'Frozen' Sets Men Back a Decade (Apparently)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/02/04/fox-news-guest-says-frozen-makes-men-look-like-villains-and-fools-welcome-to-the-new-culture-wars/


     In this article, Hunter Schwarz discusses a recent debate on Fox News about the Disney movie Frozen. Penny Young Nance, CEO of Concerned Women for America, said that the film empowers women by tearing down men. Even though Frozen is 15 months old, the soundtrack sold more copies than albums by several well-known artists like Iggy Azalea last week alone. This extreme popularity may explain why it's still being discussed more than a year later.
     I personally think this is ridiculous. Just because a movie empowers women and the main villain is male does not make it degrading to men. There are three men in this film (four counting Olaf), and yes, two of them are villains. Newsflash: the villain in Avengers? Male. The villain in the Matrix? Male. How about the Hobbit movies? Male. Most villains are male. It's not new. None of the other films stated to be 'unfair to men' - the Hunger Games, Divergent- are offensive to men either. There are lots of good guys in these movies, but because they empower girls and the main villain is male, apparently they're degrading to men. Are you kidding me?

The Court Can't Stop Progress

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/01/26/the-supreme-court-meets-the-real-world/justices-put-great-weight-on-existing-property-interests

    In this article Akhil Reed Amar, a professor of law and political science at Yale University, explains that the Supreme Court doesn't like to go against "established practices" or take away rights that have already been given. For example, when the Court ruled on the constitutionality of a national federal bank, many people had already invested their money in that bank, meaning the Supreme Court was less likely to rule it unconstitutional. Since Obamacare has been upheld, judges are now reluctant to overturn it since people have planned their care around it and getting rid of it now would affect far more people. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Court will rule existing same-sex marriages invalid even if it rules same-sex marriage unconstitutional. However, Amar says regardless of the ruling, the spread of same-sex marriage is "irreversible" and will not stop.
      I agree that the Court should be careful about what laws, rulings, ect., they overturn. They should definitely consider how many people will be affected and whether it will be positive or negative. I don't think the Court should rule against same-sex marriage because that would seriously affect couples who were in the process of or planning on getting married. Every time a same-sex marriage ban is lifted, news reports show multiple couples getting married as soon as possible- and many of them are above the usual age of marriage and have been together for years. Same-sex couples wait for years just to be able to marry the person they love - it would be horrible if the Supreme Court set back all the progress that has been made for them.

The President goes on Youtube!

http://www.voanews.com/content/youtube-stars-to-interview-obama-glozell-mota-hank-green/2609416.html

     In this article, Matthew Hilburn discusses Obama's interviews with three Youtubers today. Obama was interviewed by Hank Green (John Green's nerdier brother), GloZell (the woman with green lipstick who swallowed a ladleful of cinnamon), and Bethany Mota (a makeup/fashion guru). Hank, whose main channel is 'vlogbrothers', asked him about drones and the United States' relationship with North Korea. GloZell, whose channel is 'GloZell Green', asked him about recent racial conflicts, particularly Ferguson, and same-sex marriage. Bethany, whose main channel is 'Bethany Mota', asked about education costs, cyberbullying, and how to get younger people interested in politics. Hank has 2.5 million subscribers on his main channel alone, GloZell has close to 3.5 million, and Bethany has more than 8 million.
     I think this isn't a bad idea. Nearly everyone watches Youtube, and most people tend to watch the same channels regularly. If Obama interviews with these three Youtubers, he'll have a combined audience of around 14 million people. I couldn't tell if the author approved of Youtubers or not- he seemed like one of the people who is shocked that you can actually make a successful career out of videos on Youtube. For example, all he had to say about the vlogbrothers' videos was that they "address a wide variety of topics, including how to apologize, flatulence and explaining international news topics.". But in general I think this is an interesting way for politicians to connect with younger generations and I wonder if more politicians will do this.

Congress Actually is a "Bunch of White Dudes Fighting"

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/08/the-unbearable-whiteness-of-congress.html
  
    In this article, named "The Unbearable Whiteness of Congress", the demographical makeup of Congress is compared to the actual ethnic, gender, and religious makeup of the United States. Congress is almost completely made up of white, male Christians, which does not accurately represent America as a whole. America is split almost exactly in half between women and men (women have a one percent majority). Congress is about one-fifth women, but in the House, only one of the twenty committees is led by a woman. The U.S is, in fact, ranked 98th in the world for the percentage of women on the legislature. A little over half is white, almost 15 percent are African-American, and nearly one-fifth are Latino. While in the House ten percent of the members are African-American, in the Senate they make up only two percent. Latinos make up only 3 percent in the Senate and about 7 percent in the House, hardly the 17 percent they actually make up. Additionally, almost one-fifth of the nation are not Christian, but this Congress is more than ninety percent Christian.
     There is clearly an issue with these demographics. It makes no sense that these percentages are not closer to the true makeup of the United States. These percentages reflect the percentages of the wealthy upper class, which they shouldn't. Other countries are clearly representing minority groups better than we are, so it's not impossible to do. And even though some people argue that our government works more efficiently and allows more freedoms than those governments, there is no reason why properly reflecting the demographics of the U.S would change that. I think this indicates not so much an issue with Congress as it does a serious flaw with our society as a whole. Whites tend to be higher in the economic bracket than people of color, and we tend to vote for them, especially if they are male and Christian. We need to adjust our thinking to accept America as it is and work to fix the prejudices that affect so many people's choices.

Child Shot In Seconds by Police

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/officer-fatal-shooting-12-year-old-described-distr/njLCN/
     The article "Officer Who Shot 12-Year-Old Described As 'Distracted,' Immature." discusses the police officer who shot Tamir Rice in Cleveland. The police officer was described as someone who was immature and twisted the rules- two years before the incident. The child was shot approximately two seconds after the officers arrived on the scene, according to police video footage. He had not pulled to gun but had moved toward his waistband where the gun was kept. The 911 call reporting the boy said the gun was "probably fake".
     I think this policeman deserves to go to jail for the inappropriate use of deadly force. It's obvious that he didn't follow procedure. Two seconds is not long enough to ask someone to put their hands up and wait for them to respond. Additionally, the 911 call pointed out the weapon could have been fake, so he should have stayed behind his door and erred on the side of caution. I also think this is clearly affected by race and even possibly gender. Somehow I feel that if my little (white) sister, who is also twelve, had been playing with exact same gun in the exact same place, she would not have been killed by a policeman. Even with argument of self-defense, policemen have shown better judgement and patience when a full-grown man was pointing a gun at them, so a twelve-year-old with a "probably fake" gun in his waistband should have gotten more than two seconds.

Modern Montana

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/judge-strikes-down-montanas-gay-marriage-ban-n252016
    
     Montana's same-sex marriage ban has been struck down in a federal court, as the judge ruled that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. This means that the state must also recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. The state may appeal the ruling, as another state, South Carolina, is planning to do. Recently bans on same-sex marriage were upheld in four states, which may mean that the matter may go to the Supreme Court (see more here http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/07/us/appeals-court-upholds-same-sex-marriage-ban.html).
     I agree that the Equal Protection Clause should apply to same-sex marriage. There should be equal opportunity for a man to marry another man, just like an African-American can marry a white person or a an American can marry someone who isn't American. South Dakota still has a ban on same-sex marriage but having a state so close to us overturn their ban may mean South Dakota could as well.

Alabama Tries to Sneak by Supreme Court

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/jurisprudence/2014/11/alabama_foreign_law_amendment_challenges_supreme_court_on_gay_rights_death.html

      Alabama has just amended its state constitution to state that their courts will not consult international laws when making decisions. This amendment was a way for the state to attempt to ban Sharia law- the religious laws which Muslims must follow- (see more on that here:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/29/sharia-law-usa-states-ban_n_3660813.html), since it is not an American-made law. As an example of Sharia law, interest is prohibited, so a loan between two Muslims possibly may not have interest added. Another example is Muslim parents having their older children participate in Ramadan, the monthly fast. Right now,  judges respect these choices as long as they do not violate the Constitution (so all rights are still protected). Under the amendment, a Muslim not putting interest on a loan to another Muslim may be considered illegal due to discrimination, and the Ramadan case might be ruled abuse of children. The amendment avoided mentioning the Sharia law outright because several states laws which tried to ban it have been struck down by the Supreme Court for targeting Muslims. This amendment is also a way for Alabama to ignore other Supreme Court decisions. For example, in 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that executing minors was unconstitutional. The judge mentioned in his ruling that America was the only country that officially approved the execution of minors. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia attacked the decision, as did several Republican Senators. The Alabama amendment would make this decision void, since the judge consulted international law when making their judgement. This is also connected to a series of Supreme Court decisions concerning gay rights. In 1986, a judge ruled that states should be allowed to ban same-sex intercourse since it was common in the history of Western civilization. This would also be void under the Alabama law (something they might not have considered). However, a judge ruled in 2003 that states could not ban same-sex intercourse and stated that neither America nor any other country had a consistent history of laws banning it. The judge also pointed out that most countries considered to be 'Western civilization' are now supporting the gay rights movement.
    This article makes me glad that I don't live in Alabama. I understand that we do not allow religion to control our laws, but we as a country have a history of respecting people's religion. For example, no state can pass a law against the practice of Christianity. People can follow their own religions as long as they do not violate the Constitution. Many people say that Sharia law would allow stoning and cutting off the hands of thiefs. First, as is common with most religions, your average Muslim-American tends to ignore the extremist parts of their doctrine. After all, the Bible supports stoning and says that women shouldn't speak in church, and I don't see a lot of Christians upholding that. Second, these would be clear violations of the Constitution's 'cruel and unusual punishment' clause and therefore would not be protected by judges. On another note, the fact that anyone was upset about a law forbidding the execution of minors is a little odd to me (as is the fact that we didn't ban it until 2005).