Efficiency or Survival?

This is yesterday's news but I felt like I had to share it.

Remember all the debating on whether or not to bailout the auto industry? Well apparently they're almost done deciding what money will be given for the short-term. Being a slightly ignorant citizen, I thought the federal government wasn't going to help them because they should have a lot of money but have been wasting it. Besides, it's it part of the free market to let failing companies die; survival of the fittest and stuff like that.

Yet 3 of the big car companies are looking for money since the economy hasn't been looking too good. GM and Chrysler even said that they "may go under if the government refuses to help". I'm no connoisseur of cars, so the possibility of two less companies showing glamorous car ads every 5 minutes don't seem to bad (if you don't consider the people who would be losing jobs and the tv networks losing the ad money).

And of course one has to ask, "Where is this bail money going to come from?" Why, from some other program originally meant to help car fuel efficiency. How is giving bail money to supposedly failing car companies going to help fuel efficiency? There is some chuck of information I must be missing, because I can't see any correlation between saving the company and the proper investment in fuel efficiency.

True the short term relief and then long term work sounds like a good plan, similar to how the New Deal dealt with the Great Depression, but the way this has been colored to me is that it might not make it past the President's desk because this short term solution is going to begin yet another industry reconstruction with another federal agency or job to keep an eye on it.

Should it all actually work out as planned, Obama will be the ones drawing up the long-er term plans. It'll be interesting if that'll get any attention with the rest of the economy to take care of.

EDIT:

I just saw this. So much for coming close to bailing out the car companies. Guess who’s resisting? The Republican minority.

Canadian Fat People

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssAirlines/idUSN2039776920081120



This may not have a whole lot to do with the US directly, however, given how many obese people are in this country, it might be something to think about. Recently, Canada has declared that really fat people get to have an extra seat FOR FREE. People who are "functionally disabled by obesity" not get two seats for one fare and i cannot believe that this even happened. Like what, airlines have to accomate each individual now? Well, if fat people get an extra seat, what about tall people huh? what about them? I mean, shouldn't they get a longer seat or something? I find this to be a generally stupid decision because fat people should not be given given special benefits. i mean, its not like they're are retarded or something and can't help it and yet here people are accomadating the life choices of individuals making them more comfortable and giving them special privaleges. I certainly hope that such a law does not pass here in the US because the last thing we need to do to try and fix the obesity problems is give obese people special privaleges. Currently, roughly 60 percent of Americans are considered overweight and about a third of the US is obese so if they all gather, there could very well be changes just like the one in Canada. Anyway, what are your opinions on this topic? Should really really fat people get an extra seat for free?


http://www.obesityinamerica.org/bythenumbers.html

What goes up must come down

http://www.economist.com/finance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12725914&source=hptextfeature

It seems like yesterday when oil was off the charts and yet now, it seems to be plummetting ever farther down. December 2, oil prices fell down below 47$ and now, the OPEC (Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries ) is struggling to accomadate this fall and they may have to cut output for another year and may not even hit the bottom until 2010.

Overall though, it does not seems so bad that oil prices are falling especially considering many oil rich areas (Saudi Arabia, Russia) are not the nicest countries and it would make them less powerful politically with the lessened need for oil. Furthermore, it is a sign that people are resorting to public tranport and bikes to get where they need to go so that is good environmentally and makes people healthier too. I suppose this decrease in oil is in a way a silver lining to an otherwise horrible recession.

Marine Conservation In the Pacific

With his days as president coming to a close, George Bush has done something surprisingly un-Bush like. He's backed many drilling and mining projects has poorly regulated industrial pollution, and has done much to weaken the Endangered Species Act (grrr) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/22/AR2008032202204.html). Recently though, George Bush has been trying to grant national party status to a huge chunk of pristine ocean in the center of the Pacific.

The president has considered the possibility of increasing protection for up to 700,000 square miles of ocean (3 times texas) which would the Northern Mariana Islands and the Mariana Trench which harbors hundreds of exotic marine species.

For now, there is almost no fishing, mining or drilling in the central Pacific however, George bush has the power to prohibit any future attempts from doing harm to the region by most likely fishing for tuna and sharks there.

However, despite current public opinion in facor of such an act, the Northern Marianas House of Representatives voted against monument designation because of fears over future fishing restrictions.

I find this measure a very positive thing because so little of the ocean is protected. Even in Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, one of the world’s largest protected areas, only 33 percent is closed to fishing while many maritime nations don't have any marine reserves at all. The oceans are getting hard, overfishing is running rampant and very little is actually being done. This could be a crucial first step to trying to preserve beautiful and mystifying oceans that we have and ultimately, assuming if this passes and remains in place, it could provide a wonderful place for future generations especially considering millions of creatures living there. I for one hope that this area becomes a national monument and that one day, i can go there and see the many currently endangered species still alive and well.

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2008-11/bushs-tropical-paradise

Are parking meters going to end the recession?

Wow... I didn't think parking meters were that important until I found this post (and read the comments). You'd think that the extra quarter in the parking meter was the difference between life and death. I guess the question to ask is, is it?

First of all, both the arguments on this blog are very superfluous (the one by Yglesias and the other expressed by commenters on the blog), and I would like to take a moment to gawk at that. First of all, for Yglesias, I seriously doubt that the increased rates on parking meters (which by the way, isn't going to be more then an extra 25-30 cents for an hour) are going to heavily impact people's decision to park in the city. This rate increase isn't going to cut down traffic in the city by a significant amount and it isn't going to reduce the effects of global warming. It is, however, and this was a very good point made by Yglesias, going to help to support public programs which otherwise might fail under economic stress. Other types of taxes are particularly difficult to raise in California, and a raise on the rates of parking meters is a much more simple and financially reasonable fund raising strategy in today's economy.
So, why is the other side so pissed off? Well thats probably because their argument is just as dramatically overplayed. Trust me, if people who are in the city enough to be burdened by the raise in parking costs (aka, the people who LIVE in the city), those people will do one of two things, either a) take public transportation or b) walk/ride a bike... Isn't it amazing? They solved their parking issue WITHOUT having to foreclose their house, eerie I know. My point is, the extra quarter is really only going to effect the people who live and park in the city every day, many of whom by the way already do one of those two things. Those people who don't are just going to have to deal with taking public transportation, and yes, its not as convenient as taking a car, but at least this way they don't have to pay for gas.

All that being said, I am in favor of an increase in parking rates, partly because I use public transportation in the city, but also because it isn't going to be as bad as people think. A little good might go a long way, might as well give it a shot.

EDIT: The title was something of a satire, I wasn't seriously asking if Parking Meters were going to end the recession...

Newspapers down for the count?

This article by Andrew Sullivan, despite being a bit on the lengthy side is definately worth the read.


I figure this one is a very relevant topic that everyone should understand, although, we tend not to really think about it. How many of you actually buy the newspaper? Not just glance at it your parents copy, but actually subscribe and read it? I know I don't. Why would I subscribe to something that I could get for free in a million different places on the web? Well thats exactly the kind of mentality that Andrew Sullivan is describing, and I don't even think the worse is yet to come for the newspaper industry. As more and more kids come into a world where the internet is the only thing they've ever known, where does the incentive come from then to start using newspapers? Not only do they cost money, but they're not easily shared long distances, and they take time. Literally, our news is now an instant away, from the moment when something happens to the millisecond later when the reporter yanks out his iPhone to get the latest under development, two clicks and anything you ever wanted to know about everything is there in front of you. You can't honestly expect the newspaper industry to compete with THAT can you?

Well they try anyway!

Personally, I think the newspaper industry has too many veterans with too many interests to go down without a fight, and as we turn away from paper printed news I think these companies will start making serious investments in advancing the world of blogging and online journalism. Although blogging is already a very significant part of the news industry already, it is entirely possible that blogging may become the new medium through which all of news-following America gets its information.

This in turn brings up a few questions however. There is still the issue of money, and not to mention, there is no guarantee that these newspaper companies will be able to survive in the wide world of blogging. It makes me wonder if within the next few years we will see more and more restrictions on the web as newspaper companies take a more digital approach. For example, if the New York Times became exclusively online, would we see bloggers start signing on under the name and charging fee's for their blogs? Its entirely possible, but that also brings me to my second point. Theres still no guarantee that this will give the newspaper industry the boost it needs to survive, people will still be reluctant to pay for the New York Times when they can get the same information for free somewhere else on the internet.

College....Unaffordable?

I was browsing around, when I found this article.

It's interesting but scary at the same time. College tuition has been on the rise for years. Tuition has been increasing faster than the average family income. More and more people are having trouble financing college, and they find themselves with huge debts in doing so. Soon enough, if nothing is done, college is going to become an institution for the rich. And, with the recession, colleges are having to raise tuition and fees.
I think that college is ridiculously expensive, especially compared to European countries, such as France. In France, tuition is about a couple hundred per year. The more expensive and private schools might get in the thousands. Of course, this is because French people are a bunch of socialists, and college is funded by the state. But, America really needs to reform its education system to make higher education more affordable and attainable. Our country is already behind when it comes to education.

Shinseki to be appointed VA Secretary

Courtesy of The Atlantic.

This one I found very interesting.... If you're looking for change we can believe in, I think if nothing else this is it. With the winding down of the Iraq war, more and more of our troops, now veterans, will be coming home. Advances in medical technology have given us the ability to save more lives that in previous wars would have been casualties, however, the Iraq war is gaining a nasty reputation of sending home veterans who are disabled and unable to work. This is why I find it so amazing that two years ago Senator Obama made it one of his goals to provide better benefits for veterans. Besides being a damn good cause to fight for, politically speaking it was a strategy that in the end I think will work out very well for Obama. Although still in the backdrop, benefits for veterans is turning out to be a very important issue, an issue which NOBODY wants to be on the opposing side of. The fact that Obama has a two year head start, with a nice track record to back him up is definitely going to help his influence when working on VA health care policies. And while this will be a great success to tally onto Obama's presidency, on the more ideological side of things, I am pretty glad that we have a president who actually gives a damn about these sorts of things. I don't think that Obama chose this issue for the political capital to be gained, rather I think Obama is tackling this issue because he understands the needs of a post-war nation.


Well thats enough of my Pro-Obama liberal brainwarshing. As for the Shinseki pick, I cant honestly speak to how I feel about his experience or qualifications because I dont really know too much about him. Although I think it is fairly safe to assume that if Obama is appointing him to be VA secretary then he has probably agreed in advance to stay in line with Obama's campaign promises about VA health care reform. I guess that makes me feel at least a little bit comforted.

Catholic Bishops dish the scoop on level of involvement in Proposition 8

I found this article while browsing around.

Apparently the Catholic church is ready to come out and admit they had a bit more then a minor part in the Proposition 8 results. Oh yea, but its ok, its time to be friends again.

"We need to stop talking as if we are experts on the real motives of people with whom we have never even spoken. We need to stop hurling names like "bigot" and "pervert" at each other."

I've gotta say, I have been pretty disappointed with the total lack of restraint and respect for separation of church and state recently. It basically seems to me that right now, people look at it as a way to keep the STATE seperate from the church, but then at the same time, the church is allowed to step in whenever they should so please, hurl a couple million dollars and some million odd supporters at a piece of religious legislation and everyone walks off into the sunset holding hands?! That is my problem here, we DO NOT allow bad money into our presidential campaigns, we try not to let people bribe congress (though it happens anyway), and yet this is abso-freakin-lutely perfect?

$38 million dollars says you have some serious issues with the other side, and I dont care how you cut the cake, that money went to pushing a religiously funded idea into our state constitution.

Sorry for the soapbox, I am not trying to trample any person's religious beliefs, I just simply have a few qualms the government behind it.

Oslo-Convention on Cluster Munition

More than 100 countries have begun signing a treaty, which would ban cluster bombs. Cluster bombs are usually air dropped bombs that release a bunch of smaller sub munitions. The problem with them is that they don't always explode when they are dropped. Many kids have lost their limbs and lives from this inaccurate and terrible weapon. The worst part is that these bombs claim victims long after the end of the conflict. I don't see why countries would oppose the treaty, especially with the all modern technology that we have. Well, the US, China, and Russia didn't sign the treaty.

Here is Matthew Yglesias take on this.

Basically, the US opposes this treaty because cluster bombs are still a big part of our defense strategy and doesn't care about the future consequences these bombs may have. In all fairness, the US has been trying to use more accurate bombs, but there is still a small chance that it won't explode immediatly. And, these bombs are extremely difficult to clean up. Unfortunately, kids and farmers often mistake them for aluminum cans, and they can lose limbs or their lives. I just think that there has to be a better and more accurate alternative to cluster bombs.

Should DC become a state?

I was reading this post on Yglesias that discusses DC being admitted as the 51st state. Many people that live in Washington DC feel that they aren't being properly represented and are using the example of "taxation without representation" to express that. But, many problems arise from this. Republicans probably wouldn't want DC to become a state, since it is heavily democratic. Another area would have to be carved to serve as the capital and federal district. And, one star would have to be added to the flag, but how would we actually fit 51 stars?
I personally don't have a strong opinion about this. I wouldn't mind the two democratic senators, but it seems like a lot of work. We should probably be focusing on more significant things. Anyways, what do you guys think? Should DC become our 51st state?

"Dont expect big changes in foreign policy"

I chose this article because it has some relevance to discussions in class about Obama's cabinet and appointee choices, specifically those of Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates. Courtesy of the New Republic, Editor John B. Judis wants to have a little quality time with AP Gov students.

Ok, we get it, it takes time to maneuver any kind of dramatic foreign policy changes. The fact that things need to stay somewhat consistent with our previous trends is somewhat of a given. And I do think that the fact Obama kept Gates reflects this fact. The decision to keep Gates on board doesn't necessarily mean that Obama is going to up and invade Iran. From a purely common sense point of view, the great benefit of keeping Gates on board is that now we dont have to waste a bunch of time moving in new leadership for the Iraq war. I'm sure a bunch of people, including myself, would rather see somebody in power who is familiar with the situation and the department behind it, and that has the wherewithal to get our troops out in a timely manner (whenever that happens to roll around). Does this mean that Obama is breaking his campaign promises? Well honestly I haven't paid close enough attention to the finer points of Obama's Iraq time table, but does this mean that Obama plans to stand around in Iraq for another two years while we look for somebody else to invade? I seriously doubt it.
Another interesting point that Judis brought up was that the merging of the Bush and Obama foreign policies wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. Specific examples he brought up were diplomatic relations between North Korea and Iran, as well as expanding our relationship with Russia. It seems interesting however, that Obama is given the heat when in actuality Bush seems to be moving towards a more moderate foreign policy. It will be interesting to see the finalized copy of foreign affairs that Bush leaves for Obama, and while im sure there are some interesting points of continuity between the two leaders, there are still gaping holes of policy differences that Obama will make changes upon coming his inauguration to the White House. His cabinet in particular, minus Robert Gates, definitely has a different ideological makeup than shrub's second term in office, and it will be interesting to see just how much of the United States foreign policy remains constant and how much of it is changed.

Should we start to downsize?

This post really caught my attention.

It seems that more and more analysts are pulling their attention away from the "global economic meltdown" terror fiasco, and spending more time identifying the underlying causes of the economic recession (AKA, who to blame). It is a unanimous decision that bad debt and large banks are "to blame" and people are out to get blood. The "to big to be allowed to exist" idea that Yglesias discusses in his blog goes something like this, we cut down big multinational banks in favor of banks that grow on the local scale. This way if a bank or two fails the entire country doesn't wet itself. Yglesias also points out that if we used a broader banking system involving small scale banks, we wouldn't necessarily have to regulate them as stringently because, according to him, the function of regulation is to ensure that the banks don't fail and they don't need to be bailed out.

Granted, Yglesias isn't saying that we NEED a banking system like this, he is merely pointing out a shift in opinion. However, I personally don't see any potential benefit from removing larger banks in favor of smaller ones. Furthermore, I think that if we did eventually end up with a smaller scale banking system, the need for regulation would be more so then today. Simply because the amount of faulty loans to homeowners could run rampant and unchecked at any moment. Among other things, I think that this would be an economic sidestep rather then a solution to the many many problems at hand. Sure, with a smaller banking system we wouldn't have to worry about putting our eggs in one basket so to speak, but we shouldn't forget that the people running those smaller banks could be just as careless as those responsible for the economic fiasco today, and we would be just a shy throw away from putting our eggs into a bunch of separately crappy baskets. (in which case the need for a bailout might be just as eminent)

In any case, I think the fact that we at least have some ideas floating around is a positive step towards economic reform even if this particular one wouldn't earn my vote.

America helps Mexico

The American government just gave $197 million to aid Mexico in its war on drugs. America also donated helicopters and surveillance aircrafts. This is only the first part of the package;the US is supposed to give over $400 million to Mexico to control its gang and drug problems.
Drug-violence has been getting out of control and has been blamed for over 4,000 deaths in 2008. Drug dealers aren't very peaceful, and they actually are very well established in the community: Many of them work closely with Mexican officials, which is why none of the money is being given in cash ( the government is s.
So, why is the US giving money? Because it benefits us. About 90% of the cocaine found in the US has been smuggled through Mexico. Ever wonder why Tijuana is so dangerous? A more effective war on drugs in Mexico means that less drugs will be entering the states.
The US will also be giving money to Haiti and the Dominican Republic, and Central America. In all, America will be giving away $1.3 billion over a three year period.

Bailout v2.crap

Im sorry, but all this media blah blah blah about the proposed bailout for the Big Three auto companies has clouded the entire situation for me to the point where the whole things seems like absolute hurricane of misinformation. It seems that just about every article or story I find about it has a completely different account of events.

However!

It seems that every writer thus far has begun to notice one thing, the UAW (United Auto Workers) are starting to get very concerned about the future of their beloved industry, so much so that they are willing to allow the cutback of the "jobs bank" program.

Stephen Spruiell describes the UAW and auto industry approach to receiving a bailout.

First and foremost, I am decidedly very glad that the big three have finally started to cut some of these totally ridiculous programs. The "jobs bank" program was a total pit of money that basically paid laid-off workers to do absolutely nothing. What then is the incentive of that laid off worker to find another job? Well thats a good question, there really isn't one. On top of that the big three offer a health care till death program under which retired workers received health care from the company even after they are no longer employed. Im all for providing health benefits while a worker is employed at a company, but why should a company hold itself responsible for the health care costs of an employee long after they leave? Its hard to look at these programs and not gawk at the sheer fiscal irresponsibility of these companies, and these are the people we are going to bailout?

Why!?

This bailout in my opinion is a total slap in the face to auto companies such as Honda, Toyota, Mercedes, BMW that run american factories without falling over their own feet. Why should we reward people who make stupid moves with their money while overlooking those that keep the industry alive? I just dont think that GM, Ford and Chrysler are very deserving of the tax payer's money. I would rather see these companies go bankrupt and try to reorganize without the burden of irresponsible Union contracts that continue to siphon money away. (GM owes in excess of 9 billion dollars by spring '09 to fund their retiree pension alone).

The results however are yet to be seen, Chrysler and GM will appear before congress on thursday and friday to explain what they plan to do with all this bailout money.

Sarah Palin is STILL popular....

ugh.....Sarah Palin showed up in Georgia to rally for Senator Chambliss, and people were still exited to see her. In fact, they think that she's a role model. This relatively unknown governor from Alaska quickly became popular amongst conservatives, but why? She's not particularly intelligent, and all she can do is make snappy comments. But maybe I'm just biased because I don't like hockey....I just really really really hope that people aren't serious when they say that they want her to run in 2012. Anyways here are a couple exerpts from an article that pretty sums up why people get so exited when she comes around. These are just a couple of my favorite lines:

Sarah Theus blew her perfect attendance record at Porter Elementary to go Monday to see Sarah Palin in Perry....

"Our candidate did not win the election but she won our hearts," said Sally Theus, Sarah's mother, who gave in to her daughter's begging to attend the rally....

"We wanted the girls to see a fine, upstanding, Christian woman with five kids and a good career," Tammy Hawkins said. "We just wanted them to see you can succeed."

....she echoed while nodding her head. "You betcha," she said to a roar of cheers.

...."conservative side of the so-called Republican party."....

"She's good," Morgan said softly and then added, "Cause she's pretty."...

"We like Palin because she's pro-life," said Kimberly, of Macon....

"She touched my finger. She touched my finger," Hailey said while jumping up and down.

The 9-year-old hunter hadn't been this excited since she killed her third wild hog over the Thanksgiving holiday.

Oh and Senator Chambliss did win. The democrats have 58 seats, and the Republicans have 41.

Politics in the time of Cholera

Since August, more than 500 people have been killed from a Cholera outbreak. Cholera is a disease that affects the intestines and causes vomiting and diarrhea. Most of the time, the infection is acute, but some people die from severe dehydration. People usually get cholera through contaminated water. In the United States, and many other developed countries, cholera is not an issue because our water sanitation system is impeccable.
Zimbabwe's health and sanitation system has failed, aiding the spread of the disease. It also doesn't help that the economy is bad, and the government is corrupt. Many parts of the capital, Harare, don't even have access to clean water. There is sewage in the streets,which puts many kids at risk, since they play in the streets. Hospital supplies are quickly running out, and many hospitals and small clinics are closing because they are overwhelmed. The disease is quickly spreading with new cases being reported in Mozambique, Botswana, and South Africa.
The country is deteriorating. President Mugabe has tried (unsuccessfully) to hide the gravity of the situation. He is refusing to declare the spread of cholera a national crisis. David Parirenyatwa, the health minister, suggested that people stop shaking hands to stop the spread of the disease. It is not suprising that Zimbabweans distrust their government. Their rights are being denied and violated. They are being silenced. The situation in Zimbabwe won't get better until Mugabe is thrown out, but his coalition is quite strong. A 23 year-old woman was abused and raped because she supported the Movement for Democratic Change (Mugabe's opposition). The situation in Zimbabwe is not getting better, and something needs to be done about it. The people aare poor, sick, and suffering, mostly because of their government. Mugabe went too far, and I think that more international pressure should be put on him. Nothing is going to get better if he is still in office.

World AIDS Day

Today marks the 20th anniversary of World AIDS day. Every year a theme is chosen, and this year's theme is "Lead-Empower-Deliver." We need strong leadership to help stop this pandemic. We need political leaders who take a strong stance on HIV/AIDS prevention, but we also need strong leaders within our communities who are willing to act and educate others about AIDS. Of course, it means that we must go beyond talking and actually keeping our promises.
Without strong leadership and actions being taken, it is unlikely that universal access to AIDS prevention programs, treatment, and support will be met by 2010. It would be wonderful if that goal was met by 2010. The antiretroviral medication is extremely expensive, and in 2007, only 31% of underprivileged people had access to treatment. Education is also very important. People are still misinformed and still have many misconceptions. Many Africans continue to believe that having sex with a virgin will cure them of the disease (crazy....I know). Starting in 2015, UNAIDS also hopes the reverse the epidemic. This all seems wonderful, a little bit too optimistic at the same time. I don't think that out main focus is on HIV/AIDS right now; I think that, currently, our economy, terrorism, and war are given the most attention, because those are the issues that concern us the most. Sadly, we do tend to be selfish.

Here are a few statistics:

• 30-36 million people living with HIV/AIDS in 2007
• 14-17 million women living with HIV/AIDS
• 2 million children living with HIV/AIDS
• 20 million people in Sub-Saharan Africa living with HIV/AIDS
• Approx. 11 million AIDS orphans living in Africa
  
• Approx. 25 million AIDS deaths since 1981
• 50% of new infections are amongst people under 25

"Stop AIDS. Keep the promise"

It's official....

Hillary Clinton will be our new secretary of state. Hopefully things will run a lot more smoothly now that they are not campaigning against each other. Obama also announced that Robert Gates would remain Defense Secretary. The retired general James Jones was named National Security Advisor, and Eric Holder will be our new attorney general. Arizona governor Janet Napolitano will be our secretary of homeland security. The embassador to the U.N will be Susan Rice, Obama's long time advisor.Some argue that these apointments are dissapointing, since they don't offer much change.
The main concern is wether or not this team will be able to agree. For instance, Hillary Clinton is a strong supporter of Israel and has openly criticized Iran. She probably has reservations about engaging in direct discussions with Iran. Is this going to limit the direct diplomacy that Obama has campaigned for?
What do you think about Obama's appointments? What can we expect from them?

Remembering Harvey Milk

In 1977, Harvey Milk became the first openly gay man to serve in a United States public office when he was elected to the board of supervisors for the city of San Fransisco. Since then, even following his death in 1978, Harvey Milk has remained an inspiration to many groups of oppressed peoples.

For this reason, director Gus Van Sant decided to make a movie depicting the heroic life of Harvey Milk and his inspiring story. Dispite the fact that Milk is not yet out in all theaters people are speculating that this powerful retelling of the life of Harvey Milk has the potential to drive an entire generation towards more social and civil liberties.

In fact, many have begun to notice that the coincidental timing of the movie is almost eerie. The main scope of the movie took place during the battle over Proposition 6, the proposed ban on homosexual teachers and any teachers who supported their homosexual coworkers. In comparison to 2008, history seemed to repeat itself as the civil liberties of a minority group were challenged once again, this time by the ominous Proposition 8. In this time of challenge, many people have taken the time to reflect on the lives of those who fought this same battle only 30 years ago. I think we all should.

http://www.time.com/time/time100/heroes/profile/milk01.html