Comment on "Fear and Distraction > Truth and Transparency"

Tyler Hogan's editorial, aptly titled "Fear and Distraction > Truth and Transparency", is a well thought out commentary that thoroughly warns against our judgement as a nation under times of crisis. Hogan brings awareness to our country's past failures and current issues with an easy to understand perspective that simultaneously educates and warns the reader against political ignorance. He cautions citizens to use discretion when deciding just how far we'll go to feel safe and secure within our own borders, and has a more than adequate amount of facts and evidence to back up his reasoning. His point is clear and decisive, and I honestly couldn't find anything worth criticizing.

On Moral Grounds: Revisited

As previously discussed in an earlier blog, the United States Health and Human services unveiled a new policy known as the HHS Mandate earlier this year. The HHS requires that all companies which provide private health care insurance also provide coverage for employees to receive contraceptive drugs. Of course, this new policy hasn't been so easily accepted by everyone.

Hobby Lobby in particular has chosen to defy the HHS Mandate on moral grounds. The company’s Christian founders claim that the policy violates their Biblical beliefs, and that offering abortion-inducing drugs to their employees would go against their pro-life principles. While not against all forms of contraception, the company is opposed to providing certain drugs such as the morning after pill, which they view as just another form of abortion.  However, any company that refuses to comply with the mandate will be charged some serious fines. For Hobby Lobby, this could mean up to $1.3 million for every day they fail to provide the required insurance. Despite the mounting cost, the company has joined some 52 other lawsuits against the HHS Mandate, but currently theirs has reached the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Recently the court ruled that Hobby Lobby’s appeal would be decided by nine judges, instead of the usual 3-judge panel, and has even agreed to hear the appeal on an expedited basis. Although some say that this might not be in Hobby Lobby's favor, and that employing all nine judges may just add to the finality of the court's decision should they rule against the company's appeal.

U.S. District Court judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn recently issued the dismissal of a similar appeal made by the ETWN Global Catholic Television Network. ETWN filed the lawsuit for the same reasons as Hobby Lobby, but were turned down based on the court’s reluctance to make a ruling in light of future revisions the HHS has yet to receive.

Despite ETWN’s setback, Hobby Lobby still has a chance at success. Already they've garnered over 37,000 supporters on Facebook alone, and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee has even promoted a Hobby Lobby Appreciation Day (Jan. 5) to help support the company’s decision.This, combined with a decent amount of Divine intervention, definitely gives the company hope.

In light of their reasons for taking such a stand, Hobby Lobby has every right to fight the HHS policy. As a company that makes no secret of its being founded on Christian values it's understandable why they would be against certain contraceptive drugs, and therefore should not be obligated to supply such to their employees. Based on that line of reasoning, as well as the unfairness of the HHS Mandate requirements being forced on any faith-based company, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals should definitely rule in Hobby Lobby's favor.

A View on Same Sex Marriage

In Tyler Hogan's, "Same sex marriage: What's the big deal?", he discusses his point of view on the issue of gay marriage, and why he feels more people should have less of a problem with it. Throughout the editorial, his opinion on the subject is clear and easy to understand, and is backed by a substantial amount of research. He touches on both the religious approach to same sex marriage, as well as the parental implications of raising children in a home with either two moms or two dads. In both aspects, he explores and explains each side of the argument, and adds in his own voice to help convince the reader; even going so far as to encourage his audience to further educate themselves on the subject by providing a video link.
 Considering same sex marriage is such a prominent topic in today's world, I feel he could have expanded a bit more on the political aspect, such as where gay marriage is allowed in the U.S., as well as the rights of the LGBT community, and how people are pushing to expand them. But taking in to account that homosexuality is a particularly broad and highly debated issue, I think this editorial covered the basics well enough, and left me a little more informed than I was before.

On Moral Grounds

At the beginning of this year, the United States Health and Human services unveiled a new policy known as the HHS Mandate. The HHS requires that all companies which provide private health care insurance must also provide coverage for employees to receive contraceptive drugs. Of course, this new policy hasn't been so easily accepted by everyone.

Hobby Lobby in particular has chosen to defy the HHS Mandate on moral grounds. The company’s Christian founders claim that the policy violates their Biblical beliefs, and that offering abortion-inducing drugs to their employees would go against their pro-life principles. However, any company that refuses to comply with the mandate will be charged some serious fines, and for Hobby Lobby, this could mean up to $1.3 million for every day they fail to provide the required insurance. Despite the mounting cost, the company has proceeded with a lawsuit that has already reached the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. On Friday, the court ruled that Hobby Lobby’s appeal would be decided by nine judges, instead of the usual 3-judge panel, and has even agreed to hear the appeal on an expedited basis.

U.S. District Court judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn recently issued the dismissal of a similar appeal made by the ETWN Global Catholic Television Network. ETWN filed the lawsuit for the same reasons as Hobby Lobby, but were turned down based on the court’s reluctance to make a ruling in light of future revisions the HHS has yet to receive.

Despite ETWN’s setback, Hobby Lobby still has a chance at success. Already they've garnered other 37,000 supporters on Facebook alone, and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee has even promoted a Hobby Lobby Appreciation Day (Jan. 5) to help support the company’s decision.

Proposed Cell Phone Privacy Law: Blog Critique

On Thursday, March 7, AMERICAblog posted a commentary on the recently proposed cell phone privacy law in Texas. According to the blog, this new law, if successful, would require authorities to obtain warrants before securing location/personal information that could be accessed through your mobile devices or mobile providers, as well as requiring service providers to publish annual transparency reports that would reveal whether or not your phone has a warrant issued against it.
Although the proposed law is, as of now, only in Texas, the author's intended audience could easily be the general U.S. public. As stated in the blog, Texas' size means that the law, if passed, would more than likely have some kind of impact on citizens of other states as well.
As far as credibility, the author appears to more or less know what they're talking about. Although not too many details were given on the proposed law, the author takes into account its potential impact in Texas, as well as the affect it would have on the rest of the nation.
The author's argument isn't lengthy, but it presents the information as it is, and get's the point across. Enough evidence is given to support the author's claim that privacy protection is important, and that, if passed, this new law would perhaps encourage the backing of future action for further protection. The author's logic is sound, yet subjective, and their opinion on Republicans is made very clear towards the end (the author basically mocks them and their stand on gun control).
Overall the argument was well presented and factual, yet still an interesting enough read.

Sequestration: Editorial Critique

On Thursday, February 21, the Editorial Board of the Austin American Statesman posted a commentary on sequestration and its potentially disastrous effects. According to the author, sequestration is a terrible idea and will negatively affect the jobs of thousands, especially in Texas.

The intended audience of this particular editorial is clearly the American public, but more specifically Texans. Since Texas has numerous connections with the military (bases and installations such as Fort Hood, etc.), the author states that the sequester will result in severe job loss as well as significant economic drawbacks for Texan employees.

 Judging by the briefness of the article and the primary focus being mostly on the effects of the sequester in Texas, the author doesn't appear all too credible. Their argument, however, seems fairly sound. They offer facts to back-up their claims, and provide numerical evidence to help bring the effects of the sequester into perspective. The author has a strong opinion, but is practical in their reasoning and doesn't offer up anything outrageous as far as the potential results of the sequester in the future.

Although the author's concerns about the sequester and Texas are evident, they don't touch much on how the problem with federal spending can be corrected, or what they think the U.S. government should do to lessen the negative financial impact of the sequester. The author does propose that cuts be made elsewhere (departments and areas other than Defense), and suggests that it be done carefully, but they don't spend much time on these alternatives, and instead reverts their attention back to the resulting job loss of blunt cuts due to the sequester.

Overall the author got their point across, and while the execution left something to be desired, they used reasonable facts and logic to support their argument.