"Same Love"

This morning,  I did my normal routine of waking up, eating breakfast, and going to the bus.  Every morning on the bus, I plug in my headphones and listen to music.   However, for some reason, today more than other days, I focused on the lyrics of the song.  One song that particularly struck me was "Same Love" by Macklemore and Ryan Lewis, featuring Miranda Lambert.  Here are the lyrics of the song.

In this song, Macklemore focuses on how gay people are not treated equally to straight people: "Gay is synonymous with the lesser".  It's hard to argue that gays are treated equally to straights, especially when culture accepts this reality.  Macklemore recognizes this acceptance of culture as well: "'Man that's gay' gets dropped on the daily, we've become so to what we're saying".  I have to admit that I used to occasionally use the word "gay" in a derogatory way until I began to realize how offensive it really was.  As a result, many people are afraid to admit that they are gay for the fear that they may be ostracized.

I, like Macklemore, am not gay, but I also have a gay member in my nuclear family and I realize the severity of inequality.  The United States Declaration of Independence states, "All men are created equal"; however, are gay people really treated as equals?  Currently, I would argue they are not treated equally.  Gays are in a similar boat as African-Americans were when they were fighting for their equality during the Civil Rights Movement.

The Civil Rights Movement resulted in the Civil Rights Act, which was a step in the right direction, even though it did not solve the social problems.  Macklemore sings, "And a certificate on paper isn't gonna solve it all, but it's a damn good place to start".  After gays can legally marry, they will be legally equal, but then the next step would be social acceptance.  "No law's gonna change us, we have to change us".  It's going to take a public acceptance in order for gays to feel equal, allowing gays to come out of the closet.  A lot of work needs to be done in order for gays to feel equal, but many states that have legalized gay marriage have made a good start.

Why do you think gays are treated unfairly?  What do people have against gays?  Please comment below.

Selection Sunday

As I write this post, I am sitting in front of my TV, watching the endless series of Bracketology shows.  For those of you that are not familiar with bracketology, it is a show that discusses all of the matchups in the NCAA Basketball tournament.

Over the past few decades, bracketology has been increasingly popular and is becoming part of the American culture.  In fact, 60% of people say that they will be filling out a bracket this year, whether they know anything about college basketball or not.  Actually, I have some relatives that pick winners based on the name of the school or the colors of their logo.  For sports fans, March Madness is one of the best times of the year, with games every week and incredible underdogs to root for.

So why do Americans love filling out brackets and watching March Madness?  Do Americans love underdogs?  Is it a social talking point?  I believe it is part of American culture.  Americans LOVE to win.  Consequently, when there is an opportunity to have the best bracket, they jump on the opportunity.  I mean, who wouldn't want to have the most accurate bracket in the US and win up to $1 million.  Competitiveness is in the blood of Americans and there is no changing it.  I myself am a sports fanatic but also am extremely competitive so filling out a bracket is a perfect way for me to combine two of my characteristics.  So go print out a bracket, and write down whoever you want, because chances are your neighbor is doing it too.

Why do you think everyone obsesses about March Madness brackets?  And will you be filling out a bracket this year?  Feel free to leave comments below.

Routine DNA Testing- Constitutional or Not?

Last week in Biology class, we discussed that following an arrest, DNA samples are collected from the suspect and stored in databases.  While initially I thought this may be an effective method to identify criminals, I began to question whether it was constitutional.  Then I read an article that addressed this topic in greater depth and the article referenced the Supreme Court case Maryland v. King [12-207].

In some states, DNA is taken from every person that is taken into police custody, whether they are guilty of a crime or not.  This means that anyone who gets arrested, not necessarily charged with a crime, has to give their DNA, an integral part of their identification.

Although, according to Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, "lots of murders, lots of rapes can be solved using this new technology", it also pushes the boundaries of the Fourth Amendment.  The Fourth Amendment protects against search and seizure without probable cause.  However, the police are taking the DNA of people that may be completely innocent.  Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia remarked sarcastically, "I'll bet if you conduct a lot of unreasonable searches and seizures, you'd get more convictions, too."  Scalia clearly believes that routine DNA testing is wrong because it violates the Fourth Amendment.

Without any evidence of a criminal conviction, the government can take DNA from citizens that are arrested.  Therefore, I believe that it is unconstitutional to DNA test suspects following an arrest because it violates the Fourth Amendment.  I would not want my DNA sitting in a government database for them to test and monitor without my permission, especially if I was not convicted of a crime.  On the other hand, there is the possibility that criminals could be detected, preventing more crimes.  Is it worth taking the DNA of the innocent with the hope of stopping the guilty?

Would you want the government to have your DNA in their database? And do you think DNA testing after arrests violates the Fourth Amendment? Why or why not?  Please leave comments below.

The Sequester

This past Friday, the US government passed the deadline for the sequester, automatically initiating budget cuts.  However, some of these cuts make absolutely no sense.  One automatic cut is regarding the distribution of vaccines.  This article explains why this cut is absurd.

First of all, this cut does not make sense in terms of disease prevention.  Without giving certain vaccinations to large quantities of people, there is a higher chance of the reemergence of diseases that  have been non-existant for years such as polio.

Additionally, vaccines are used in order to save money: "Vaccines are one of the most cost-effective preventative strategies in health care, saving billions of dollars a year".  Why would the government cut something that saves money?!?!?!  Some of the sequester cuts are understandable but seriously. Yes, cuts had to be made, but don't make cuts in a sector that will lead to more debt.  Also, the government claims they care significantly about healthcare, but are depriving people from receiving vaccines.  

If the government truly cared about the health of the people, they would cut from a different sector.   Yes, it's upsetting that they are giving less money for vaccines, but that isn't what is frustrating.  What is frustrating is that the government spends money on many unneeded projects, but when they do decide to cut spending, they are making the debt worse.  How does it make any logical sense to cut something that will put you in more debt than if you didn't cut it at all?  IT DOESN'T

Do you think the government is doing the right thing by cutting spending on vaccinations?  And do you think the government spends uncontrollably on unnecessary projects? Please leave comments below.