Medical pot group sues Obama administration over California crackdown

                Everyone in America has witnessed once in their lifetime, either through television, magazines, or newspaper headlines, Medical Marijuana groups advocating for their cause. Just this past Thursday a medical marijuana advocacy group sued the Obama administration saying its new position on changing local and state medical marijuana laws in California is unconstitutional.

 In 1996 pro-medical marijuana advocates pushed for the passing of proposition 215, which exempts doctors and seriously ill patients from marijuana laws and allows them to grow and use it in treatment. Fast tracking to the present, some 15 years later, medical marijuana has branched out into an economic boom. It’s practically impossible to not get a prescription for marijuana in California. The trend has created California into a virtual “hot-box” and citizens, who are perfectly healthy and have obtained a prescription, are taking advantage of new law. This reason here is why federal government has taken a peculiar interest in targeting big marijuana distributors. The idea that the average citizen is taking advantage of a law infers regulation from the government, doesn’t it? In no way are they trying to throw the law away, yet there merely “regulating it” as they do for all laws they implement.

 I find it bizarre that a group is suing for a cause that is already established; their mad because big companies who grow and distribute marijuana are being raided. Yet, those are the companies taking direct advantage of those who are truly in need of marijuana for serious health issues by selling a majority of their product to those “conning” the system. In my opinion, this cause for uproar against the national government is absurd. If you’re a Californian and have an illness where marijuana is a benefactor, then a switch from disturbing centers or a change to start growing your own, because its legal for you to do so, shouldn’t be a big enough problem to sue the national government! This group can use their support to focus on more important issues; maybe, making marijuana legal and taxable to everyone. In turn, it would create huge tax revenue giving us the jump start we need to get out of this recession.

The Nihilist Party: Republicans Who Believe in Nothing

In today’s political bowl ideologies have been said to be separated from their initial core beliefs.  In “TheNihilist Party: Republicans Who Believe in Nothing” by RJ Eskow, Eskow gives prime examples as to where the Republican Party has drifted off in our present day. His audience is us, Americans, who haven’t had much luck in making sense as to what will get us out of this recession. At first he clearly defines the word Nihilist: a viewpoint that traditional beliefs and values are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless –Merriam-Webster Online, in order to establish a foundation as to his explanation defining today's GOP’s stance on public policy. He attributes this definition to Republicans, to claim that they are filled with greed and self-loathing efforts defying the common good of all our non-wealthy citizens; in other words, usually their loyalties reside within their predominant sponsors. With this in mind, he directs the most common problem to the fact that Republicans oppose anything the Democrats propose. For example, Republicans passed and signed a $286 billion infrastructure for George W. Bush; today they oppose all such spending proposed by democrats. There is never a middle ground here, one way or the other opposing parties are pushing each other off the platform. Before the democrats can get anything proposed in congress the GOP quickly shuts it down, not even looking into other solutions to fix the problem at hand, just like when Republicans rejected Obama’s jobs act to expand employment; a solution they didn’t believe was worth looking into. Eskow also relates how Cain’s “9-9-9” program is detrimental to the working class and its only goal is to favor the wealthy. Republicans are always in favor when it comes to cutting taxes on the wealthy, expanding business overseas, which worsens our economy, and cutting benefits from health care programs. None of this would be true to the Republican ideology before the 90’s.

I agree with Eskow and his beliefs of an un-balanced government due to the false prospects of the Republican Party. What else is one to expect to think about the GOP but cynicism? What happened to the treatment of small business and building for the better of our country for all people, much like republicans Eisenhower and Reagan did. New leaders, whose influence aren’t bonded by the money that sponsors them, are in demand to wash away the tyranny that has been bestowed upon one of our most influential political parties. Prosperity is only to come when balance is back in order.

Editorial: Teacher tests separation of church and state

In USA Today an editorial was published questioning the first amendment, which guarantees that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  The issue was with a Lutheran church school in Redford, Mich., that fired a disabled teacher on account for her actions, threatening to sue the church. It all started when Cheryl Perich fell ill with narcolepsy and missed a fall semester in 2004. After being on disability leave for several months the school grew concerned and notified her that if her absence lasted for more than six months, she will be fired. Even after getting clearance from her doctor to return back to work the principal still wouldn’t give up on the decision. Perich then warned the school she would follow a complaint under the Americans with Disabilities Act; the church responded with her termination, citing she violated a Lutheran tenet against appeal outside the church.  

The editorial board for USA Today seemed not to favor this decision saying that because Perich was not only performing religious teachings but also secular level ones she deserved the same rights as secular level teachers. There reasons stem from that the government is not obliged to tell the church who can and cannot work there but at the same time those restrictions do not apply to secular employees working for the church—like a janitor or a teacher (where religious affiliation isn’t a requirement).  Those rights given to secular employees, regardless if they work for a church are not, will be protected.

Yet, I happen to disagree with their reasoning. The first amendment clearly states separation between church and state, there is no in-between here. If Perich was deemed as a “commissioned minister” enjoying the substantial tax breaks that go with it, how can she also succumb to the rights of secular level ones? Yes, maybe some of her duties at school are labeled as secular but her other ones were of religious affiliation; giving the upper hand to the school. Because it is a religious school, where she teaches religious prayer and is considered a commissioned minister, they have all the right to terminate her under their will; a given right to the church clearly stated under our first amendment. In my opinion, you can’t have both sides of the cake; under the law, it is either one or the other.

Link to editorial:
Teacher tests separation of church and state

America's love/hate affair with government.

While searching for an article relevant to government and myself, I came upon an interesting article on CNN calling out America’s distrustful relationship with government. In, “America’s Love/hate affair with government” by Gloria Borger, it gives the latest CNN/ORC poll of the public’s trust in the federal government. Only 15% of Americans believe that the government of today can solve our problems. Borger’s explains that the reason for this number is due to Obama’s way of handling our economic stimulus, and health care reform. On a larger perspective, one too large for Obama to handle and provide sufficient results, suggest that people are tired of hearing the bickering between both sides of government.  As we see Obama being backed into a corner by republicans all we, as citizens of this country hear, is the problems each side has in their plan to recuperate America. Why aren’t we hearing the solutions to these problems, why are we working against each other rather than helping each other?  This is majorly the reason why Americans have shifted their attention. Overall, Borger provides a solution; we, first, need to start trusting good leaders to run this country, the only downfall is, we have yet to see any good leaders.

I found this article interesting to me because I too have the same feelings towards our government. And yes it is mostly due to the fact that there is never a single solution to the problem at hand. Politicians today don't care how their decisions affect the millions of people who have to live by it. Everybody in office wants to be their own person and work it their own way, instead of both or all ways.  I only hope for a team of good leaders to rise up on both sides to accommodate this predicament, before it’s too late. Hopefully then, trust will be regained and we flourish just as our fore fathers intended.