In the Camelot simulation the questions of, "What services should cities provide?" and "How should these services be paid for?" define the budget issue. In appropriating funds and generating revenue for the town's budget, the city council of Camelot made several project cuts that led to opposition from the Camelot citizens. The original proposal by the council involved the cutting of certain "public good projects such as the elimination of the SWAT Team - which incited opposition from the police department. The greatest problem faced by the city manager and city council is deciding which programs should be eliminated and which should be kept that would best benefit the city to stimulate economic and developmental growth. In the draft proposal, the Camelot council suggested keeping the "public good" programs and eliminated the one of developmental programs; in that, they avoided a common problem which often occurs in congress - political deadlock. In the US today, the budget has been a highly controversial issue dividing congress and political parties.

The budget has resulted in the division within political parties - where political platforms conflict with politician's interest. Jerry Gray from the New York Times points out that, "Until now, leaders of both parties had mostly avoided public bickering over the budget, worried that protracted fights like the ones of the last two years might cause political damages and a public backlash." In not finding a common ground, both the Republicans and the Democrats delay and disrupt the political process of establishing a budget - thus making the government seems inefficient and dysfunctional in the public's eye. According to the Senate Democratic Leader Daschle, "the idea that somehow the president should submit a second budget, not only delaying the process, but is politicizing it way beyond anything we have seen in some time."

The appropriate distribution of a city's, state's, or nations' funds in the budget can only be achieved (very often) through compromise to appease the majority. An example of this is seen in President Clinton's new proposal for a $18 billion cuts in Medicare cost when in his 1992 political platform he was adamant against any cuts to the nations health care system. Meanwhile the Republicans now offer compromise on the budget issue when in early March they demanded that the President submit a new budget proposal which included higher tax cuts. The compromise is seen where both the Republicans and the Democrats are now considering to separate the issue of the tax cuts from the budget plan. Moderate republicans such as Michael Castle "believe that the chances of balancing the budget are improved if the emotional and politically potent issue of the tax cuts is taken temporarily off the table."

The ability to compromise and bargain is one of the most important function of the city council and the chief executive. Although it is the job of the executive branch to set the budget, the final decision through review and passage is left up to the legislature. For that reason the budget issue has constantly been an ardent debate between congress and the president. Therein lies the necessity to compromise in order to move the political process along - and the avoidance of deadlocks. The consensus mood of Congress and the White House officials is to avoid the similar embarrassment two years ago on the budget issue. Democratic Senator, Tom Daschle said, "...I believe that, unless something changes, that political approach is going to lead to the same political result, which is the shutdown of government and complete chaos again, which all of us have pledged to try to avoid that this year." The actual compromise between the Republicans and Democrats would generate a $112 billion revenue to cover a five year plan tax cuts, with a willingness on the Republicans part "to adopt $35 billion of the $77 billion in tax increases and extensions proposed by Clinton." It may be possible for this compromise to help in restoring the public's confident in the government to function and operate as a governing body. And perhaps this issue will serve as a future reminder to politicians and government officials of what it means to compromise and to make concessions in order to maintain credibility.

The use of Affirmative Action as the most important factor in determining the final decision in who gets hired, who gets admitted and who gets scholarship often mitigate and eliminate the factor of experience and qualification. Before the Huron State Legislature revised the state law on Civil Service appointments and promotions in 1984, the most significant factor was whether an individual had the qualification and the experience to merit an appointment and promotion for public agencies jobs. Significantly, because of the implementation of the Affirmative Action law, these jobs are given to less experienced individuals who fail to perform competently.

Although the existence of "home rule," gives a jurisdiction the right to exercise autonomy within their district, Camelot has failed to devise its own rules on Affirmative Action or ratify the Huron State law. The issue before the City council is whether to increase the criterion of "community needs" from 20% to 30%. This would increase possibilities for women and minorities to attain promotions in the workforce by year 2000. Adding to this debate is the question of whether it is necessary to hire women or minorities over equally experienced Anglo-Saxon men. Camelot citizens requested an investigation of the incident involving a female police officer responding to a 911 domestic violence complaint - in which an unarmed man was unnecessarily shot and killed by the officer - which brings to mind the argument for competence and experience of the officer.

Similar incidents where minorities have failed to perform their jobs properly because of lack of experience have led many states to rule Affirmative Action impragmatic and unpopular. Moreover many states are considering the adoption of initiative that prohibits the use of race and sexual preferences in state-run affirmative actions programs. The state of California has recently adopted one such measure, Proposition 209 which was passed last November. Affirmative Action supporters are now question the constitutionality of the bill and while its opponents fear the potential to destroy the civil rights goals and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dream of a "color-blind nation." Advocate for the proposal and a black Sacramento entrepreneur, Ward Connerly predicted that, "There is no policy which has greater potential to rip the fabric of American democracy than affirmative action, as it has evolved." Moreover, he believes that, "Every citizen should have an equal chance at the starting line of life's race. But there should not be a guaranteed outcome in the race. If you discriminate for someone, you discriminate against someone else."

According to the New York Times' writer, B. Drummons Ayres, Jr, in January, "Polls indicate a large number of Americans oppose affirmative action programs," many - such as President Clinton - believe it should be amended not eliminated. President Clinton said, "I believe if states are precluded from trying to take appropriate steps that are not quotas and that do not give unqualified people a chance to participate in whatever it is - economic or educational life - but do recognize the disadvantages people have experienced, I think that will be a mistake."

In the 9th US Circuit Court, Proposition 209 was ruled constitutional by a 3-0 ruling which ended the blocked enforcement previously ruled against by Chief Judge Thelton Henderson in the US District Court in San Francisco. According to Sean Walsh, spokesman for Republican Gov. Pete Wilson, the ruling,"sends a strong, clear signal that the people of California were right when they stated that there should be no discrimination." In defeat the President acknowledged that supporters of affirmative action would have to "regroup and find new ways to achieve the same objectives." Will Camelot follow California's stand on the unconstitutionality and impracticality of Affirmative Action in civil service jobs? Should Camelot create its own rules - as California did - on equal opportunity and exercise it rights to "home rule?"

The abortion clinic isssue questions whether or not the town should permit the setting up an abortion clinic in Camelot. Although the issue is one that should be decided by the Planning Commission, since it is an issue of zoning, the underlining arguments presented by the President of the Right to Life Society of Greater Camelot question the legality of abortion in the town. The proposal also requests that Camelot change it zoning law to prohibit all abortion in Camelot; ending with, "No exceptions should be allowed to this prohibition." I think most of us struggle with the battle of taking a stand on the abortion issue. As humans, we are by nature "pro-life," but as individuals, we are also "pro-choice." The struggle between conserving the individual's right and protecting the rights of those who have no voice - such as the environment and the unborn - is almost a schizophrenic behavior is in our society. We, as a society refuse to accept a mediation between the two extremes - "pro-life" or "pro-choice." Taking the middle stand does not resolve the issue either. So what do we do?

Since there is no mediation between the two extremes, many of us are forced to take a stand that we have little convictions for and then we later change our minds. For example, when we pass a law legalizing abortion and later demands that it be revoked, is a clear message that the first decision was not the right one. The second decision may not be the right one either. Sometimes, the issues are so complicated that cultural relativity - laws, religious and traditional morals - does not prepare us enough to deal with them. The Bill of Rights and western democracy has taught us the importance of having the freedom of choices. By prohibiting abortion in a town is a denial to women the right to abort an unwanted pregnancy - whether or not the woman's life is in endangered. When Margaret Sanger invented the birth control pill in the early 20 th century, her concerns were for the thousands of women who died in childbirth, and who were denied the opportunity to enter the public spectrum (i.e. politics and the corporate world) because they had to stay home caring for eleven to twelve children and were emotionally and physically too tired afterwards to anything outside the home. The first abortion clinic was introduced by Margaret Sanger with a similar intent in mind - women were dying during child birth. Abortion was introduced to prevent the health impediments caused by certain pregnancy and to ensure the safety of women.

The issue of abortion has become even more complicated today. Now we question whether the states should legalize partial birth abortions to protect the life of the mother over the unborn child or fetus if her life is threatened. In both the Supreme Court cases Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, the Court set precedents that defined the abortion issue and finalized that the right to abortion is a part of a woman's privacy and liberty is therefore beyond the state's power to proscribe. Moreover Doe v. Bolton "emphasized that the health of the mother represents a medical judgement that may be exercised in light of all factors -- physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age -- relevant to the well-being of the patient." Which in its definition of "health" legalized all abortions full (i.e., when the fetus lived up to about 2-6 weeks term) and partial birth abortion.

Today in the New York Times, an appeal was filed ruling on abortion protest outside abortion clinics legal and non "wilful," i.e. no crime was committed if the protest was motivated by religious beliefs. Regardless of the circumstance for motivation, this ruling will evitable lead to mis-use of the legal framework to justify crimes and obscurity of the future ruling. As the US attorney's office predicts, this vagueness, "would potentially create a defense to prosecution under these laws for anyone claiming to act with a religious motivation." According to the article, "The men Bishop George Lynch and Brother Christopher Moscinski, blocked the entrance in May 1995 by kneeling in the driveway and praying." My question is whether it is legal to set up blockage to any entrance due to religious motivation or "willful conduct?" Obviously, Judge John E. Sprizzo of the Federal District Court for the Southern District decided that it was not and there is great difference between religious motivation and "willful conduct," I guess the former does not involve freewill and thus does not require accountability for one's actions. According to the article, the judge interpreted the phrase 'willful conduct,' in a criminal matter, to mean "deliberate conduct done with a bad purpose either to disobey or disregard the law." Are intimidation methods (any form, passive or active) and harassment considered criminal behaviors? If the two individuals' conduct were not meant to intimidate and harass anyone who attempted to enter the clinic, then how could Judge Spizzo defined it as praying - excuse the colloquial phrase- "no harm done!?"

This ruling has set a precedent and a clear message to the Anti-abolitionists; which is, any forms of protest, such as, blowing up an abortion clinic is O.K. - as long as the act was religiously motivated. Aren't we repeating the similar stand as we did in the precedent court cases, Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Dalton in being dubious and schizophrenic? In conclusion, I think it is imperative that we review the history of an issue before we make a stand, because there is sometimes no middle ground on defacing cultural relativity - religions, culture and traditional norms.

ReTURN TO KAYEBEE"S HOME PAGE