Down and Dirty

I’ve recently gotten on the Obama bandwagon. Skeptical at first given that I was a Hillary supporter. But because of Obama’s Primary victory and my supreme distrust of McCain, I’ve therefore become an Obama supporter. However, my question is this, is it possible for one politician to change the face and perceptions of politics and how the game is played?

This was something Obama supporters originally found enlightening, a breath of fresh air. They believed he could change the system, a modern day JFK. He is young and charismatic and not caught up in the political backstabbing found (or assumed to be found) in Washington. And Obama has done well for himself. His grassroots campaigning was something Hillary couldn’t compete with and he brought young voters to the table- voters most thought were apathetic. (Most Americans for the past half century have been apathetic in elections).

But now that we have our presumptive nominees, the attacks have begun. Americans vote on sound bites, their willingness to drink a beer with the candidate, single issues, religion, and war records to name a few. These aren’t things that are new to our political system. And for a politician to win, he or she has to be willing to play this game with the best of them.

Currently, McCain and the media have been attacking Obama because they feel he reneged on his original campaign promises—not to solicit private donations in the general election and to not use mudslinging tactics to name a few. However, at what point is it possible to bring about political change; is it before or after the election? Does one change politics from the inside out or the outside in?

For one thing, political campaigning is a billion dollar business. The amount of money it costs to for even a no body to challenge a Congressional seat in the 2008 election is between $3 million and $8 million. Senate races have gotten even costlier. Especially in 2008 when everyone is looking for an answer that’s as far away from George W. Bush.

Therefore, for Obama to remain a viable candidate, because McCain didn’t take the public financing, then he would have to raise the money the same way he did in the primaries. If we want this system to change, then we will have to change the institution. (This becomes a Freedom of Speech/1st Amendment issue) But we would have to limit the amount of money that could be spent on it, require candidates to use the public finance, have media advertising cost less, etc. But the other thing that would help this is if voters would care enough to stay educated on the candidates rather than off the sound bites, Youtube clips, and e-mail forwards.

If we want the system to change, then we have to be willing to change too and not crucify someone who, in all honesty, can’t do it for us. We, as a country, need not tune into infotainment (the news), but instead do a little research ourselves and figure out which candidate's message resonates with each of us. Otherwise, WE allow the cycle to continue.

Restricting the Use of Capital Punishment

This week has been a big week for the US Supreme Court. Because they are leaving for a recess, I’m sure they were trying to release a lot of major decisions. Before they defined the 2nd Amendment, The Court spoke out on the capital punishment and when it’s an appropriate punishment.

As a pretty liberal Democrat, I have a hard time with the death penalty. Yes, I do realize that cretins walk among us and commit heinous acts against others. And DNA testing has made charging and convicting the right person more accurate, therefore, lessening the chances of the wrong person going to prison or being executed. On the flip side, I know that executing the criminal doesn’t bring solace for the family. Most don’t feel any better about watching someone else die. In addition, it costs more for the criminal to go through the entire appeals process than to live out their remaining days in jail. That’s if you factor in all of the costs… lawyer fees, the judge’s salary, the cop’s salary, etc. I do realize that could be an argument for not giving the convicted as many accused, but through those appeals, it has been discovered that our judicial system has put innocent people on death row. Check out the Innocence Project at http://www.innocenceproject.org/.

On June 25th, the Supreme Court Justices were called to make a decision on whether the death penalty should be used in cases involving the rape of the child. In a 5-4 decision, they stated that capital punishment should strictly be used in cases of murder and crimes against the state (treason). This decision followed the precedent set in a case from 1977 where the death penalty could not be applied to a rape case where the rape was of a 16 year old girl.

The responses I read to this opinion were appalling. Some people were wishing that the Justices own children would experience being raped so that the Justices could then make a more informed decision. Others said that if the courts were unable to provide the “justice” they felt was appropriate, that they would take matters into their own hands. Even the presumed Presidential nominees, John McCain and Barack Obama, spoke out about this ruling.

First of all, all judges serve the Constitution, be it the State Constitution and/or the Federal Constitution depending on their office. Also, the opinions they render are supposed to remain free from personal opinion and judgment. Yes, I realize this is a slightly utopian idea, however, it is what our judges must strive for, impartiality. Otherwise, no one would get a fair trial in this country. Plus, how reprehensible is it to wish something as tragic upon any child?

Second, though it’s not always perfect, the legal system is set in place and vigilantes who take justice into their own hands prevent the defendant of due process. As a society, we have to trust the system, even with its imperfections, because it’s the only thing we have bringing us one step closer towards fairness… towards justice.

I think the Justices were forced to make an unpopular decision. This case split the liberal and conservative justices, but one that also swung Justice Kennedy—a justice who has sided with the conservative Justices lately but one who is an independent Judge. Do I think that the rape of a small child is one of the most despicable things I have ever heard of, yes. But this time, I think the court got it right.

DC Gun Laws

The SCOTUS ruled on the definition of the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights. "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" As of June 26, 2008 that means that the citizens, in good standing with the state and federal government (not convicted criminal, etc.) have the right to bare arm. This is a major victory for gun proponents and a loss for others who wanted stricter regulation.

District of Columbia v. Heller was brought before the courts by a man named Heller (obviously) because he didn't feel safe and able to protect himself or his family from DC's crime. He was a security guard who had to relinquish his side arm every time he left work. As part of his case, he noted bullet holes outside of his door.

So I know this is a controversial issue. And frankly, I'm not exactly sure where I fall on this issue. Here's what I do I do know. Adding more guns to a city already considered to be a violent city might not be the best answer. It could simply make weapons more accessible to the criminals. But yes, I do understand the deterent factor. What I don't know are the numbers for how many crimes were commited or detered because the criminal was intimidated by his intended victim's gun. (I don't think this data is available or would be 100% accurate if there was something... mostly because what criminal would report, 'yea, I thought about it, but his 9 millimeter stopped me.)

And yes, I've been shooting, once. I was pretty angry at the time. (Probably not the best time to have decided to do target practice, but those of you who know what I'm referencing know the entire story) But me and a friend took a stuffed rabbit that had been given to me (and was no longer wanted) to his family's farm. I think I put 70 some rounds into it and it felt liberating. In fact, I still have a bullit from this excursion in my desk. When we picked up the rabbit, this bullit was stuck to the rabbits face.

So, that's my only hands on experience with guns. Generally, they scare me. It seems so easy for something to happen.

Okay, so back to DCs hand gun laws being reversed. To me, violent crime is a symptom of poverty, economic hard times, family hardships, to name a few. So if there's an issue of crime, wouldn't it make more sense to actually go in and fix the problem and deter crime from the get go rather than on the back end? It's like putting a band aid on a wound that needs surgery and stitches. The wound won't heal properly.

I guess I'm not anti gun... not on the whole. I do think there needs to be stricter regulations. For example, the fact that you can buy a gun at a gun show without background checks is incomprehensible to me. And I think there should be locks that make it harder for anyone other than the owner to use. (i.e. kids or criminals can't use the weapon) But I do understand the need for a free society to bare arms. I mean, this country wouldn't exist if it's citizens didn't own firearms. Granted, that was a different time because weapons weren't only used for protection, but also for a tool when hunting.

So many things have also changed our attitudes towards weapons-- movies, video games, music videos, etc. We all know what it would look like for a gangsta to shoot a gun (held on its side) as well as how to properly hold a gun when aiming. If nothing else, Duck Hunt taught us that. I guess we don't strictly see a gun as a tool, a dangerous tool at that, but something of status and in some cases popularity.

That's my two cents. Since I work in the district, and live a block outside, it should be interesting to see what happens.