Check the lost and found for Anwar's rights

Anwar al-Awlaki is a United States citizen currently hiding out in Yemen. Scott Shane of the NY Times writes: "the notion that the government can, in effect, execute one of it's own citizens far from combat zone, with no judicial process and based on secret intelligence, makes some legal authorities uneasy."http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/world/14awlaki.html?ref=politics
???? Can someone help me out? Are we really sentencing this man to death because of information obtained through illegal wiretapping and are not trying him in court as granted through our rights? He is, after all a United States citizen. I do understand he is a suspect to terrorism, or that's what the eavesdropping the US is telling us, but why not give him his day in court. Oh right, no legal evidence. So then should wiretapping be legal? If this man really is a threat, then legalizing wiretapping could help save millions of Americans if he is planning another 9-11. But what about those of us that aren't terrorists? Griswold v Connecticut grants us the right to privacy, so would wiretapping phone calls then not violate those rights?
But why stop there. What does it matter if we have a right to privacy if they are going to violate our right as a citizen to a trial? I really feel this issue is bigger than the economy, bigger than health care, bigger than immigration. Everything that is happening to Anwar is a violation of our rights, regardless of the fact that he poses a threat. Serial murderers and rapists also pose a heavy threat, but measures this extreme are not being taken with them. Though I don't support any acts of terrorism he might be planning, I do think the authorities should be more than just "uneasy".

I see a light at the end of the tunnel, and a raise in my future

Finally some good news! It seems like everyday for the past year the topics of the day were: 1) the weather, 2)the war 3)the economy. Well, its still hot as hell outside, and our troops are still being deployed, but more people are being employed. That's right, we're hiring! Good news for the economy, which is great as I'm really tired of hearing all the negative news feedback. A classmate of mine reports that over the past 4 months, the US has had over 573,000 jobs filled. As a bartender, I have a sense of job security; people, no matter how broke they are, will go out and drink. First general thought is "Come in friends, drown your unemployment sorrows!" However, unemployed people don't tip very well, meaning I don't get paid well, which means I don't spend well. (This isn't true, I always spend well. But for the argument's sake...) Thus, the economy continues to plummet. But with more US citizens celebrating their newly found jobs, as one of my regulars actually did just the other night, my pay goes up and the economy continues to thrive as I head straight for the mall. Now the unemployment rate is still at a heavy 9.9% due to the unemployed who are not actively seeking jobs, but we won't think about the lazy ones that won't get off the couch to try to find work. So thank you Derek, for that bit of wonderful news! I had no idea I was getting a raise this weekend!

Are Not All Men and Women Created Equal?

The fight for rights denied to same sex marriages is on its way to the Supreme Court, as citizen Nancy Gill is unable to give her spouse the same benefits that her coworkers spouses are granted simply because they are a lesbian couple http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/us/07doma.html?ref=politics. Does this argument stand a true chance in court?

Many say that it doesnt. The advocates for gay rights have little hope given the priority of other issues. How does denying human rights have low priority? Considering the recent health care reform, the subject of same sex marriages had to have come up as a topic, as many same sex couples are denied health care coverage under their spouses benefits, causing these couples to have to pay twice for coverage. Arguments against acknowledging same sex marriages are typically the same; religious freedom from having to marry such couples, children will have to recognize homosexuality at a young age, and it will change our society forever.

Granted, there are pros and cons to every decision made. I know putting myself in the position to have to explain gay relationships to a child would be quite difficult. However, is the uncomfort of America really worth sacrificing the rights of its citizens? And would we not be teaching children discrimination by denying certain people rights? Putting a child in a home with two mothers or two fathers has to have some benefits over a home with only one parent. The number of homeless children would decrease as gay and lesbian couples could adopt children and give them loving homes. Even though this fight is only for the rights of same sex couples and not for the legalization of same sex marriages, the topic has to come up that you have to recognize the marriage to recognize the rights as spouse. Civil rights should not be denied because the genders on the health insurance forms for both spouses are male or female. Benefits to cover spouses are designed to help take care of your loved ones, regardless of their sex.

An annonymous blogger writes :"A loving man and woman in a committed relationship can marry. Dogs no matter what their relationship, cannot marry. How should society treat gays and lesbians in a relationship, as dogs or humans?" Even though I'm sure this quote is referring more to the actual marriages, it points in the same direction for rights.