Gitlow v. New York

Believe it or not, Americans have not always been entitled to their prized freedom of speech -- on a state level, anyway. Between the national acceptance of the Bill of Rights in 1791 and 1925, there was no legal reason that individual states had to allow residents that privilege. The reason for this is because the First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law" (emphasis added). While Congress was bound by the Constitution to allow free speech, states were held to no such standard.

In 1868, however, the 14th Amendment was ratified in the wake of the Civil War. With its passing came what was eventually known as the Due Process Clause, which states No State shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. This amendment started the trend of holding states accountable for what the Constitution says, as well.

Now for the case.

In 1923, Benjamin Gitlow was one of four people indicted by the Supreme Court of New York under the charge of criminal anarchy. He was a prominent member of the Socialist Party and published a pamphlet entitled "The Left Wing Manifesto," and in New York, it's illegal to advocate violently overthrowing the government. He was tried and convicted. His case came before the Supreme Court due to a writ of error, which is issued by a higher court to a lower court requiring the record be submitted to check for error.

No court disputed the manifesto explicitly advocated overthrowing the government, and the courts both recognized that having freedoms of speech and of the press do not entitle one to absolute freedom. While the Supreme Court did acknowledge that for present purposes, we may and do assume that freedom of speech and of the press … are among the fundamental personal rights and ‘liberties’ protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the States, it nevertheless upheld Gitlow's conviction because his pamphlet was still regarded as something that could incite a revolution. But his case, at least, began a trend of allowing citizens to appeal to the federal level if their basic rights were denied by the state.

So be grateful. If you had been alive anytime before 1925, there would have been no guarantee that you would have been entitled to freedom of speech in your state of residence.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Note One: The link to the editorial I chose is in the title.

Note Two: The main reason I chose the editorial is because I wanted to take the opportunity to present my opinion, not because I really want to critque Kaufman's. His was just the most effectively written of the ones I found.



As we should all be aware, Obama gave his very first State of the Union address last night. In his speech, he mentioned one issue I care very much about: Repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell in the military. It was a brief mention, but nevertheless it was the concrete promise thousands of Americans have been waiting for. If Obama follows through on his word, DADT will be repealed this year.

David Kaufman's editorial takes a position. David Kaufman's editorial uses persuasive, inspiring language. Now, let's take it through these nine points we were told about in class.

Fact. Kaufman's piece is certainly not data-based. However, as you are not allowed to be openly gay in the military, there would only be inaccurate data to collect regarding this subject. I wish he'd included the amount of money the government has spent on trials to dishonorably discharge gays and lesbians, but in my opinion, he relies more on logic.

Logical Conclusion. Well, I did just say I think he used logic, so I'm going to go with yes.

The other seven points are related more to grammar aspects of one's writing. I would critique him on jumping into abbreviations -- not everyone knows what LGBT and DOMA stand for, though I imagine most who read his piece would. I also think he should have better stated explicitly why this is a big deal and the right thing to do, regardless of what one's opinion on homosexuality is because many will obviously be upset if/when this comes to pass.

*************

Repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell is long overdue. The United States is supposed to be one of the more forward-thinking countries of the world, but we are stuck on this issue of what gays can and cannot do. There is no good reason to tell someone he cannot reveal his sexuality if he chooses to. Other places of work are not allowed to discriminate based on orientation, so the military should not be allowed to either. The Pentagon's principal justification for the policy continues to be that the presence of openly gay and lesbian personnel would interfere with the military's ability to accomplish its mission. Why is it not just as distracting to wonder about who's gay and not be certain? If one is unsure and inquires of someone else, that's often how rumors get started, even among adults, and one would think that would be even more interfering than basic knowledge. Knowing someone is gay doesn't change anything; if you like someone and then he or she comes out to you, well, the person was gay yesterday, too. And other issues, like regarding how people will act in close quarters or even things like showering, are, frankly, immature. No one is attracted to everyone he or she meets, gay or straight.

In fact, I would argue that it actually disadvantages the military to keep DADT. To be gay in the military means thinking about everything you say, keeping phone calls to yourself, hiding pictures, being secretive when not on duty -- it's like living a double life. And always in the back of your head is the knowledge that if you let something slip, it could cost you your career. It's a lot to keep in mind, more than any heterosexual has to worry about his or her personal life. If I had the desire to join the military, I still wouldn't do it. I would be preoccupied first with making sure I was properly "in the closet" before I focused on anything else. I do not want to hide the way I live my life when I am proud of it.

The gays and lesbians who do serve, who joined knowing they'd have to stay or go back "in the closet," therefore surely must be individuals dedicated to their country so much that they are willing to take this risk, aware of the fact that if they let anything slip, it could mean the end of their career. Why would we threaten to discharge members, commissioned and non-commissioned, who are nothing but loyal to their country and want to serve? People with skills necessary to the wars in which we are involved have been discharged under DADT despite the fact that they are few in number (see, Dan Choi).

Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a flawed, outdated policy that has more than run its course. Obama needs to make good on his promise to end it both for moral and tactical reasons. It is high time gays and lesbians are recognized as being no different than anyone else and therefore deserve the same privileges, and this is the opportunity to start that on a national level.

Really, France?

I have come across a few topics in the news lately that have decidedly gotten under my skin. They're issues that I, for once, feel I competently understand and have strong opinions on. As I have no other medium through which I may express my opinion -- I don't think a note on Facebook carries quite enough credibility for my taste -- I'm going to place it with the rest of my intelligent, academic thoughts. So there will be a couple of blogs like this.

On Tuesday, after six months of hearings, a ban has been recommended by Parliament in France that would prohibit Muslim women from wearing the niqab because Muslim women who wear the niqab were posing an "unacceptable" challenge to French values. The ban would prohibit Muslim women from wearing the niqab in schools, hospitals, government offices and public transport, but they would still be allowed to wear it in other public venues because banning it there would be constitutionally questionable.

France is home to Europe's biggest Mulim minority; there are approximately six million Muslims in France, a country with a total population of almost 65.5 million. Only 1,900 of the six million Muslims wear the niqab, according to the interior ministry. That's .0003 percent of the Muslim population and only .00003 percent of France's population. Why is the government raising such a fuss over a nearly infintessimal group of people?

But wait! you say. If it's such a small group of people, it shouldn't matter because it benefits the overwhelming majority. No, sorry. Every individual has certain basic rights that the majority cannot take away, as evidenced by the "majority rule, minority rights concept." This theory states (emphasis added): Minorities – whether as a result of ethnic background, religious belief, geographic location, income level, or simply as the losers in elections or political debate – enjoy guaranteed basic human rights that no government, and no majority, elected or not, should remove. This is an excerpt from a U.S. Department of State publication, and admittedly U.S. beliefs are not universally recognized as valid, but it is a valid concept in France. As a democracy, France is a country expected to treat these differences in identity, culture, and values as a challenge that can strengthen and enrich them, not as a threat.

Since 1971, the French government has considered the marquis de Lafayette's "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen" to hold constitutional values, so it is not ignored when it comes to French lawmaking. The Declaration states almost immediately that man has the right to liberty, and liberty "consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else."

The basis of liberty in France being established, it is evident that wearing a niqab presents no harm to anyone else. Others may not agree with the women who wear one, but they are not being hurt by seeing it. It is a violation of their natural rights to be told by the government what they may or not wear.

Better yet, why is the government targeting specifically Muslim women? The government already approved a ban on headscarves in school a couple years ago. France is a strictly secular society, yes, but that shouldn't mean it can dictate what people wear, even if one's clothing choice is based on one's religion. If the government is trying to eliminate conspicuously religious apparel from everything run by the state, I hope it's making sure to include cross and Star of David necklaces and target those Christians who believe in wearing modest-length skirts as part of their religion, as well.

Social Networking: My personal downfall

I succumbed to the social networking craze about halfway through ninth grade. It was MySpace, and I remember the occasion well. I didn't really want one to begin with; I didn't see the point in them. It seemed like too much work to design, and I'm not creative enough to come up with an intriguing new way to write about myself or my interests. I didn't even know who I wanted to meet. So for months, I refused. Eventually though, my friend Jessica convinced me that I did need one, and I found a generic, pre-made design featuring soccer. I was an avid player then.

For the first few months, I didn't do too much on it. I added some friends from school, added some who lived back in the States. (I was in Okinawa at this time.) I commented on people's profiles sometimes and occasionally tried to improve my profile to make it more representative of me. But back then, I wouldn't even post bulletins. I had my reasons, reasons I look back and "aw" over, but I was a very timid networker. In fact, I still am, but that's besides the point.

As a matter of fact, I will tell you the point. It became an addiction. I didn't want it. I didn't realize what was happening. Before I knew it, though, I was spending countless hours on MySpace, reading friends' profiles and bulletins, fixing my own profile, putting my limited knowledge of HTML to use. I wanted to keep in touch with my friends, and as any military brat can affirm, that is one of the great benefits of these sites. I've been able to maintain or rekindle friendships I'd otherwise surely have lost. But it's still an addiction.

Honestly, I know there's only so much you can do on MySpace. After awhile, it becomes aimless clicking, and checking peoples' profiles becomes stalking. (I am at least quite certain I never was at that level.) I don't know why I spent so much time on MySpace, but I did. And I must say, while I've moved about 85 percent of the way off of MySpace, the features added -- so reminiscent of one's Facebook had first -- make tween and teen social stalking so much simpler.

That last sentence brings up a new issue: MySpace vs. Facebook. Don't lie; you know you have your favorite. Mine for four and a half years was MySpace, and I was adamant about my hatred of Facebook and it's lack of customization. I have come to realize, however, that as one grows up, more and more often does he move to favoring Facebook. I still wish I could customize my profile, but I do appreciate the consistency that Facebook offers. Also, my friends are now considerably more likely to have a Facebook rather than a MySpace, so the convenience is a plus, too.

BUT! There is always a but. Now I'm addicted to Facebook. Horribly. You may say it's a lack of self-control, but I say it's a lack of anything better to do. Neither are a good excuse, but in my defense, I don't think about Facebook when in the midst of doing something "better." It's just always there. Even in class, 50-75 percent of students (my own personal estimate based on observation and assumptions regarding the average college kid) go on Facebook sometime during the hour if they have free use of their computer. Some kids even get it on their phone!! (I don't.)

With this frequent use comes the desire to make the site more "attractive" to potential subscribers. I present to you: Farmville and other Facebook applications!! I cannot stand them. I do not use them; I think they are a bigger waste of time than anything else on the site. You want a farm? Go plant a garden. You want a happy aquarium? Go buy a real fish. Get out of the virtual world and do something in the physical one.

Oh wait. That would take effort and responsibility. Obviously there's no time for effort because you frequent Facebook instead.

This seems like a lot, doesn't it? I think so, too, but I'm not done yet.

I also have a Twitter account.




But don't worry, that phase only lasted a week.

The importance of commas

The basic function of a comma is to help the reader figure out which words go together in a sentence. Commas also help signify the most important parts of a sentence. Without the proper use of commas, the meaning of a sentence can be completely misconstrued, and the reader would be left confused.

Example: "Let's eat, Grandpa!" without a comma reads "Let's eat Grandpa!" It's fairly safe to assume no one actually wants to eat his grandpa, so the comma in this sentence allows an elderly man to be a part of a meal instead of the main course. Commas should be used to offset unnecessary information, and the meaning of the sentence would not change without the word "grandpa."

It is important to decide whether a comma is necessary to the sentence, but it is also good to know where to place the comma in a sentence because an improperly placed comma creates miscommunication.

Example: Take the phrase "Men say women are stupid." This makes sense standing alone and does not lead one to consider cannibalism, so there's nothing overtly wrong -- unless the writer intended a different meaning. With proper punctuation, the sentence can be corrected to read "Men, say women, are stupid." Two completely different meanings with the addition of two commas.

There has been an entire book about grammar written based off a phrase whose meaning is dependent on commas: "Eats[,] Shoots & Leaves." The phrase refers to a panda, and depending on whether the comma is there or not, he either eats something equivalent to bamboo or eats, fires a gun, and exits. The book does a very good job of explaining the proper use of punctuation, and because it is written in a light-hearted, sarcastic fashion, it is an enjoyable read as well. It is, however, written based on British punctuation. Order it here!

Learn how to use commas properly, please. It is not my job to teach you how, but it is something you should care enough to figure out on your own time. After all, no one wants to seem careless or ignorant regarding the language with which he grew up.

"Dear Mr. President"

Dear Mr. Barack Obama,

Congratulations on making it through year one; personally, I think you've done a pretty good job, all things considered. You entered office at a time when the American people were looking for change, looking for hope, after eight years of disappointment. The economy was in a state of disarray, and we were in the midst of unpopular wars. Our relations with other countries were dropping like flies; America was incredibly unpopular around the world. But you, Mr. Obama, you were the one in whom citizens of other nations believed, as well.

You stopped the economy from plummeting further, and even though it's certainly not back up as strong as it could be, stability has to come before growth. You also shifted focus from Iraq back to Afghanistan, our original endeavor that, under former President Bush, seemed to fall by the wayside. You found compromise in not instantaneously removing all the troops from Iraq and leaving them with nothing after we invaded their country, but have given a timeline for us to, hopefully, leave them in a state of stability. You also gave a speech to the Islamic world to state that we are not at war against Islam. You told them in Turkey:

"I know there have been difficulties these last few years. ... So let me say this as clearly as I can: The United States is not, and will never be, at war with Islam. ...

"I also want to be clear that America's relationship with the Muslim community, the Muslim world, cannot, and will not, just be based upon opposition to terrorism. We seek broader engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect. We will listen carefully, we will bridge misunderstandings, and we will seek common ground. We will be respectful, even when we do not agree. We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world — including in my own country. The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country — I know, because I am one of them."

I hope, Mr. Obama, that you stand by that. I also have to say, though, that I am disappointed in some things that you have yet to accomplish. You promised to end the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy, and you've mentioned it various times since your campaign, but it is still there. Mr. Obama, I know you understand this policy is not fair, but you need to do something about it. There are so many people ill-affected by this policy who have to hide so much about their lives because of something they cannot help. It's not about whether people agree with it or not, it's the fact that by law people being denied the opportunity to be themselves, which is a violation of one's freedom of expression, if nothing else. This also goes along with another promise you made but, according to PolitiFact, broke: Urge states to treat same-sex couple with full equality in family and adoption laws. Mr. President, these are people in your own country who are being discriminated against. Please, please fix it. Problems here need to be fixed before we can hope to do so elsewhere, even if it is difficult to recognize problems in oneself.

I believe that by the end of your term, you can establish a nation of which everyone is proud to be a part. It will take a lot of hard work, but you and your administration are up for the task.

Sincerely,
Kelsey



P.S. Here is a list of all the promises you made during your campaign and how your actions so far stand up against them.

Things I learned from presentations this week

1. Students like to be on Facebook when there's a computer in front of them.

2. Oral presentations do not get easier as you get older, they're still just as awful.
a. While they're still terrible, it's very difficult to cover a topic in less than 5 minutes.
b. When you're presenting from a computer, it helps to look at the computer instead of the audience.

3. Someone declared himself the emperor of San Fransisco sometime in U.S. history.



*Reminder to self: Blog about Obama's first year as president

Take Two

Okay, so I cheated. I admit it freely.

I deleted my first post.

Mostly because it was senseless, but also because I hate seeing my thoughts posted anywhere. Never in my life have I kept a journal; anything I ever write to vent is, when rediscovered, ripped to shreds and thrown away. I don't want to think about me in the past.

For approximately the next 16 weeks, however, from this point forward everything written will stay posted. Probably it will be deleted come May, but who knows. Perhaps I'll change my views on blogging (not everyone deserves the chance to have a published opinion for the masses to read).

Side note: I am, however, all for online journals. Vent away, emo children!

Until then, I will post my thoughts on the topics mandated by the curriculum of my course. Although I do feel that, if I am to post my opinion, that by definition does not imply that I should derive my thoughts based on the works of others, even if they support my views. It should be free thought.