Judge Strikes Alaska Down

In 1998 a state constitutional amendment was passed stating or defining a marriage was between one man and one woman. This was overruled on Sunday when U.S. District Judge Timothy Burgess stated “the ban violates the U.S. constitutional guarantee of due process and equal protection”. As one of the defendants with Gov. Sean Parnell, Attorney General Michael Geraghty stated he would continue to defend the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. As in Nevada and Idaho, Alaska can appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court but will probably have the same results of being overruled as in these other states.

This is a hot topic now as a few judges are overruling the say and vote of the people, stating that it’s unconstitutional. I found this on the Aljazeera site. At first from the title I thought that this would be fallacious. Then after reading the article I found this to be Cogent due to stating facts and having valid reasoning and the reasoning being warranted.

Praying for Salmon

Since 1942 the Grand Coulee Dam has blocked fish like salmon and sockeye from going upstream to breed. The Columbia River Treaty which was signed in 1964 to build 5 more high head hydropower dams similar to the Grand Coulee dam. All these dams were built to help with power and the prevention of flooding down river. Groups of native people in the U.S. all the way up to Canada have petitioned to have the dams reengineered to provide fish passage and to manage water levels. 

Providing a fish passage will restore the native way of life before the dams were constructed. This fishery to the native people was a big part of their culture and economy. With the reengineering of the dams to also help with the control of the water level fluctuating up river. It is stated that the water levels fluctuate up to 40 feet. With these fluctuations in the water levels on a constant basis and the flooding up river due to the dams holding back flood water from flooding the down river cities have displaced over 2300 in low river communities before the dams were built. This treaty affects the river from Astoria, Oregon to Canal Flats, British Columbia which is over 1,240 miles up river.

I came across this article in the Aljazeera web site. The Original title “Salmon people pray for sacred fish to return to historic home” caught my attention. Being an amateur fisher I have always dreamed of catching salmon. Also with my new hobby over the last couple years of spearfishing, just haves me salivating at the mouth of hunting and spearing a salmon. Don’t know if its legal up in Oregon yet, but with some research hopefully I will find the times of the year that salmon is open season to spearfishing. With the reading of this article I would say it is fallacious. After 72 years since the Grand Coulee dam was erected, now the native tribes are demanding fish ladders, fish passages claiming that they need the fish to continue their culture and economy. Why wasn’t this done 70 years ago when it first affected their culture and economy? Cultures and economies change in 70 plus years. Some things are warranted and valid but then some are not, making this fallacious.

Homeless

While looking through many articles I came upon an article on Aljazeera that made me think upon my life. Here i am working to support a large family while going to school to better myself and to be able to provide better for my family, by getting a higher paying job after I graduate with my diploma. I feel stretched to my limit in finances and time. Then I read this article about the homeless. 

When you here the word homeless you think of a person living under a bridge with a shopping cart and a cardboard box for a roof over their head. The article I read was about a mother and two young daughters living out of their Mazda minivan. Paula, the mother and her daughters Alice and Emily have been living out of their van for the last four years. They are three out of 214,000 “unsheltered” homeless people in america. In most cities in America it is illegal to sleep in a vehicle on public property and roads. Over the lsat ten years Santa Barbara, California has a “Safe Parking” program that help some of these homeless with vehicles. In this program you have to apply for a permit for the “Safe Parking” program. During this application Workers and volunteers help you by seeing if you need any medical assistance, looking for a job, filling out job applications and finding housing placement.  This program combined with other programs have helped over 800 people per year to get back into traditional housing and off the streets. With this program, the homeless can park their vehicles in certain parking lots though out the city. The police instead of handing out tickets or arresting homeless due to breaking the city laws, stop by these specified parking lots and do a sweep around them to make sure everything is ok has eased the tensions between the law and those who are less fortunate. 

I find this article to be cogent. It states a believable premise that there are homeless out there. Give us relevant information about the homeless and the hard ships of staying in accordance with the law. Valid reasoning that with the “Safe Parking” program it has helped many get off the streets and back into traditional housing and has eased the tensions between the law enforcements and themselves. 

We all want to better ourselves. That is one of the many reasons of those of us going to school, and that is to better our selves and get a good job. I feel grateful for what I have, for the comfortable home that I come home to each night that provides safety and comfort for the ones I love.  We all go through hardships in our lives. I am grateful that I haven't had to go through this kind of a hardship and my heart goes out to those that are in this predicament.

Paid to go through Security?

I was looking through the news feeds on Aljazeera America the other day and came across this article about workers filing a lawsuit because they wanted to be paid for going through security at the end of their work-shift. This lawsuit was started by Jesse Busk and Laurie Castro After waiting at times up to 25 minutes to go through security. These security procedures are very similar as going through security when at an airport.  Removing keys, belts, going through metal detectors to name a few, are things each employee has to go through while exiting the facility to prevent theft.

The first court ruled that this was not breach of the fair labor acts. On appeal this decision was reversed by the Ninth Circuit court who stated that anything mandatory should be factored in as work. The Department of Labor supports the Original finding that security checks are not part of the job.They stated that The U.S. uses security checks at most of their facilities. Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich stated “I thought the Administration wanted to improve the wages of average workers rather than reduce them. Its position in this case runs exactly counter to this avowed goal … just weeks before the midterm election.”

The supreme court ruling will determine if employees should get paid for security checks. If in favor of payment during checks then each employee earning between $9-$12 on average, can make another $4-$5 per shift. This can change how American businesses and the government factor in wages in the future. 

I would say that this article is cogent. It stated both sides of the facts not leaning to one side or the other, just facts. I remember a story that my dad told me of a time when my grandma worked at a retail store and she would show up thirty minutes before her shift to go through her cash drawer and register and to make sure everything was in order before the doors opened for the day. When the doors opened and the store was open for business was when her time started. Back then that was common practice, the times have changed.

Counseling…Before Marriage?

In the excitement of getting married to the one that you love, no one wants to think about the ramifications or the pressures of the worst case scenario; which is fallen out of love and getting divorced.

The state of Utah should not enact a premarital education policy which only effects those getting married. The State should look toward other avenues to shift more of the costs of splitting up to those getting seperated. 

As of 2011, seven states have created premarital education incentives toward marriage licenses. These incentives is the reduction of the marriage license fees; due to the taking and participating in the premarital preparation courses. These states are providing these incentives in hopes of reducing divorce within the state.For instance Florida has a marriage license fee of $88.50, but if you take four hours of premarital education, the license fee is only $56; which is a saving of $32.50. Minnesota has a marriage fee of $100  but with 12 hours of premarital education, its only$30 ; which is a $70 saving. with Texas the fee is $60, with 8 hours of premarital education, the marriage license is free. At first glance, these look like great incentives to pull people to take these premarital classes. With further research, we find out that an average fifty minute premarital counseling session runs about $100. Looking back to Florida, 4 hours of counseling at $100 per hour comes to a total of $400, just to save $32.50. By taking the classes, you spend over $367 more for your marriage license then  by not taking the premarital courses. Minnesota had a $70 saving but with the 12 hours of counseling, you have to pay $1200 just to save that $70. In Texas, the marriage license fee with counseling is free, which is a savings of $60. But you need 8 hours of counseling. From a strictly financial point of view, taking these classes to save money on your marriage license is not practical. The cost of a Utah marriage license is only $30.

Times are changing. Accordingto the U.S. Census, divorce rates nation wide, over the past nineteen years, have declined steadily each year. At the same time, marriages have also declined. In 1990, the rate per 1000 population in marriages was 9.8. In 2009, it was 6.8. The rate in divorces 1990, per 1000 was 4.7. In 2009, it was 3.4. Overall marriages in 1990 were 2,443,000. The number of marriages in 2009 were 2,077,000, thats 366,000 less marriages over the nineteen years with a population growth of almost 61 million in the same nineteen years here in the U.S. A lot of this information could be due to that fact that not as many couples are not getting married. Which supports the decline in marriage and divorce rates. Many people don't want to deal with the hassle of getting married and don't feel that they need a piece of paper proving that they love one another. When these couples split up there is the same costs and social ramifications as those who are married and then getting divorced.

In Utah, divorces are declining and its not the premarital class incentives because we don't have them. Its due to the fact that our society is changing. Due to the decline of divorces in the nation, partly due to the societies views of marriage, another alternative to premarital education course need to be brought to bare. We spend billions of dollars due to the amount of divorces in the US. The money goes toward child support enforcement, Medicaid, and other government programs associated with divorces. An alternative to saving the government money is to have those, getting divorced or splitting up, pay more of the costs associated with the divorce or split. This can affect those who have been legally married and also those who have been married by common law, due to the amount of time being together. These extra costs can go towards the governments spending toward child support enforcement and Medicaid and other government programs. By doing this, it takes the strain of spending public money for these expenses and puts more of the financial burden on the individuals getting divorced.  In doing so, this will facilitate one of many outcomes. First, less divorces due to financial responsibilities. Second, going through counseling and other avenues to keep the marriage going instead of taking the divorce way out (it wont be as easy anymore). Or keeping with the trend of society, having less marriages and just living together.

The state of Utah should not enact premarital education policy. The State should look toward other avenues to shift more of the costs and responsibilities of splitting up to those getting seperated.