Going Too Far

In today's society, interest groups are only favored by individuals if they are "interesting" to them. Meaning that they work for their ideas and beliefs, or to receive that "special" incentive. This being special services, financial incentives, membership to a certain group, and discounts. If they are interesting to the people, then they will thrive. But are they good for our democracy? Are interest groups stepping their boundaries?

"Last week, Americans saw some disturbing images. During town hall meetings...legislators and citizens were loudly interrupted and intimidated by members of the audience who refused to let them speak." Yes they are there to voice their opinions, but there is a time and place for unruly audiences and their actions. For events like this many do not know whether the interest groups were actually in attendance to genuinely voice their opinions "or whether they were people primarily recruited and sent into these meetings..."

Are interest groups no longer about the individual's "interest." Are the groups just being formed to provide some sort of aid to recruiters and in return, the groups would receive these incentives?

"last week...a firm hired by the coal industry sent fake letters to members of Congress, allegedly from Latino and African-American organizations, opposing climate energy legislation." These letters were sent in the name of companies that are a branch of the recruiting company.

In other words, interest groups will hurt our democracy due to their ulterior motives. Companies will now offer special treats for groups to do dirty work for them and get the message across for that moment or event that "these" people do exist and are being affected by the actions.

Source:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/10/zelizer.town.halls/

"The Anti-Gay Agenda"

"Yesterday, the NOM hate bus pulled into Indianapolis. And, that's where the [anti-gay] agenda was exposed by Bilerico's Bil Browning...They want to kill us. Gay marriage = death."

For a countless number of years the feud between the population and the rights of the LGBT community has escalated to some violent, discriminating, and wrongful events and comments.

Today, AMERICAblog published a commentary on the National Organization for Marriage's (NOM) new so-called campaign, "One Man, One Woman" bus tour, to force upon the population the idea that any marriage other than male/female should be illegal and that it SHOULD be punishable by death. As the sign from one of the rally attendee proudly presents to the audience. This author is presenting this commentary as revealing the GOP religious right's minions "secret homosexual agenda."

This commentary was written and published for individuals who are in support of equal rights and equal treatment for the LGBT community. Published on AMERICAblog means that this commentary is more appealing and favorable for the Democratic Party rather than the Republican Party. This commentary is accessible worldwide on the Internet and those with access to a computer. Like any other blog you come across, its reliability and its credibility is based upon the blog's reputation. In this case, AMERICAblog has a well established reputation.

The main argument or explanation in this commentary is the uncovering of the NOM's hidden anti-gay agenda. The evidence provided is the message of those of the attendees of the rally and the promoters. The message being hate against LGBT Americans. The NOM "want people to think LGBTs are not equal. They want people to think LGBTs are lesser humans."

Luckily for those in support of LGBT Americans, the turnout of the "One Man, One Woman" tour have been outnumbered by the the "Gay Community." In the Indianapolis rally, only about 40 showed up to the event, while over 250 LGBT and their allies protested the rally.

What the NOM is arguing is ultimately left up to the individual and how what kind of environment they were brought up in. What this commentary is presenting to the audience is that the NOM should not be "surprised when their followers come up with solutions like the one in the photo...That's the path NOM is leading its followers down."

Nowhere in the commentary is the author forcing the reader to agree with his views, rather he is revealing the wrongfulness in how this belief is being broadcasted to the public. I support the author and his plan to expose the hate and wrong actions being taken by those against LGBT Americans. I support the rights and equality being sought by the LGBT community. Like any other American, they are in search for the "American Dream." Unfortunately they are frequently encountered with individuals against their beliefs.

Just Another Excuse...

Published on July 19 of this year, The New York Times published an opinion piece on the recent Supreme Court nomination of Elena Kagan. "Most court nominations are about judicial philosophy or social issues, but Ms. Kagan's has become a flashpoint for a much larger debate about the fundamental role of American government." With her nomination, Kagan has showed her support for using the Commerce Clause for passing federal laws to help fix social problems, while many Senate Republicans are ready to not vote for Kagan arguing that using the Commerce Clause in this fashion would would take the power of states that belong within them.

The article was written and published for the "Politically Knowledgeable," those with whom actively voice their part in society, or simply those who are trying to gain political knowledge. This Newspaper travels and is accessible across the country in print, or around the world online. Seeing as how the writer's article has been published in the New York Times, a very reliable and credible source, the author as well is extremely credible.

The Commerce "Clause was the legal basis for any number of statutes of enormous benefit to society. It is why we have the Clean Air Act. The Clean Water Act. The Endangered Species Act. The Fair Labor Standards Act, setting a minimum wage and limiting child labor." The author is arguing that the use of the clause in interstate commerce, especially if it will have a "substantial effect," will be beneficial in the United States. The author supported his argument with evidence of already enforced laws and acts that have benefited our country like mentioned above. All which have improved society.

What the Senate Republicans are arguing is true, that the original use of the Commerce Clause in comparison to the already enacted federal laws is different. Senate Republicans are stating that the Commerce Clause should not be used for passing of laws of this nature. What they are failing to understand is that the enactment of such laws will benefit the country so much that we can avoid future tensions, misunderstandings, and other arguments depending on the situation.

The Senate Republicans should study the evidence and research the facts of how beneficial the use of the Commerce Clause in such way other than strictly what it was originally intended for and stop looking for reasons not to vote for Kagan.

Immigration Reform, Starting Small

Titled "Immigration reform: Start with small steps," this article explains how reformers must not want all at once. Scale backs, regrouping and rethinking, organization are key for better execution. With reference to current entertainment, the article explains how reformers presently "are misguided to seek a similar 'grand bargain' on immigration." That the want to get something means nothing and will get you nothing. However, there has been realization that in order for progress one must think realistically. Instead of going for something "grand," one must first think smaller and achieve "mini" goals. With this, smaller rather than larger steps are in order to reach a common understanding of this Immigration Reform.