outlawing assault riffles will not keep them out of the hands of people who are determined to own them. Outlawing such weapons will just fuel the black market and lead to increased illegal gun sales. This article also criticizes America's reaction to shootings, however it ignores the response of the police. Americans have faith in the criminal justice system and expect murderers to be tried justly, thus eliminating the need for such strong out cry. Though the instances listed in this article are tragic the author's expectation for the public to be up in arms every time someone fires a gun seems ridiculous. This article, though raising some strong points, fails to outline a solution to the problem of gun violence in America. Instead of criticizing the government's fear of the strong gun lobby, Cynthia Tucker should think of some sort of plan to actually curb gun violence in this country.

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/tucker/stories/2009/04/12/tuckered_0412.html

Obama says "Everybody must pick up the pace" as U.S Economy limps into the G-20 summit...

President Obama was all smiles in his first overseas trip as Commander and Chief but he's knows as well as us all, this trip is no vacation. The President and first lady Michelle Obama will be in London today at the G-20 summit where twenty heads of states will congregate to try and combat the global economic crisis. This year however things are a little different as the usual image of the strong verile United States of America comes practically limping into the discussions with so much at stake. Obama made it clear along with British PM Gordon Brown that the U.S cannot be the 'engine' in the global economy anymore, at least now as it flounders to stay afloat in the global economy. Willem H. Buiter former member of the Bank of England monetary policy committee and a London School of Economics professor put it more bluntly: "We cannot rely on the U.S being the global locomotive. Those days are gone".
The facts are obvious, the U.S had accounted for 1/3 of the global economy in the 1980's, now it's a one-quarter. So now it's down to negotiations at the G-20 summit. Obama knows not everyone will agree but they have to make the best of it. "I know that the G=20 nations are appropriately pursuing their own approaches," Obama said and that is true. So as the countries play Economic 'doctors' trying to find the right presciptions to heal the ailing global economy one thing is certain: Rome wasn't built in a day and neither was the World debt...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/01/AR2009040102094.html