Friday, September 15, 2006
Monday, December 12, 2005
Check it out:
I would have also wrote about smoke and mirrors.
Saturday, November 05, 2005
If you need any help trying to figure out how to vote on the 8 props this Tuesday, try checking out Smart Voter (http://ca.lwv.org/lwvc/edfund/elections/2005nov/id/)
There, you can get a little more information than what is provided in the ballot pamphlet. Smart Voter is a voter education project by the nonpartisan League of Women Voters of California.
Sunday, October 09, 2005
conservative comments on Miers nomination
Friday, October 07, 2005
The Cost of War
Thursday, October 06, 2005
New Topic: So We are Law Students.......
Ok so were are law students, so i figured that we might as well talk about a legal issue. The issue that i have chosen is the Case of Gonzales v. Oregon. I will attempt to sum up the case. Basically, Oregon has passed a voter initiative that allows for doctors to use drugs to help a patient die. John Ashcroft changed a regulation under the Controlled Substance Act, basically saying that the use of a controlled substance to help a patient die is a violation of the Controlled Substance Act (all of us who were in Admin law can shiver at the thought of challenging administrative rules!) The law suit is basically a very unsexy challenge of administrative rule making, however i would like to have a discussion about some of the underlying principals:
1. Should a person have the right to die? My own opinion about this is that yes a person should be allowed that right. Death is something that i believe is very personal, and a person should be allowed to determine if they wish to continue living, many times in pain, with rising medical costs for their estate, their family and/or the State in general. I would also like to say that i don't know what i would do in that kind of situation, but i would like to think that if i have lost control of my health, my life, and now am at the mercy of the health care system, i would have at least the choice to determine whether i have made peace with my life, and would like to move on to the afterlife.
2. Isn't it strange that the federal government under republican rule is so adamant on trampling on State's rights, when traditionally they are State's rights advocates? Here i think shows yet another hypocrisy of the conservative right. In three instances that i can think of off the top of my head the federal government is using its powers to interfere with a State's rights. The first is the Shiavo case where the right to life people again were demanding the federal government to step in. Second is the California medical Marijuana law situation, where California legalized medical use of Marijuana and the federal government stepped in to use its drug enforcement power to undercut this. Finally is the current situation in Gonzales v. Oregon. If you are for States rights, let the States decide.
3. Finally, if anyone wants to comment on the issue of the case, about the power of the attorney general to use rule making to undercut state law, i will be happy to debate it with anyone, but i am not spending time reading the briefs for the case discussing the issues if no one will comment on it.
So hopefully this will quell the want to have a new issue. But i would just like so say if you are tired of an issue, post something new, i will comment on it.
Friday, September 23, 2005
Bush = Hoover in ineptitude
I just want to comment on an observation that I made while watching the news over the past couple of weeks. It is about the hurricane. Now, everyone knows the current debate in the media about "blame" for the mess that is the recovery in Lousiana. My point is not about blame for the debacle because there is plenty of that to go around at the Local, State, and Federal level. My comment is on Bush's completely unrealistic idea of how to deal with the disaster. Currently, the two major U.S. commitments, Iraq and Katrina, each cost around 200 billion dollars. Yes billion. Yet Bush has repeatly stated that the does not plan on rasing taxes to pay for these commitments. This kind of reckless policy shows Bush's ineptitude toward the crisises facing his administration. In my opinion there has not been a more irresponsible response to crisis since Hoover's "volunteerism" to deal with the depression. And Bush wouldn't necessarily need to rasie taxes on the majority of Americans. He could try to repeal his MASSIVE corporate tax cuts, including the most recent tax cut to big oil. However, this situation shows what Bush's true religion is, supply-side economics. (i have to credit Bill Mahr for that quote). He will not hurt his corporate allies no matter how much America needs him to. And this is the test of a true and great leader. To respond to crisis on a major level, by doing what needs to be done, not what politically you want to do. This is what seperates Bush from another Depression President, Roosevelt. When war was brewing in Europe, and American wanted nothing to do with it, Roosevlet realized that despite the unpopularity of the move, he needed to perpare for the war. I will admit that Roosevelt was not always foward with the public, however that does not defeat the point the he did what needed to be done. In all we all know Bush is not a Roosevelt. What i am asking is that Bush atleast be a responsible leader, do what the country needs and rasie taxes to pay for the disaster of Katrina and Iraq.