Some points of evidence presented by “witnesses” (many of whom are very well known in the sector of politics) argued that it would be wrong for the council members to vote for the amendment simply because it would be a detriment to the reputation of both the council as well as to the individual council members. As with the majority of the points given from either side, this was an attempt to imply that democratic principles were aligned with a particular opinion on the matter. This was a reoccurring theme; it was the democratic duty of the council members to allow the people of New York to vote, or it would be entirely dishonest of the council members to vote on a law that directly enforces their own jobs, or it is simply the role of the council to vote on matters such as this one. Almost every point dealt with the integrity of the council as it was and as it will become.

Some witnesses made a predication that could not be avoided and is something that was definitely on the mind of the council members who remained undecided up to that point - the threat of the public. This prediction was that the support for the amendment that would, in a sense, give representatives a chance to be in office for a longer period of time would, ultimately, be a detriment to his/her political career. This is, of course, because the voters will inevitably retaliate if the amendment is passed and this can come from two different ends: first, and foremost, from the New Yorkers who simply are against the amendment and, second, from New Yorkers who are dissatisfied with this issue being handled in the government offices rather than in the form of a referendum. Therefore, if a particular council member did vote for the amendment, it might be the very reason he/she will not have the opportunity to hold office in the future. And, according to some polls here and here, I feel that this may actually be something to be weary of. In some cases, people were in favor of extending the term limits but only if they were the ones to make the decision through a referendum and a slight majority of people were, in fact, opposed to the extension of term limits altogether. Thus, those council members who did vote for the amendment did so knowing that his/her decision on this matter might decide the chances for the next election.

One question proposed during the debates is whether or not it is ethically proper for the council to be the ones to make the final decision. Those were opposed to the amendment declared a conflict of interest to be a major issue since this amendment would directly affect the very people casting the vote. The council members are, in a sense, voting to keep their own jobs. This may be interpreted as a possible ground for asserting that a conflict of interest exists but I would disagree. It is not the case that all representatives (such as the mayor) will necessarily be in office longer due to this vote - the vote merely expands the possibility for someone like the mayor to stay in office by giving him/her the choice to run for a third term. This brings the debate to a main point given by witnesses who are for the amendment: that an increase in the possible term limits expands the freedom of the public. It serves us better to have the option of electing a candidate we feel is most qualified for the job three times in a row rather than to limit the representative to an arbitrary number of years in office that we might fee is too short. And as I have mentioned previously, there is also a danger in voting to extend term limits due to public opinion on the matter. For these reasons, the argument for a referendum due to the conflict of interest of the council members has little motivation.

When Mayor Bloomberg initially called for this amendment, he defended his position and his tactics by pointing out today’s economic crisis. He claims this meltdown must be handled by those who are more experienced - It is the conditions of candidacy that are calling for council members with experience to remain in office to better serve the people. But, I have to ask, aren’t the people who are standing in line to lead this city good enough? How can we trust in the more experienced to endure through these times if we couldn’t trust them to keep us out of this position. New York, like the nation, has an increasing problem debt and house foreclosures are becoming more common in almost every borough, and, after seven years, the World Trade Center has yet to be rebuilt. New York may perhaps be in need of new and younger people to be making decisions. (After all, isn’t that the mindset for the current Democratic nominee for the presidential election?)

There is a substantially increasing demand for a higher quality of food in America. It’s not a question of how or why this movement came about, that is pretty simple. It was merely a response to the consistent demise of quality in mass-produced food. Of course, a mass production of food is not a bad thing since it allows millions to be fed more efficiently. However, this “efficiency” has become something more than just more farms, more grains; more cattle, more meat; more factories, faster production; more stores, more availability. Efficiency of food production is no longer a question of how many people can be fed by the means of a single collective effort but is now a question of how much a single grain or ounce of meat can be stretched. There may seem to be little difference between these two views but this evolution has a significant difference in the effects on the people that are being fed.

Corn, it has become quite evident, is the epitome of this new form of food production. It is arguably the most mass produced food to date and very little of it is actually going to end up remaining corn. It is used in countless ways in almost every food product, and even many non-food products, available in the common supermarket. However, there is little concern as to how this affects the nutritional value of food (the practice, not the corn). To use as little actual food and as much cheap filler as possible while still keeping the meal edible has serious consequences.

So, yes. I am part of this movement to reject overly-stretched food - both as a political action that protests what mass-produced food has become and as a personal concern for my body and health. I do not think that this makes me elitist. I just like the idea of knowing exactly what it is I eat, it makes the food taste that much better.

Let’s begin at what appears to be the immediate problem. The American government recognizes marriage as something more than just an expensive and boring dinner with bad speeches. In fact, marriage has a heavy impact on a couple’s financial status, and it imparts numerous rights to the couple with regard to each other and their family as a whole. These rights usually consist of child custody, joint finances (which, in some cases, leads to a significant decrease in the amount a couple pays in taxes), monetary assistance in the incident of death or injury of a partner, rights to make medical decisions in the case of an emergency, full inheritance when no will had been prepared, etc. What many people feel is wrong with this policy is that not everyone has the capability of gaining such rights and benefits- namely, those the church doesn’t care to see married. Certain gay rights activists argue that this is a violation of the “separation of church and state” principal and that everyone should be allowed to have these rights.

I agree that everyone should be allowed to gain these rights and benefits, I also agree there is a serious problem with separation of church and state but not in the same way as the person who is happy to see the California ban lifted. In fact, I believe that the government should play no roll in who is allowed to go through the holy act of matrimony because it is a part of religious institutions. By forcing the church to recognize a homosexual’s right to marriage is itself a violation of the principal of separation of church and state. Who is allowed to get married should be decided by the church which conducts the marriages! If those in the administrative hierarchy of the church do not believe that their religion should support homosexuality through marriage, it is unconstitutional for the California supreme court to have any power over their ability to implement these beliefs.

What we must petition to change in the American system of government is the legal status of marriage. There is absolutely no purpose for a religious practice to have any consequence on legal matters. Those who currently oppose same-sex marriage insist that homosexuals take the other route to partnership and get a civil union. The problem is that a civil union is not a federally recognized partnership and it does not benefit the couple in the way a marriage would even in the state where the union was done. A civil union is a half-ass version of marriage that has little to offer to couples when compared to marriage.

Therefore, I propose that several steps are in order for the american people and their government: First, marriage is to be entirely stripped of all legal influences on a person’s life and property. Second, the government must cease and remove any alterations to the mandates of a religious organization. Obviously, no crime committed can be excused with a religious affiliation but a religion is entitled to their desire to commit such crimes. Third, civil unions will become federally acknowledged to provide the very same rights and benefits as marriage does (as we know it to be today). Lastly, there should be no restrictions on a person’s freedom to become part of a civil union whereby these limitations are the result of characteristics with no significance to the civil union process.

Gay rights activists have to stop empowering religious ideology and practices in politics. If you want equality, you must first eliminate the entity that is responsible for placing bigotry into our laws. Once you remove religion from our laws, then you can work without ignorant and hateful resistance to your cause.

It seems to me that religion is sort of like the living dead, but with stupid rules and the strange tendency to pray. Religion has opposed most scientific discoveries and has been consistently trying to get us to stop using common sense. Religious people are usually found in groups, and almost always saying the same thing as everyone else around them. This is the reason I have little hope in resolving this discord: zombies are fucking hard to get rid of. They go around killing real people. And, apparently, an infestation of the mindless can go on for thousands of years with no end in sight. This is serious because they target the only tool we have against them - our brain. I like my brain, I try to use it often and I advise that you do the same. Maybe, one day we’ll figure out a way to save humanity from this virus.

It appears to have started with a sort of infringement of land; Holy land tainted by the infidels and too many hands in the affairs of the Islamic countries. As problems began to stack, places like Egypt, Iraq, and Iran began to react to the influence of the western world with an unconventional means to regain what was lost. This reaction was martyrdom through sacrificial violence and subsequent death. It brought great attention and admiration to does who committed acts usually seen as evil. Patriotism ran like a hormone through the veins of muslim people, eager to commit themselves to their lord entirely.

It is, without a doubt, expected of western leaders to add the Islamic nations, especially those associated with radicalism, to the black book of politics. As soon as a suicide bomb reaches the 10o’clock news in America, every politician is stumbling to get attention by discussing what it means for the average American and what needs to be done. It is of no surprise that western countries began isolating Muslim countries and treating them as dogs that bite; they do, in fact, bite at the culture of the average westerner. Radical muslims threaten and terrorize and countries like America cannot bare to simply turn the other cheek. In the world of international relations, force may not be agreed upon or anticipated but is always returned.

So, we have America pushing nations like Iran. Radical Muslims react with violence, then and now seen as appropriate (depending on who you ask). America then counters with further pressure which only leads to further retaliation. They see us as immoral dictators and we see them as barbaric maniacs slaughtering innocent people. It was once the “murderous ping pong” suggested in the title but has, today, turned into a conquest to annihilate the evil enemy (which is the view shared by both parties). We both see the other as the obviously malevolent society, driven by ignorance of some high truth that only death can cure.

In my own opinion, America has to get a fucking clue and realize that long term goals are more important than immediate gratification. It has supported too many brother governments with disregard to the people of that country. What else can be the result of overthrowing leaders in order to push a friend into office simply for a short sighted goal. International allies and peace, doesn’t America consider that to be a reasonable goal? What’s the point of oil and political influence of a country that produces it if you start a war that will last for over several decades?
Muslim people have to stop complaining. It may be true that America and other western influences had a negative affect on your nation but radical religions that breed terrorism against the leaders of the world is only working against your interests. If you continue using threats and violence every time a westerner is responsible for death in a muslim land, the result will only be death for all.

Religious people in general need to shut the fuck up. Unless you prove to the world that what you say means anything more than an old book written by someone hundreds of years ago about what you have no real understanding of, keep it to yourself. The day an organized religion can significantly improve the quality of life in some systematic way that isn’t obvious and already accepted by everyone should it be even allowed to exist. So far, all that has been done by religion is limit the power of those who actually use science, logic, and meaningful application.

I’m no longer tired of the problems of religion in the world today, I’m exhausted of it. All I can think about is how bad life must have been in order for religions like Islam to become so widely loved and implemented. Fortunately, life involves time which does not stand still allowing something called information to flourish. No more do we rely on tales and mystical bullshit to make life seem interesting. In fact, making life interesting is not even a problem anymore (especially with all the war you people have caused), now we are trying to make life simply better. Please, stop fucking it up for everyone.