Thursday, November 5, 2009

Gay Rights Rebuke May Change Approach

By Weichung Yuan


They had far more money and volunteers, and geography was on their side, given that New England has been more accepting of same-sex marriage than any other region of the country. Yet gay rights supporters suffered a crushing loss when voters decided to repeal Maine’s new law allowing gay men and lesbians to wed, setting back a movement that had made remarkable progress nationally this year.

Maine, with its libertarian leanings, had seemed to offer an excellent chance of reversing the national trend of voters rejecting marriage equality at the ballot box. Instead, it became the 31st state to block same-sex marriage through a public referendum.

At a time when gay rights activists believe that President Obama is not treating their agenda as a high priority, the Maine loss has left them asking who their friends are. At stake, they say, is not only same-sex marriage, but the military’s ban on openly gay service members and the federal law banning same-sex marriage.

State legislatures had been viewed as new allies in the fight for same-sex marriage after lawmakers in Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire approved such bills this year. But now, with Maine voters dealing a rebuke to their Legislature, it is far from clear whether elected officials — including the president — will risk political capital on gay rights.

Tuesday’s defeat is also likely to further splinter a movement that has been debating the best tactics for success. Some prominent gay politicians last month skipped a gay rights march in Washington, questioning its purpose, which emboldened some of the younger advocates at the march to call for a new generation of leaders.

Some advocates said they were unimpressed last month when President Obama signed a law against gay hate crimes but offered relatively restrained remarks. They questioned whether it was time to take a more confrontational posture toward Mr. Obama, who benefited during the 2008 campaign from a surge of votes and donations from gay men and lesbians.

In Maine, advocates had stuck to a familiar path: using their own personal stories, they tried to persuade voters that gay people were no different from their straight neighbors and deserved equal treatment under the law.

Now, many will argue that that approach is not enough. Some are already pressing for more aggressive tactics, like speeding up a ballot measure to reverse California’s ban on same-sex marriage next year, instead of taking more time to build support. Others want to focus on swaying federal lawmakers to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which Representative Barney Frank, the nation’s highest-ranking openly gay politician, has called foolish at this point.

“The state-by-state strategy that looked clever a few years ago has run its course,” said Richard Socarides, who advised President Bill Clinton on gay issues. “The states that were easy to get have been gotten.”

This year, Iowa, New Hampshire and Vermont joined Massachusetts and Connecticut in allowing same-sex marriage, but only through court rulings and legislative action.

The tactic of using personal conversations to press for marriage equality will not be abandoned after Tuesday’s resounding vote, and several advocates said that, if anything, the defeat called for more such conversations around the country.

Evan Wolfson, executive director of the national gay rights group Freedom to Marry, said the loss in Maine underscored “the fact that we need to continue those conversations and make ourselves visible as families in communities.”

He added, “It shows we have just not done it long enough and deep enough, even in a place like Maine.”

But opponents said that given Maine’s “live-and-let live” mentality, the results were especially strong proof that same-sex marriage was not gaining acceptance.

“It interrupts the story line that is being manufactured that suggests the culture has shifted on gay marriage and the fight is over,” said Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, the conservative Christian group that is leading the charge against same-sex marriage around the country. “Maine is one of the most secular states in the nation. It’s socially liberal. They had a three-year head start to build their organization, and they outspent us two to one. If they can’t win there, it really does tell you the majority of Americans are not on board with this gay marriage thing.”

Voter turnout was higher than expected in Maine — perhaps 50 percent, officials said — but not nearly as high as in last year’s presidential election, which drew record numbers of young people to the polls. Opponents of the repeal sought to mobilize college students, who tend to support same-sex marriage, but the outcome suggests they might not have succeeded.

The next battlefields are New Jersey and New York, whose Democratic governors were pressing lawmakers to pass same-sex marriage bills by the end of the year, and California, where voters approved a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage last November. Gay rights groups there are likely to seek a ballot measure reversing the ban by 2012. A federal lawsuit challenging the prohibition is scheduled to go to trial in January and is expected to make its way to the Supreme Court.

In New Jersey, Gov. Jon S. Corzine’s loss on Tuesday to Christopher J. Christie, a Republican who opposes same-sex marriage, dealt another potential blow to the movement. Mr. Christie has vowed to veto any same-sex marriage bill that reaches his desk, but Mr. Corzine could still sign a bill into law if the legislature approves it before January.

The City Council in the District of Columbia also appears poised to pass a same-sex marriage law, although opponents are seeking a referendum that would ask voters to ban it.

A more long-term, complex question is whether gay rights supporters can reverse the constitutional bans on same-sex marriage in some 30 states that have enacted them since 2000. The outcome in Maine reinforces voters’ reluctance to endorse same-sex marriage, which national polls echo, though the gap is narrowing. And supporters acknowledge they would much rather avoid ballot questions.

“They tend to marginalize the group that is being targeted and inflame people’s passions in a way that is at best divisive and at worst terribly cruel,” said Jennifer C. Pizer, marriage project director for Lambda Legal, a national advocacy group. “Our founders did not intend to allow a majority to take basic rights from a minority.”

Still, a group in Oregon announced Monday that it would seek a repeal of a constitutional ban there, perhaps as soon as 2012. Oregon voters approved the ban in 2004, and gay rights groups have been quietly building support for a repeal.

But in general, supporters are more likely to focus on states with statutory bans on gay marriage, which legislatures can reverse without voter approval. One such state is Washington, where preliminary returns from Tuesday’s election showed voters approving an expansion of a domestic partnership law that would give gay couples more state-granted legal protections.

Opponents of same-sex marriage said the outcome in Maine should make lawmakers in other states nervous about endorsing it.

“We’re already hearing in both New York and New Jersey that they are noticing what’s happening here,” Ms. Gallagher said. “Do other politicians really want to enter this particular culture war given all the stuff they are going to have to defend in the next election?”

An earlier version of this article misstated, in one instance, part of the name of the law that bans federal recognition of same-sex marriage. It is the Defense of Marriage Act.

A version of this article appeared in print on November 5, 2009, on page A25 of the New York edition.

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Soft drink versus Government

BY JianLong Wen

Soft drink, fast food, candy and other high calories food are what contribute to the rising of the American average weight. They also increase the risk of heart disease, cancer, type 2 diabetes and etc. It has become an important health issue even catch president Obama’s attentions, forcing him to put a tax on sugary drink.
Tax is always the best solution whenever government encounters “mess” like this. Yes, it would definitely solve the problem, temporarily. Moreover, sugary drink and fast food are “legal drugs”, people could not just quit that easily. Beside, these fast-food companies would always come out with new product to tempt people. The advertisement of these sugary drink change more rapidly than the promotion of famous artist’s album. They make the ads interesting and popular among teenagers and adult, most likely to brainwash them. Since people could not resist the temptation, eventually they would get addict to the food. With many supporters, rising tax would only in result of widespread discontent. Our government should imitate these companies. They should make the interesting ads of healthy food on news, print news and broadcast to capture people’s attentions. More, they should help to create new product on healthy food; make it “natural sweet” as those sugary drink. Most importantly, they should open more field on these food, import different kind of food, giving people more option. Soon, people will forget those soft drinks.
Tax on sugary drink would help people to consider the government is limiting their choices. Its actions would only lead to its people to question and doubt itself.

Don't Panic its just Swine Flu

Every few years there is an outbreak of some kind of disease, which often creates a major panic among the citizens of New York as well as other parts of the US. Swine flu has had a similar effect on New Yorkers. Even thought WHO declared it a pandemic on June 11, 2009, most of the cases of H1N1 flu have been quite mild. Although there have been numerous swine flu related deaths, this virus is not as deadly. It has the symptoms of seasonal flu and can be cured with seasonal flu medications. Most of the victims who died had some other medical complications besides the flu.

Swine flu vaccines have just hit the market and many people have already taken the vaccine, all around the world. But the reliability, effectiveness and side effects of this vaccine is yet to be unearthed. Vaccines contain agents of the disease itself, which helps the immune system to ward off any further damage if the subject comes into contact with the virus from any outside source. Even though the government is encouraging people to take swine flu shots, it is not at all necessary to do so. Only people with severe medical conditions should take the swine flu vaccine. Healthy people do not need the vaccine. The vaccine can cause severe side effects in the future, as has been the case with many other vaccines. Swine flu is not worse than seasonal flu and it can be cured with or without any form of medication. If we eat healthy and maintain a healthy lifestyle, our immune system will be strong enough to fight many disease causing viruses.

The rage against H1N1!!

By: Alan Siegel


What is all the gossip pertaining to the new and improved H1N1 vaccine? Doctors have spent huge portions of their lives trying to be rid the world of the Flu. Has it all been a waste or have they discovered a prevention plan.
The flu shot has been around for decades and continues to prove itself to be useful, but many concerns have arisen after the 1976 epidemic. A total of five hundred cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome were reported amongst the forty five million people vaccinated for the swine flu. The Associated Press recently published an article discussing the people’s concerns about the safety of the vaccine. According to this article published September 27th 2009, the government has started a system in which its sole purpose is to track possible side effects of this new vaccine. The system will differentiate true side effects from false claims and public propaganda.
Health authorities hope to vaccinate more that half the population in just a few months. With this large increase of vaccinations, there is a great deal of concern regarding the vaccines overall safety. Many people who have had vaccines in the past, continue to try to portray themselves as victims, stating that the medications caused them to get sick by lowering the immune system. Before blindly believing these “victims,” we must question those people demanding recognition and decipher the truth from these false claims. We must force them to ask themselves the following extremely important question: what was the real cause of their illnesses? Was it the flu vaccine or the double value sized super burger with fries and a coke from the night before!
At the end all of the day it all comes down to one question: is the vaccine safe or not? Yes, safety comes first and that is why monitoring systems have been created. Harvard Medical School scientists are investigating up to 50 million people with vaccination registries around the country, to see whether people visit a doctor in the weeks after their flu shots and why. Another monitoring system is being followed by Johns Hopkins University. They will continue to directly e-mail at least 100,000 vaccine recipients to track how they're feeling, focusing on the smaller complaints that wouldn't require a doctor visit. If anything seems connected, researchers can call the patient to follow up with detailed questions. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has also prepared take-home cards. These cards tell vaccine recipients how to report any suspected side effects in the nation's Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting system.
Don’t get me wrong, sore throats and occasional headaches will always be around, but that doesn’t mean that they has been caused by a vaccine in the past. It is critical that organizations like the CDC continue to research and monitor the progress and safety of these vaccines.

MY study partner!!

It is a very well known fact that misery loves company. As midtrems and finals appoach I can tell you from experience that when you know someone somewhere is pulling an all nighter just like you or struggling that write research paper like you are, it just makes work all the more easier and stress free.

It is a very well practiced traditions for students to get together and study and this long tradition still stands because it has been proven to work over time and time again. You will learn and understand the concept of diffusion and how to work out trigonometry better when you work it out with friends and they explain it to you in a way that teachers can't.

It helps to know others are going through what you are going through. It helps to know your not stupid for not understanding something in class because the truth is half of the class didn't understand it either. when you know you have the supoosrt and understanding of your classmates, it will encourage you to make that trip to the professors office and ask questions. It will give you the will power and the drive to want to understand and explain it to your friends. It just makes learing all the more better.

It is a sad, proven, helpful(in this case) fact that misery loves comapy...

By: Staicy Prasad

Who to Root For

As a Mets fan my biggest baseball fear of the New York Yankees and the Philadelphia Phillies squaring off in the World Series is becoming a reality. I know I have to make a decision of whom I will be rooting for. After a significant amount of time thinking about it came up with some rational ideas and decided I had to be pulling for the Phillies to be winning it all, again.
For as long as I remember the Mets biggest rivals have been the Braves. In my early baseball years I would watch as Mike Piazza and Chipper Jones would square off and it would get intense. In 1999 the Mets even faced the Braves in a playoff series, which had some of the most amazing plays ever happen in them such as the “grand slam single”. Over the past few years the Mets and Phillies have seemed to be making a new rivalry with players from each team bad mouthing the other through the media. All though this seems like a heated rivalry truth be told it is not that big a deal due to the constant beating on the Mets the Phillies do. In my heart of hearts I will never hate any player on the Phillies the way I loathe Chipper Jones. So in reality the Braves are the Mets real “bad guys”.
Although the Phillies may not be as bad as the Braves do not get me wrong I still hate them with a passion of 1000 fires. Last season I had the tragedy of watching them celebrate as they won the World Series. Since that day I have heard the gloating of the Phillie fan and it is not pleasant. If the Phillies repeat and win it again these fans will have nothing more to me to say they already said it all, but if the Yankees win it they to will have all that to say to me and I will have to hear it from both corners.
Last but not least my favorite reason of why I will be rooting for the Phillies comes from my respect of the game. If the Yankees win this years fall classic what will that say for small market teams such as the Minnesota Twins and the Kansas City Royals. These teams cannot hold on to their big time stars due to the high demanding salaries of these players. These teams have to rebuild every few years just to stay competitive and be a moneymaking organization. The Yankees on the other hand this past off-season alone spent close to 400 million dollars alone on 3 players. The core of there team and most of there best players came via the free agent market, at least the Phillies core players are home grown and brought up through the system.
As you see this matter is no joke to me. Baseball is the love of my life and this has been the worst year for it in my life arguably ever. To salvage some sort of happiness I will leave with this. LETS GO PHILLIES!!!!!
by Sean Hack

what do you think of high-tech communication?

According to one study finds that 37 percent of teens felt they wouldn't be able to live without a cell phone once they had it. This study also shows that a cell phone has interfered their life. Now, people like to use high-tech communication. they think this is convenient that you can contact person anywhere, especially cell phone.In my opinion, cell phone breaks my privacy because it can call me anywhere. And it only a tool. People use it to contact person. It has multi-function for attracted consumer; therefore, it is very expensive. Another study that the risk of accident was nearly five times higher than normal when a person was on the telephone before the accident. It is as dangerous as driving drunk. It also effect person health. A study measuring the link between cell phones and mental health found that teens who used cell phones the most were more likely to be anxious and depressed. Some research people use cell phones for long time. It would cause brain cancer. Mayber people said they wouldn't be able to live without it. We could suppose if the time went back two decades people how to live. I like to enjoy my own space. I like quiet life. I don't allow the cell phone to disturb my life. What do you think about this?