Sunday, November 7, 2010
My thoughts on Stephanie Heisner's thoughts on DADT
Fortunately, I came across a colleague of mine's blog about an issue that I knew existed but hadn't really given it much thought. Stephanie Heisner provides a direct and factual blog on DADT, the policy that restricts the U.S. Military from efforts to unravel details of those enlisted about their gay, lesbian, or bisexual orientation. While at the same time, barring those who are openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual from military service. She adds current information on the status of the DADT policy, claiming that as of October 12, 2010 the policy is no longer in effect. However, on October 20, 2010 there was an emergency request granted to allow the policy to remain on the books, so the appeals court would have more time to deliberate the issues exhibited. Ms. Heisner then goes into further detail on her opinions of the matter, which I have to say I whole heartedly agree with. Heisner states, "In my opinion, sexual orientation is no different than religion, everyone has a right to their own belief and to express that belief. So you serve with someone you know is gay, what does that change? There are gays in the military now, but they have to hide a part of themselves in fear. That is not only unconstitutional, but it's also inhumane. Soldiers will serve with people from all walks of life that is inevitable; the only thing that matters is that everyone does their job." We are in a new era, an era that is constantly changing and becoming more understanding of peoples differences and beliefs. Why stop now? There is only so much time here on earth, and for people of higher authority to try and discriminate against what someone wants to do with this precious time is almost cruel. For all you know, the incredible soldier that saved you, that works hard and fights for his/her country, that busts his/her ass just as hard if not harder than anyone you know, might just be gay. What does this change? Does it make him or her less of a man or women? The correct answer is no. We are all human beings. We are all equal. We should all be given the same opportunities no matter what gender, race, or sexual orientation we fall under. I quote Ms. Heisner for the perfect ending to this blog, "Our Constitution reads that all men are created equal. It's about time our country recognizes that."
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Defendents getting away with a steal!
Ok, so I just read this editorial by Joshua Marquis, who is a district attorney in Clatsop County, Oregan and a member of the executive committee of the National District Attorney's association. The editorial was about people who are disobeying the law are practically getting a free ride. In my opinion, and the opinion of Joshua Marquis, this doesn't seem to be fair.
Joshua claims, "When the citizens are asked to bear the cost of providing a lawyer for anyone who can't afford one, it is not unreasonable to ask those found guilty to pay at least part of that cost. In Oregon, that means about $300 for a misdemeanor and rarely more than $1,000 for a felony.
Given the value of the excellent legal representation many defendants receive, they are getting a bargain. Anyone who hired the same lawyers would be expected to pay a retainer several times that amount. And, unlike many of the portrayals on TV, public defenders usually offer outstanding representation".
With that being said, these rough economic times are hitting the crime commiters harder then the victims of the crime, which means that the people committing the crimes are mostly poor.
These people are getting away with what seems to be almost a free ride. Prosecuters have also come up with new early disposition programs, which recognize that most crimes commited don't require jail time-even if they still have disobeyed the law.
My personal belief is that this is wrong. The law is the law-rich or poor, yellow or green, a crime is a crime and one person shouldn't have to pay $12,000 for a lawyer while the other is paying next to nothing.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
What's wrong with our government?
While I was browsing through abcnews.com, I came across an article that shocked and disturbed me to my very core. The article was about a family in Tennessee that's house caught on fire and the firefighters stood there and watched it as all of these peoples' belongings burned straight into the ground. Why on earth would these firefighters sit there and let that happen you might ask? Well, it's because this family forgot to pay a $75 dollar fee that this town knows as "Pay to Spray". In other words, if you don't pay this $75 fire protection fee and call your local fire department, they will show up to your house but not stop the fire. What's even MORE absurd about this crazy law (not to mention that these people shouldn't even have to pay a fee to the city when that's what these firefighters are getting paid to do, their job) is that the people outside of the city limits don't have to pay a fee, and still use the same fire department! This concept is truly beyond me, how could a group of people trained to stop fires sit there and watch a family's life burn to the ground over $75? I guess it's true when they say it really is all about the money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)