Return of the Führer?

Kind of a follow up here to my previous post here. Another result of that poll I mentioned at the end of the last post was that 13% of German citizens would welcome a "Führer" or someone to rule the country with a strong hand. Now while this may not be a huge percent of the population in Germany I still think that it is a shocking statistic.

German citizens aren't the only ones shifting to the far right though the whole of Europe is. It is happening in Austria, Holland, and even the notoriously open and liberal Sweden. Far right parties running on anti-Islamic platforms are gaining significant influence and even power. The main platform for a growing party in Holland is to ban the Qur'an and the practice of Islam as a whole from the Low Countries.

Does anyone else fear that this extremism and Islamophobia will make the jump westward to the US? Is it already here? Or is this just a passing phase as people or turning to whatever the can to feel safer in their lives? For me, I think it might be mostly the last one as the current state of the world just have people scared and looking to new and more extreme governments to make the feel safe. But what do you think?

Obama to appear on "Mythbusters"

It was revealed on Monday that Obama is to appear on the television show "Mythbusters", a show that attempts to "separate fact from fiction" in various topics. The episode is set to air on December 8. The White House has commented on the reasoning for such an appearance, saying that the subjects of science, math, and engineering must be promoted, because low interest in these subjects among students could "hurt the economy."

Hmmmm. That seems like a stretch to me, eh? We're afraid of low interest in math, so Obama is going to appear on Mythbusters? And this appearance is supposed to somehow "help the economy"? Right. While the economy is still crawling and much of the country is in a dire financial situation, the president films some propaganda that will do absolutely nothing to help... anyone?

I think this TV show appearance by Obama is a complete waste of time. We, the American people, elected our president to pursue policy that would better our lives. How does an appearance on this show achieve this?

Obama, in fact, is being completely counterproductive to what really needs to happen if we want to increase interest in these subjects. We need more opportunities for children, we need to lessen poverty, we need to give schools more money. But no. We get a Mythbusters appearance instead?

And not only this Mythbusters appearance. We also got an Obama appearance at an MTV town hall meeting last week. Sounds beneficial, right? No, not really.

Hey, lets lay off 1800 people after reporting higher-than-expected profits!

Well hai guise. Notice anything wrong with this headline?

"Nokia Oyj's new chief Stephen Elop put his imprint on the company on Thursday, cutting 1,800 jobs and delaying a key product after the world's largest handset maker reported stronger-than-expected profits."

This is an outrage. Nokia's shares have risen over 9%, to get to their highest level in more than 20 weeks. Average sale price for phones rose considerably, yet Nokia is cutting 3% of its staff, 1800 people. Nokia cites the layoffs as being a result of "part and component shortages"; yet, they have forecasted a profit margin of 10-12% in the December quarter.

Nokia should be doing something on their end to fix these shortages, and should not have to resort to laying off employees. This is purely a mistake on their end, and honest, hard-working people should not be penalized for the company's inability to operate effectively and efficiently.

These layoffs are unacceptable. Something must be done.

Multi-cultural society has failed. WHAT?

So this might be a little old news but I have only got around to reading the article today. Anyways here is the lowdown, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said at meeting with younger members for her party the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) that "Multikulti" the idea that your are living side by side happily has "failed, totally," and that "[Germans] should feel tied to Christian values." But wait thats not the end of it she continues saying, "Those who don't accept them have no place [in Germany]," Personally these statements scare me. But not all of her statements were so radical and in fact some of them I actually agreed with. For example' later she said that the government shouldn't be "subsidizing immigrants" which is a completely rational statement. For me though, I most agreed with her idea that the government has the right to demand certain things from immigrants such as to learning and mastering the language of the land, German, as well as giving up radical practices like forced marriage. In the end though her statements weren't even the scariest part the polls of German citizens were. These polls showed that a third of Germans feel that the country is "over-run by foreigners" and that foreigners should be sent home in hard economic times where jobs run low. Lastly the poll should 60% yes 60% felt that Muslims should have their religious practices significantly curbed. I mean this is really troubling to me. I have always grown up feeling that Europe was one of the most liberal places on the planet. But between the articles I've been reading and reports from family and friends who have recently visited or even live in Europe it sounds to me as if racism and the radical right is growing in the masses. I mean has anyone else heard of this? How do you feel about Chancellor Merkel's comments? Do they or the polls scare you in anyway? Lastly, does anyone think we will see another polarizing political figure rise in Europe ever again to lead them "forward" like in the past?

What has the world come to...

So I just heard a news story out of New Jersey that made me question the nature of our country and people in general. A New Jersey women, Katherine O'conner, while out and about with her boyfriend suffered a major asthma attack but did not have her inhaler on her at the time. Luckily they were quite close to a CVS Pharmacy and he was able to rush into the store to find the pharmacist to buy an inhaler. Coming out to a price of $21.50 the boyfriend hurriedly reached within his pocket to find he had only a $20 bill and because he didn't have the extra change the pharmacist refused to sell him the inhaler. The boyfriend begged and even offered up his wallet, cell phone, and informed the pharmacists he would come back with the money after he had helped his girlfriend still the pharmacist refused. He was prepared to potential watch a women die in front of him for $1.50. Luckily the boyfriend was able to call a personal friend who was a paramedic and had an inhaler and was able to arrive just in time for the women. But really $1.50 this man couldn't have let that go for a young womens life? It is stories like this and the one about the homeless man who bleed to death last year that consistently shock me. How can you watch a person suffer and even die? What could bring you to make such a decision? I mean even if you feared for you job the man offered you his wallet, phone, and to return with the money I should think that would be ample info to protect you in the case you got in trouble for selling a inhaler for $1.50 less. Anyways what do you all think? And how would you have handled this?

Wait... Homer Simpson is Catholic?

So, the Vatican has just recently advocated for "The Simpsons," saying that the Simpson family is devoutly Catholic, and that parents should let their children watch.

This is a supreme example of the church overstepping its bounds. How can the Vatican extend its influence over television shows?

I mean, the fact that Al Jean, the executive producer of the Simpsons has reinforced that the family is clearly NOT Catholic nulls the Vatican's statement in itself. "We've pretty clearly shown that Homer is not Catholic," Jean said. "I really don't think he could go without eating meat on Fridays -- for even an hour."

Furthermore, the Vatican's advocation for the show may have many ill-fated effects on children. Families who are devoutly Catholic may be largely influenced by the church's decision, and may allow their (very) underage children to watch. The show frequently explores topics like marijuana, drugs, sex, guns, homosexuality, and adultery. Which our young children should be exposed to? Yeah... right. Right. I mean... you'd expect these issues to come up in a Sesame Street episode as well. Right? Right? Hell no.

And oh yeah, oh yeah, I know that it's the parents decision in the end to allow their children to view, but hey, the Vatican is advocating for a side when it is clearly out of their bounds. The Vatican has gone too far. Something must be done.

Fifteen-year old boy had rifle, parents recieve $500,000. What?

In March of 2008, Jose Luis Buenrostro was killed by 3 gang-unit police officers in East Oakland. He was 15 years old. The three officers say that Buenrostro pulled out a rifle from his pants and pointed it at them, at which point they killed the boy. Just recently, the city of Oakland settled with Buenrostro's family, awarding them $500,000.

Buenrostro's parents contested that the three officers drove up to their son, and shot him without cause. The officers were clearly identified as police, wearing raid body armor.

This is ridiculous. The lawyer for the Buenrostro family has ADMITTED that Buenrostro was indeed carrying a rifle, saying "The police overreacted, and although he may have had possession of a (rifle), he did not point the gun at the officers. Witnesses said he was putting his hands up when he was shot." So the officers just happened to go up to a kid in their car, and shoot the kid? And it just so happened that this kid had a rifle in his pants? Right. The boy clearly took out his weapon, brandished it, and did something threatening with it to make the officers react the way they did.

Now I'm not saying that I don't regret the killing; I wish some other alternative could have been employed, and the boy's life could have been spared. But seriously now. He has a rifle. He's fifteen. The setting is Oakland, the country's 3rd most dangerous city as of 2009. I think police have a little right to be cautious. And when they see a rifle and any hint of any movement with that rifle, I think they have a right to PROTECT THEMSELVES, because that moment could potentially be their last. So is the $500,000 really justified? Hell no. Again, do I wish the boy was still alive? Hell yes, but that won't change the fact that the police likely had no viable alternative than to take action when they saw he HAD A RIFLE.

But hey, just my opinion.

Man sues over mercury content in canned tuna

Just in the past couple days, a man in New York sued "BumbleBee" tuna after medical tests revealed that he had metal poisoning from the mercury content in the cans that holds the tuna. His mercury levels were more than double the normal amount.

The man, Lee Porrazzo, apparently ate about 10 cans of tuna a week for a couple of years. He is suing BumbleBee for negligence, as well as the fact that the cans of tuna were priced at $1, which made it easy for Porrazzo to buy in bulk. Porrazzo has stated that he started eating the tutna because BumbleBee labeled it as "heart healthy."

Now, most websites that are reporting this story are doing so in a quite sarcastic tone, more or less scoffing at the lawsuit. However, I implore you to take another look. People, at the most basic level, deserve the right to do what they want (don't give me that crap about "oh, so do I get to murder people?); In this sense, Porrazzo has all the right in the world to eat what he wants without having to worry about his health. Remember, the company did label the tuna as benefiting the heart. You don't see McDonalds widely advertising the Big Mac as healthy, do you? BumbleBee was misleading, plain and simple. And they should pay.

And yes, yes, I admit, the pricing aspect of the lawsuit is mildly ridiculous; however, BumbleBee must be held accountable for its negligent and misleading labeling of the tuna. Eating this tuna leads to metal poisoning, not healthy hearts. Porrazzo's lawsuit must be successful.

Justin Bieber -- Homophobic Bullying Victim

During a game of laser tag, one kid went out of his way to target Justin repeatedly.
Sources say that Bieber became frustrated when the kid cornered him and wouldn't stop shooting and when Bieber told him, "That's enough". The aggressive kid responded with multiple taunts and repeatedly calling Justin a "f****t". Justin did not hit him, but pushed him away and left. Law enforcement says it was the boy's father, who is a lawyer, who filed the complaint hours later. Claiming that Justin had hit the aggressive kid. The police investigation is ongoing, but sources say police already know the fault does not lie with Bieber.

Personallyy, I'm not a fan of Mr. Bieber. I think his music is kind of overrated. (Please don't kill me Bieber fans!) But no one deserves to be called names and bullied. The aggressive kid must think he's pretty-darn-cool picking on Justin and calling him "the f word", to me that shows complete immaturity. People that are bullies are people who have the lowest self-esteem and attempt to heighten it by putting others' self esteem down. To me, the whole idea of it is utterly pathetic. What kind of good lawyer or father would defend their son who might-have-been-hit because he was really asking for it? I'm sure there are plenty of law suit cases that are similar to this. Even simply at school, bullies get their butts-kicked and go cry to the principal. Of course, I don't believe in "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" but seriously, if you bully someone and get hit or beaten up, you got what you asked for. Don't go around crying about it. If Justin did hit the kid, I wouldn't blame him. The kid flat-out deserved it.

RED CELERY?!

A Florida produce company is excited to unveil its new product on Saturday at the Produce Industry Trade Show in Orlando.

Yes, a colorful spin on the classic crunchy vegetable, celery.

American customers consume, on average, about 6 pounds of celery for every person.

Red celery will be available at select stores for testing. Starting at the West coast, Northwest and Southwest. How will Americans react to this bright, unique vegetable?

It took nearly 20 years to breed this new type of celery using only natural breeding methods.

Would you eat red celery?

Republican funding surge provides crucial advantage

With a huge amount of outside money coming into the Republican party, Republicans are now in the running for previously safe Democratic House seats. Advocacy groups such as American Crossroads and the American Actions Network are paying over $50 million to back Republican candidates on top of the over $50 million already spent by Republican's House campaign.

The Republican's strategy is to put money into races for every Democratic seat possible so that Democrats will be forced to spend defensively and choose where to cut their losses. Already incumbents such as Representative Steve Driehaus and Kathy Dalhkemper have had financial support withdrawn so funds can be used elsewhere.

Now the GOP is putting money into races in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Tennessee that were once out of reach for Republicans. Republican strategists also hope to take victories in suburbs across the country that were typically Democratic.

Since we have mentioned spending limits in class, is this a situation that requires limits? Is it fair that money has such a huge roll in swaying elections? Is it constitutional to let the wealthy spend their money where they want, or is it unconstitutional that they can have a huge amount of power because of their money?

Palestinians weighing alternatives to peace talks

In the West Bank, Palestinians now look for an alternative to peace talks with Israel as a result of Israel's new plans to build 238 new houses for Jews on land that was previously Palestinian, but has been won by the Israelis through war. Despite this talk, Palestinians will probably not leap into any drastic action before November 2 because Arab leaders have promised the Obama Administration that they would take more time to try and relaunch negotiations.

These negotiations ended when Israel refused to continue a limited curb on the building of settlements in the West Bank, Gaza, and Israel. This created a set back for negotiations because Israel refused to back down even though the international community deemed it illegal. Since Palestinians want to make these areas their state, they want to end negotiations to stop what they see as a land grab. Now separations is more difficult than ever with half a million Israelis living in the West Bank and east Jerusalem.

As an alternative to more negotiations, Palestinians may go to the UN and the security council to try to make the UN recognize a Palestinian state in their three desired territories. Unfortunately for them, the US would probably veto the move and end that option. Basically, the fate of Palestinians (and Israelis) is in American hands.

Do you think that it is good or bad for Americans to have such a huge amount of responsibility for a conflict that is honestly really none of our business. On on hand, the US could benefit from more friendly foreign relations, but on the other hand, a bad outcome would reflect badly.

Also, in this case, what would you do to solve this ongoing problem that has lasted for years. Is war going to be necessary in the end, or can these two peoples find a way to coexist in peace? If you believe peace is not possible, which side is more justified?

Shoplifter's Unusual Punishment.

Video

If you aren't able to watch the video, here's what went down:
A 18-year old tries to shoplift at a Halloween store in Virginia and got caught. The owner decided that instead of giving this guy a record and involving trial and law etc. He decided to punish the theif by making him stand outside the store wearing a Bert (from Seasame Street) costume and holding a sign that says " I got caught shoplifting at Halloween Express". The 18-year old has to stand for 6 hours over a period of 2 days.

-- In my opinion, this kid got really lucky. Not only would he be charged as an adult for his crimes he would have this crime on record for the rest of his life. (Which colleges and potential employers look at) I mean standing outside for 6 hours is nothing compared to a permament record and maybe some jail time. It's ridiculous that he would even attempt to steal from a Halloween store out of all places. .. I mean really. At 18 years old.. you're an adult. And you're stealing Halloween costumes.. I find that really immature. What is your opinion on this interesting punishment? Was the owner of the shop being too nice?

Blind hikers know no limits at Grand Canyon

Before dawn 13 blind and virtually impaired hikers begin a 24.3 mile trek into the Grand Canyon. This is no paved road--even for hikers with full sight one wrong step could lead to a fatal or serious injury. However, these blind hikers are determined to prove to the world that blind people can do anything. Even when one hiker falls and gashes his leg so badly that he has to be flown out be helicopter, not one of the others try to turn back.

The visually impaired hikers do have guides, but the guides aren't there to hold the hikers hands. The guides just wear bells on their packs and warn hikers if they start to come too close to an edge.

Although 12-year-old Dillan Owens begins wheezing from fatigue and the altitude, his father urges him to finish.

Is this hike important to prove a point or is it simply madness? If you were the parent of a visually impaired 12-year-old child, would you encourage him to continue to build character or quit to ensure safety? And if you were blind, would you joint the hike?

Bobblehead meg video

Every thing that this video claims is proven by different news sources.  It seems pretty reliable but I cant seem to find who funded this video.  I'm almost positive that the democrats have something to do with this add, but at the same time the video never explicitly tells you to vote for Brown.  This is a very clever add, but someone will be getting quite a bit of money from this because they are planning on selling the Meg bobble head they used in the video in a auction.  

New research shows that legalizing weed won't curtail Mexican drug cartels.

As most of you know, on the November ballot voter's can vote for or against Proposition 19. Proposition 19 will allow cities in California to grow and sell marijuana, and will allow individuals aged 21 and older to possess up to an ounce of marijuana.

A report released by RAND Corp. ( a non-partisan research institute) showed that "Californians, who make up one-seventh of the U.S. marijuana market, already are farming marijuana at a much higher rate than in neighboring states and tend to buy domestic rather than smuggled marijuana". Therefore, legalizing marijuana in California will not curtail Mexican drug cartels, as some proponents of Prop. 19 believe. Mexican drug cartels collect approximately $18-35 Billion a year in profits from the US ( estimated by federal authorities). The new research shows that marijuana sale in the US accounts for only $2 billion of the profit. California only accounts for about $180 million (~3% of the total profit). The research also shows that if Prop. 19 is to be passed, the price of marijuana will fall by an estimated 80%.

However, if California was to pass Prop.19 and smuggle the legalized weed across the country, it would replace most marijuana sales by the drug cartels and cut deeper into the revenue gained by cartels. But this is unlikely, as marijuana is illegal by federal law. (Reminder: this would result in a 10% cut in drug cartel revenue versus 3%) .

-- Should marijuana be legalized? And will legalizing marijuana benefit or hurt the state//Are we going to just end up with a state full of potheads? With one of the main arguments for legalizing marijuana proven wrong, the outcome seems iffy. With marijuana only making such a small percentage of the revenue gained from cartels, won't that just shift their priorities to other drugs instead? (Which would result in Prop.19 basically having little to no affect on drug cartels overall.)

Some other random arguments for the legalization of Prop.19:

• Improves the economy through tax ( like alcohol and cigarettes).
• Marijuana prohibition is costly, and pretty much obviously ineffective. (And violators often just get a slap on the wrist)
• Chemically less addictive than alcohol, and even caffeine.

Call to service inspired many Peace Corps volunteers

The article begins with the story of Mick Wigal, a 29 year old Peace Corp volunteer who was deposited in Cano Negro, Costa Rica with the mission to "Go out and help this village prosper." Now he works every day to help residents set up cottage industries with no funds or help.

The Peace Corps agency was created fifty years ago by President Kennedy with the goal of helping countries create and sustain development programs and help create a better mutual understanding between Americans and people outside the US about each other. Although some praise the Peace Corps for great accomplishments, critics call the organization "founded on mythology and anecdote" and believe that "Kennedy would be greatly disappointed."

Do you think that the Peace Corps is more of a success or a failure? Should this program be "scrapped" as many critics believe? Is this program worth keeping? And if it is, what changes should be made to make it more effective, if any?

Abortion Doctor accused of malpractice and bad morals.

Steve Brigham, an abortion doctor who begins the procedure in New Jersey and completes the procedure in Maryland insists that neither state has the grounds to punish him.

In Maryland, Brigham has been charged with practicing medicine without a license. Brigham apparently filed papers in Maryland claiming that he doesn't need a license because he was only "engaging in consultation". This statement is seemingly proven false as records show that the completion of an abortion of a woman who was 18 months pregnant was carried out on a day when the physician Brigham was training was not present in the clinic.

Prosecutors claim that Brigham intends to evade New Jersey's safety rules. None of Brigham's six clinics in New Jersey are authorized to perform abortions on pregnancies that are more than 14 weeks in progress, because they do not meet requirements to perform surgery on patients who do not stay in a hospital for 24 hours or more.

Investigators claim that Brigham exploits the process of late-term abortion at the expense of the patient's safety. One patient, an 18-year old from New Jersey was 21 weeks pregnant. She suffered from a punctured uterus and bowel at Brigham's clinic in Maryland. She had to be airlifted to a Baltimore hospital to repair her uterus and bowel. Another patient did not make it to Maryland to complete her abortion, and was rushed to a hospital after experiencing severe abdominal pain. At a hospital in New Jersey, she delivered a dead fetus.

- - This is simply ridiculous. Brigham not only commits these wrong doings but tries to evade punishment, or blame altogether. He also has the audacity to claim that New Jersey and Maryland have no grounds what-so-ever to punish him. He's wrong. He is obviously putting the health and safety of his patients at risk. Hopefully the New Jersey board of Medical Examiners strips Brigham of his license to practice medicine permanently.

NYC teens charged with anti-Muslim hate crime

In a middle school in New York City, four boys bullied another boy by calling him a "terrorist," punching him in the groin, and spitting in his face. He only told his parents after learning that two of his tormentors would be going to the same high school.

This disgusting crime sparked interesting responses in the article's blog. If you follow the link, you will see that some people commented on the grossness of the crime, but an equal number of others disregarded the bullying and added a few hateful comments themselves.

I know that coming from the Bay Area, people on this blog are typically fairly liberal, but do you think that the anti-Muslim feeling is at all justified or rational? Second, what could help solve this new racist sentiment? Is there an answer?

Scandalist Alaska

Lets talk about Alaska.  The most interesting political characters always seem to come from Alaska.  No I’m not talking about Palin this time, but the senator Joe Miller. Mr. Miller stated in a statement about a week ago that he would support  a repeal of the 17th amendment.  He claimed that by repealing the 17th amendmentwilling to point out the problem in Miller’s policy, yes even in Alaska.  In fact Senator  Murkowski, who is a republican herself, and the Mayor of Sitka, who is a democrat named Scott McAdams, both agree that repealing the 17th amendment is not in the people’s best interest.  he would be allowing the “direct election of senators by the public rather than by state legislatures” (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/10/joe-miller-id-back-repeal-of-1.html).  Now I’m not sure if Joe Miller really understands the importance of the 17th amendment.  Ironically the 17th Amendment allows a direct vote of the people to decide the senator during election years.  This was a huge change from what the founding fathers thought was the best thing to do.  The original constitution allows the state legislator to vote in the senators.   Even though the founding fathers “believed that having a state legislator elect senators would strengthen the relationship between the states and the national government” in practice this article allowed more corruption (O’Connor, 87) .  Having Joe Miller in favor of repealing the 17th amendment, which only allows the state legislator to fill a vacancy until the next election, is not a huge threat to the election process but it does shed a negative light Alaska’s republican politics.  Thankfully there are still some  who see the importance of the 17th amendment and are

It’s just really sad that a person who clearly does not completely understand the policy and openly calls the living constitution “bullshit” is running for an office this far into the game.  It is obvious that Joe Miller is getting frustrated with the way the government is run, which is something I can relate to completely, but I don’t believe that by allowing the local government to once again elect the Senators will solve any of our problems. 
If anything it would help the government get farther way from the people and give much more room for corruption. Miller may be trying to change the 17th amendment by not having the State legislator vote in a replacement Senator if there is a vacancy.  Unfortunately that ideal is not very practical.  Having a vote that comes up spontaneously, even if it is in a state as small as Alaska would not only be very difficult to do efficiently, but also very time consuming. This would be a very costly and confusing campaign that would leave everyone frustrated.   

One more thing to add that’s a little random but funny, Sarah Palin supports Joe Miller.  

Video games help schools get kids moving

At Conlee Elementary School in Las Cruces, NM, students now start off their school day by playing five minutes of Just Dance, a Nintendo Wii video game. On average, this new strategy has succeeded in fewer tardies, but it looks to do more. Researchers are experimenting on whether to incorporate video games into other aspects of school, like PE, and some even believe that an active video game before math and spelling may improve performance. They argue that these games are better than sitting, children learn better when they are having fun, and that it allows students without the space or means to exercise.

Despite these beliefs, I wonder if increasing video game time is really better for future children. Video games are part of the problem of obesity and a sedentary life style, so shouldn't they be discouraged instead of promoted at school? Might video games in school teach children bad habits that they would have avoided otherwise?

What do you think? Will video games in school be helpful or hurtful for students? Will this effort raise or lower the rate of obesity?

"There's no such thing as bad publicity"

I think otherwise.

Over the past weekend, President Obama was at a rally at Philidelphia's Vernon Park to convince Democrats to "Get Out The Vote". During the rally, an author had thrown a copy of his book at Obama. Although the book missed, the Secret Service interviewed the author (according to Mark Knoller of CBS) . The author claimed that he did not intend to cause any harm but wanted to make sure that President Obama had a copy of his book. After questioning the author, the Secret Service released the him.

At least this man had clothes on. Earlier on during the weekend campaign, a streaker ran in front of Obama. The streaker is revealed to be Juan James Rodriguez. Rodriguez sprinted in front of Obama with no clothes and with a website written on his chest. Apparently, the website offered $1 million dollars to anyone who could successfully pull of this publicity stunt. Rodriguez was arrested.

What are your thoughts on this? Personally. I think that this is simply ridiculous, and I think the author of the book, although a strong supporter of Obama should have been given a fine or some sort of mild punishment. Throwing objects at the President of the United States is simply something you do not do. The streaker on the other hand, should receive a more extreme punishment. It was simply an act of outright stupidity and I'm sure it's illegal. Simply walking around stark naked in public is a violation of the law; So, sprinting stark naked in front of the President is definitely going to involve some legal issues. The President of the United States is a figure not to be disrespected. (In fact, no one deserves to have a book thrown at them or a streaker run in front of them.) It's really sad to know people would do really dumb things for money.

Links:
Video

Back to Basics: Schoolhouse Rock!

Just in case anyone was still unclear about how the electoral college works, or if you just want a nostalgic reminder of your youthful childhood, or if you just straight up love Schoolhouse Rock, check this out!!



Thanks so much for reading my blogs everyone, cheers :)

The Sky Is No Longer The Limit

This Sunday marked the World's first manned commercial spacecraft flight! Although to be fair, the pilots were the only ones on board.

The spaceship, VSS Enterprise, completed a successful free flight from a mothership at 45,000 feet to a landing in Mojave, California. Eventually in the future, the rocket plane will be shot 60,000 feet above the earth and fire rockets to propel itself into space. It is expected that in 2011 it will go first to a free glide and then to a powered flight before commercial flights will commence.

"Virgin Galactic is now well on the way to becoming the world's first commercial space line with 370 customer deposits totaling $50 million," the company Virgin Galactic that was behind the flight said.

Virgin has stated that they believe that when their commercial flights go into full action, there will be one flight a week for the spaceship, with six tourists aboard on each flight.

Each passenger has to pay $200,000 for the ride. Approximately 80,000 people have already placed their names on the waiting list for seats.

They hope the onset of the technology will lead to a new way of traveling, by jetting people across continents and oceans faster by using suborbital routes. (so cool!)

Can I just say, this is AWESOME. We are finally approaching the much-anticipated futuristic space age people in the 1980's pictured when they thought of the 2000's (aka "Back to the Future"). In my opinion, this is a pretty BIG deal. In a few years, regular people (well regular really really rich people) will be able to casually fly into space, and hopefully a few years after that, actually normal income-level people will be able to travel to space! Virgin has also said that affordability is one of their ultimate goals. "What we want to be able to do is bring space travel down to a price range where hundreds of thousands of people would be able to experience space, and they never dreamed that (they) could."

Is it just me or has space enthusiasm completely died down in the past few years? I feel as if it is very rare for people in our generation to get really excited over space. What do you think is the reason for that? It may not be man landing on the moon, but crazy stuff like this VSS Enterprise flight is happening! I say we get more excited about space, it is the future of humanity after all. What do you think?

Social Security Payments Unlikely to Rise in 2011

This week the government is expected to announce that over 58 million Social Security recipients will go through yet another year without an increase in their monthly benefits.

2010 and 2011 are and will be the first two years without an automatic adjustment for inflation since the policy was adopted in 1975.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, this is yet another blow to the Democratic political part, and is also really unfortunate timing considering it is two weeks before election.

Former deputy commissioner at the Social Security Administration, Andrew Biggs, said, "It's not the congressional Democrats' fault, but that's the way politics works."

The cost-of-living adjustments, aka COLAs, are typically automatically set by an inflation measure passed by Congress in 1975. The projection of the COLA for 2011 will be made official this Friday when the Bureau of Labor Statistics releases the inflation estimates for September.

Despite Democrats running political ads/press conferences that accuse Republicans of planning on privatizing the national retirement program, the announcement about the lack of Social Security benefits is of more immediate concern to elderly Americans. Many haven't had a raise since 2009 and will probably not be getting another one until 2012. I predict Republicans will take this story and run with it as another "piece of evidence" that the Democrats are not doing a good job in Congress. But really, no matter what party is in power of the House and the Senate in the midst of this country's economic status, they can never win.

President Obama did lobby for another one-time bonus payment, similar to the $250 bonus in 2009, when it became clear that there would be no increase in monthly benefit payments for 2010. Congress, however, shot the idea down when 12 Democrats and 1 Independent sided with the Republicans in the Senate.

Congress is in a sticky situation. I think everyone is. The country is in a recession and the federal government is broke. Should Congress spend money they don't have on Social Security to help stimulate the economy? From the looks of it, they aren't going to do that, but what's your point of view? Do you disagree? Do the costs outweigh the benefits?

A Brit Pushing for Healthier Lunches in American Schools - at least someones advocating for it!

International celebrity chef Jamie Oliver, aka the "Naked Chef", is the most recognized face when it comes to advocating for healthier food in American schools. He began his "food revolution" in the UK and has now worked his way to the US. He won the TED (Technology Entertainment and Design) prize in 2010 for his campaigns to "create change on both the individual and governmental level," and to "bring attention to the changes Englanders and now Americans need to make in their lifestyles and diet."

Recently, Oliver has been known in the US for his Emmy award-winning t.v. series "Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution."

The only sad part about Jamie Oliver's American food revolution, is that a British man is leading it. In my opinion, its a little pathetic that we have to rely on a person from another country to help get our act together regarding food consumption among the American people. We undoubtedly have the capacity to do it, but so far the only person who has stepped up to the plate isn't even American himself. I have the utmost respect for Jamie Oliver and the change he is making, and its inspiring to know that people outside of America care enough to want to make a change and help us out.

The percentage of children and adolescents who are defined as overweight has more than doubled since the early 1970's. Nearly 2/3 of American adults are overweight, and a 1/3 of Americans are considered obese. Two thirds of America is overweight!!

Clearly, something HAS to be done. Schools, where the government can control children's food intake, is an excellent place to begin.

Regarding Aragon, I honestly am a little in the dark about our school lunch program because I bring my own every day. Do you think Aragon's school lunch program needs improvement? What/how would you change it?

Come on America, lets join together and get this food revolution going above and beyond this wonderful British lad!

Should the government regulate junk food in schools, or should children be allowed to choose what they eat? Is putting regulations on school lunches a strategic place to begin improving this country's obesity problem? I say yes, but let me know what you think!

New York Governor Candidate's Anti-Gay Remark

Gubernatorial candidate, Carl Paladino, made A LOT of anti gay remarks to a synagogue in Brooklyn. He stated that he does not want his kids, or any other kids, to think homosexuality is acceptable. One line he did not say in his speech, but was originally going to say, was "There is nothing to be proud of in being a dysfunctional homosexual." What?!?!?!?!? That, to me, is the equivalent of saying there is nothing to be proud of in being a certain type of race. To me, the sting of a comment on your race or sexuality is no different. My advice for Paladino is that you can't say a comment like that or even consider saying something like that if you want to be taken seriously. He is entitled to his opinion, I understand that. But when it gets to bigotry and obnoxious comments, a person needs to know when to stop. Paladino clearly does not know when to draw the line. After all these comments were publicized, Paladino's manager said that Paladino is not homophobic. He may not be homophobic, but comments like those don't exactly make him sound like he welcomes gays.

Paladino also has comments about how God didn't create people to be gay or lesbian. I don't really know how to address that, so I'll leave that up to you guys.

Paladino does not mean for any violence to be taken against gay or lesbian people, he is simply expressing his views. Also, Paladino's opponent, Andrew Cuomo, has gotten a lead in the race. Do you think Paladino's comments are a source for this lead? What do you think will happen in this election? Also, do those comments sound homophobic to you? I know that I will be keeping an eye out to see who will win New York's race for governor!

Chilean miners final hours

This is a good model for the U.S. to follow when we have natural disasters or just mine cave ins. Two months ago a Chilean mine had a terrifying rock collapse, where 33 miners were trapped. To ensure that every miner came out alive and was healthy during thee two months, the miners' physical and mental health was being fastidiously monitored. The people watching over the 33 miner took precautions against all matters of complications. They provided aspirin to prevent blood clots, a specail drink to settle the stomach, and video monitors to watch for panic attacks. They are taking very specail of these 33 men and really have their lives being watched out for which is great. I feel that if something happened like this we wouldn't of been so responsive and watched them 24/7.

Even as they plan to take the men out the are checking everything and planning everything to makes sure these guys are as healthy or even healthier, an exaggeration, then when they went into the mine. They have them taking test to asses their health, they are planning for all the differences from being underground and being above ground. They are planning on giving them glaasses if them come out during the day, sweaters for the men who come out at night, they will have oxygen as they come out of the mine in a capsule that will rotate 350 degrees 10 to 12 times. As soon as they are out they will again have a quick medical check and then be rushed to the nearest hospital 15 minutes away and put in a ward as dark as a movie theater.

The trip up is suppose to take 20 minutes, but if the hole was just vertical it would of cut the time in half. They had to reinforce the top few hundred feet of the escape hole with a steel sleeve. However, some of the family members desired that the whole escape hole be reinforced, but that would take another week and geologist say there is no need for that. The thing is, i would find it so much better just to be safe and reinforce the whole hole because if there was another cave in that would be horrilbe and these men lives are worth another week of waiting. However, the capsule has spring-loaded tires which will stick to the wall and hold it better and they are cutting into virgin rock which means it is unlikely for a cave in because that rock has never been touched.

I find, how responsive and caring the Chilean government is to this, very heartfelt and nice. This really shows that they care about their people and find every life precious and want to make sure these men are healthy as can be. I really think the U.S. should look at this and be like, wow we should be like this because than people will trust us to be there and care about them when that help is needed.

Will GOP gains bring more cooperation?

As election day nears, both the Democrats and Republicans are inching to discover what the new wave of elected officials shall bring.

White House senior adviser David Axelrod told a CBS program that he hoped more Republican gains would bring more cooperation. He also accused Republicans of intentional obstruction since President Obama took office last year along with Democratic majorities is the House and the Senate.

"The posture of the Republican Party from the moment we got here has been basically to deprive the president of bipartisan support so they could accuse him of not being bipartisan," Axelrod said.

Ed Gillespie, former Republican National Committee chairman, stated that there would be a continued hard-line GOP stance on issues regarding spending. "If they can find some areas where you can get spending restraint with this administration, Republicans would be happy to go along with that," Gillespie said.

I find it very unlikely that GOP gains will translate to greater bipartisan cooperation. On the other hand, I think it would probably have the adverse effect of creating even more discrepancies. The political climate at this point in time seems very black and white between the two political parties, and I believe having an even more balanced amount of representatives from both political parties will only ignite an even bigger influx of convoluted controversies in Congress.

Do you think GOP gains will bring more or less cooperation? Do you believe its beneficial to have a more balanced Congress regarding political parties?

The Problem with Expectations

It's nice every now and then to think you know how things are going to turn out. I'm pretty sure that's why most of us do what we do, the expectation that things are going to go our way. I mean, why would you try something at all if you knew the end result would be failure?

Expectations bombard us constantly throughout our lives. Your parents (generally) expect to see that you have a happy life and a happy future. You expect that going to school and working hard will reward you with a lucrative career, or a career that will make you happy. But expectations can sometimes be harmful. Expecting something to make you happy if you haven't really experienced it yet, for example, is a recipe for disaster. So, for example, you've got a pretty clear idea of what you're doing to get this new job you've been thinking about, and you figure that it'd be a waste of time to take that internship because you think you know what it is you are getting into, and then when you get there you find out that it wasn't all that you dreamed it would be. So where did all that work go? It probably won't feel so great that all of that just happened, but there isn't much to do about it besides just getting back up and doing the whole thing over again with a different goal.

It's not secret that things don't always go the way we want them. Plans change as often as minds about trivial or inconsequential topics do. Expecting that one must stay on the same road all their life may be fine for some, but I think it's pretty safe to assume that most are not content with monotony. The fact that on average, people will have 7-10 occupations throughout their lifetime is evidence of that.

I think what I'm trying to say is that you shouldn't get upset if things don't go your way or if you have to adjust your plans. It's important to be able to adapt to changes in your environment. Being able to do so in the past ensured the survival of the human race as a species. The importance of being able to do so in this day and age is not any less important than it was then. I'm not saying you shouldn't ever expect anything, because the prospect of doing so seems unrealistic. But it's important to be able to carry on, even if things don't seem to go your way. Ups and downs are part of life's package, and if you find that you're currently in the middle of a down slope, just remember that it's going to pull up eventually.


Links
Al Turtle's Relationship Wisdom
Adolescence and the problem of parental expectations

Disapering Jobs

This will only be a worry for seniors, and other people that are choosing their career late, that are deciding to take up a career in the jobs i am soon to list.

In the next decade employment is expected to go up 10 percent, but some professions are actually expected to shrink in jobs. As we high school seniors begin looking for a school we desire to go to and what we would like to major in, we should take some considerations into mind. It would be a good idea research, the field of work you want to get into, a little more to see: what the fastest- growing jobs are, what jobs maybe be disappearing, what those jobs pay, and if there are alternatives for a degree in that field. Although you won't have to worry about going to work for the profession that you are bettering your skills in, it's good to look into it now so that you don't waste thousands of dollars just to stand in the unemployment line because you lost your job.

Here is a list of disappearing jobs that some people may have been thinking of getting into: Reporters and Correspondents, Insurance Underwriters, Computer Programmers, Judges, Chemical Engineers, Advertising and Promotions Managers. Although some of these jobs may not be relevant to you, some of these a lot of people wan to get into.

For Reporters and Correspondents, it is expected that in the next decade they will lose 8 percent of their jobs. The reason for this is the the industry is shrinking because consolidation and convergence. Many news outlets share their content so they have less of a demand for reporters and correspondents. The next best thing is to work for a smaller, local news outlet or become a journalist, either one is better.

For Insurance Underwriters, which i find unimportant, they are expected in the next decade to lose 4 percent of jobs. The reason for this is that technology is becoming better and more efficient and there is less of a demand for and Insurance Underwriter. The next best thing to do is to go into finance, you have more of a chance there.

For Computer Programmers, they are expected in the next decade to lose 3 percent of theirs jobs. To clear this up, the guys who write the software, their jobs are expected to rise 32 percent, while the guys who write the instructions for how to use that computer software, their jobs are the one who are expected to decline 3 percent. The reason for this decline is because there is really no need for these people when the programmer can just do it him self. The next best thing would be, if you knew multiple programming languages and tools that would help you get a good job.

For Judges, they are expected in the next decade to lose 3 percent of their jobs. The whole reason for this is budgets, the federal government, the states, the cities, and towns are all strapped for cash and are slashing judges jobs. The next best thing is to go into the private sector which pays significantly better.

For Chemical Engineers, they are expected in the next decade to lose 2 percent of their jobs. The reason for this is the same as judges, the industries are low on money and need to make cutbacks. Also, companies rather contract engineers or outsource work to English-speaking engineers outside the U.S., who are willing to work for lower wages. The next best thing is to jsut go into another engineering job, really it's kind of dificult, but biomedical is going to see a huge rise in jobs over the next decade.

Last, for Advertising and Promotions Managers, they are expected in the next decade to lose 2 percent of their jobs. Let me clear this up as well, marketing promotions and PR is expected to rise 12 percent, while those who direct a firm's ad campaigns and promotions aimed at driving sales, are the ones that are expected to fall. The decline in jobs in this industry is due to the economy and and the changing landscape of the media business. IF you are very creative, have strong communication and computer skills and can adapt to news media fast you can find a job in a lot of fields.

So i know this may not be important to anybody really, but it is showing that there are a lot of jobs out there that are disappearing due to the economy and the bettering of technology.

Do People Believe Bush is a Better President than Obama?

CNN recently took a poll to see whether people believe that President Bush did better than President Obama in office. Obama got 47% of the vote and Bush got 45% of the vote, so it was a very, very close poll. These are pretty surprising numbers, because not too long ago it used to be a different story. This poll does not mean that Americans regret their decision of electing Obama. 50% of the voters said that they believe Obama is doing a better job than McCain would have done. However, independents largely disapprove of the job Obama is doing which is not good because he does need their votes.

Moreover, "[i]n the fight for control of Congress, 52 percent of likely voters say they would vote for the generic Republican candidate in their district if the election were held today, with 45 percent saying they would back the Democrat." The gap has been closed since last month, but it's still a large gap. A lot of blue collar white voters will be voting Republican this time around.

Another interesting gap in the CNN poll is the gender gap. More women are voting Democratic while more men will be voting Republican. There is also a gap in enthusiasm. More Republicans are "enthusiastic" or "very enthusiastic" while Democrats only moderately feel that way. I'm worried for future elections because there is doubt in my mind that Obama might not have a second term. I don't think people are giving Obama a chance because they expect everything to be fixed in an instant. Unfortunately, people are impeding his agenda.

What do you guys think will happen in the 2010 and 2012 elections? Do you think Republicans will gain the house? Will Obama still be our president or will we have a Republican this time? Why do you think the Republicans tactics to make Obama look bad working?

$22.3 million of our parent's money was lost

This is maybe one of the most stupidest ways for the government to lose our parents tax paying money. It was found that the Social Security Administrations sent out more than 89,000 stimulus payments of $250 each to people who were either dead or in prison. These payments were a part of last year's massive economic recovery package that were meant to increase consumer spending to help stimulate the economy; however, when you give money to people that are unable to spend this money because they are either dead or incarcerated, it doesn't work because they can't spend it. I don't understand why tax payers money was being sent to people in-order to stimulate the economy. Yeah i understand the money is meant for people's social security and many of those people are living on that money, but they usually save it or spend that money on things really important such as food.

72,000 of those people that received that money, which was about $18 million, went to people who were dead. However, it was reported that a little more than half of those payments were returned. I don't get what happen to the other 36,000 payments that were given out. Can family members of the deceased actually use those checks even though they aren't the person that the check was issued to. Also, the other 17,000 people that received hat money, which was an additional $4.3 million, went to people who were in prison. The reason they received their checks was because they were newly incarcerated and had been receiving social security before they were locked up.

These mistakes may have only been .02% inaccurate from the 99.8% that were accurate, but that .02% translated into money is $22.3 million. The Social Security Administration's inspector general should be more up to date with these things. This is not only the SSA's fault but also Congress' fault to for not fully thinking through the provisions needed to govern these payments. If both groups were on top of everything, they would have not lost 22.3 million dollars and everything still would of been fine. How are we expected to et out of this recession when programs like the SSA are losing large amounts of money.

Tom Coburn R-Okla summed up how i feel "These findings are yet another example of congressional stupidity and a lack of accountability." Also, the SSA was trying to brag that they finished and sent out checks earlier which was a major accomplishment for they agency; however, maybe all the fast work was the reason for their screw up.

There are many thins to consider to the fault for this but i feel it was the agency issuing payments about 30 days earlier that they had to was the reason why there was this 22.3 million dollar mess up.

US Economy Still Stuck in the Mud - shocker

According to the Labor Department, the USA has lost an additional 95,000 jobs in September alone. As you can see by the graph, there were actually 159,000 government jobs lost, however, there were 64,000 jobs created by businesses. A big chunk of those 159,000 jobs were 77,000 temporary census jobs, which was not too shocking. There were, however, a record number of jobs lost at a state and local level, with September's numbers reaching 83,000 job cuts, the worst decline since 1982 (58,000 of those cuts were TEACHERS/other education workers).

The underemployment rate, which includes both discouraged people without jobs and those who work part time but want a full-time position, went from 16.7% in August to 17.1% this September. With that said, 1 in 6 adults are without the job they want or need.

Unemployment rate, which measures solely people who are actively searching for work, remained the same at 9.6%.

So is the economy still stuck in the mud??

Most economists argue yes, saying we have neither lost or gained improvement. The huge influx of government jobs in the spring accounted for the 564,000 temporary census jobs. There is, however, some tiny glimmer of hope. When you take census jobs completely out of the picture, September was the only month in 2010 that had a decline in jobs.

In my opinion, although there are a great deal of jobs within the government, it is not only up to them but also to the private business sector to help stimulate the economy. Currently, many businesses are still hiring temps, and although that is expected during the uncertain status of the economy, many economists argue that "it should have transitioned into permanent jobs by now."

We're in a pretty complicated mess. Its hard for government to create jobs when they already are completely broke, and yet at the same time its not easy for businesses to produce jobs at a time when their revenues are being slashed by the thousands, and in some cases millions.

So who's to blame? Congress? Big monopoly businesses? Oversea workers? Obama? Or simply everyone from the past 15 years involved in capitalism and government?

"Militant Terrorist Takeover" Rant

How does someone expect to win a seat in the Senate when they accuse people of things that are not true. Recently, Las Vegas U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle told a crowd of supporters that the country needs to address a "militant terrorist situation" that has allowed Islamic religious law to take hold in some American cities. I find this accusation to be outrageous because how does she know for sure that there is a situation. This accusation reminds me of the Red Scare, where people accused hundreds of other people of being communist, even though most were not.

However, i feel she was egged on into saying this when she was asked about how she felt about Muslims angling to take over the country. What happen was that a man was heard, on a recording by Mesquite Local News, asking Angle "I keep hearing about Muslims wanting to take over the United States... on a TV program just last night, I saw that they are taking over a city in Michigan and the residents of the city, they want them out. They want them out. So, I want to hear your thoughts about that." Angle responds by saying "we're talking about a militant terrorist situation, which i believe it isn't a widespread thing, but it is enough that we need to address, and we have been addressing it."

I don't find anything Angel said, except for the "Militant Terrorist Situation" thing, to be wrong; i say the man that asked her the question was hoping she would say something to make herself look bad. I don't feel she was completely informed on this incident, i think she just went off of what the man said to her and answered the question from the little information she knew. Although, she could have just said she doesn't know enough about this topic to make a thorough accusation, which still would of looked bad because she should know whats going on around the United States, but i would of found that answer much more desirable than the other.

However, i think she didn't need to go as far as comparing 9/11 to the Nazi Holocaust. Yeah i found 9/11 to be very tragic and horrible, it is nothing compared to what happened during the Nazi Holocaust. She said that the community center that Muslims want to build near ground zero, which i find not such a good thing, is just like when a Catholic church was wanted to be built over where Auschwitz, and old concentration camp during the Nazi Holocaust. I didn't understand this comparison and felt it was unneeded. I had some remorse for Angle because i felt that she was poorly informed, but her outrageous comments were uncalled for and made her look like a bad representation for Nevada's seat in the Senate.

This was just a very bad statement, that she must live with, which may result in her losing the race for senate. I feel that spokesman Kelly Steele puts this whole situation into a good statement "The fact that Sharron Angle believes American cities have been taken over by militant terrorist organizations that are ruling our citizens under Sharia law shows a terrifying lack of connection with reality and a willingness to subscribe to conspiracy theories that demonstrates she's far too extreme and dangerous to represent Nevada in the U.S. Senate."

Cell Phone Picture Leads to Girl's Death

This is really, really sad. 13 year old, Hope Witsell committed suicide because so many kids were bullying her and calling her a "whore" or "slut." One of Hope's friend said that Hope couldn't even walk in the hallway without someone pushing or shoving her into a locker. The reason for all this bullying was that Hope had sent a sexual picture of herself to her boyfriend. Well, another girl got her hands on the photo and sent it to SIX different schools in the area. Kids started to create a Burn Book (like the one from Mean Girls) to write wretched things about Hope. They also created facebook page called "Hope Hater Page." Throughout all of this, Hope kept quiet and didn't say a word.

Then, on a Saturday, Hope went up to her room after helping her father mow the lawn and hanged herself. Hope's mother went up and saw her 13 year old daughter dead. Apparently the school made Hope sign a "no harm" contract which would make Hope talk to an adult if she felt like harming herself. Hope's mother said that she was never aware of this contract.

After all of this, Hope's older sister, Samantha Beattie, found out that the bullying had not stopped even though Hope had committed suicide because of it. Kids were taking to their facebooks saying "Did Hope really kill herself?" and "I can't believe that whore did that."

Dear Lord! This is absolutely wretched. I don't understand why all these kids are so concerned with what Hope is doing. I don't understand why they would do that to a 13 year old girl. It's none of their business. What's worse is that they didn't stop after she died! They still went after her. That's what put this over the top. The poor girl felt that death was her only escape, and after this tragic death, they still had the AUDACITY to say these wretched, horrendous things.

Why do you think kids are willing to hurt other kids and send private things like these and make them public? Why didn't these kids stop after she died?

Man oh man, please, please, please don't post provocative pictures up! And if you do, always make sure you know what you're doing and that it won't end up in the wrong hands.

Americans Views on Gay Marriage

I was on cnn.com when I came across an article that caught my eye. Apparently fewer than half of Americans oppose gay marriage according to a poll. The poll was released by Pew Research Center, so it does have some credibility. The poll did reveal more than Americans views on gay marriage. It showed that white mainline Protestants and white Catholics favored gay marriage more than they opposed it, which is a first for the poll. Furthermore, independents who were against gay marriage last year are now divided over the issue. Last year,"In polls conducted in 2009, 37 percent favored gay marriage while 54 percent were opposed." What a stark contrast! 60% of Americans supported letting gays and lesbians serve in the military. I think repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell is necessary now because there is so much support for gays and lesbians to serve. Why so do you think people are opposed to gays and lesbians serving?

Not surprisingly, 53% of Democrats support gay marriage and only 24% of Republicans support it. Americans born after the 80s support it by 53%, and Americans born between 1928 and 1945 opposed it by 59%! None of these findings are surprising to me, but they are interesting.

Why do you think this change is happening? And, why do you think white mainline Protestants favor gay marriage rather than oppose it like they used? Also, what errors do you think the poll could have made?

I really like this change, and I hope that America legalizes gay marriage!

Logic, Emotion, and Something in Between

I found my motivation for this topic to be the Governor's debate we (AP students) were assigned to watch. It seemed that it was about half what the candidates were proposing to do, and the other half was name-calling.

• Logic - "Reason or sound judgment"

• Emotion - "An affective state of consciousness in which joy, sorrow, fear, hate, or the like, is experienced, as distinguished from cognitive and volitional states of consciousness."

Not to insult your intelligence, but I felt definitions were necessary. Some see logic and emotion to be polar opposites, others see them to be different sides of the same coin. Fair arguments, since as far as I can tell, the two aren't even used in the same subjects. Science and mathematics call for logic, while literature (and at times, social studies and politics) typically call(s) for emotion.

All good things in moderation (whichever of the two poisons you prefer), a balance is of course absolutely necessary. However, I feel that in many cases, this balance is disregarded in favor of emphasis over one side or the other. Those with firm logical backgrounds may find their emotions guided by their logic, or a total lack of control over their emotion at all when presented with a scenario that requires the use of emotion. One well versed in emotion, as well, may find their logic affected or guided by their emotion, etc. I feel that not enough of us appreciate (or try to apply) the importance of having balance between the two.

Simply put, too much logic is bad. Why? Applying too much logic (at least, what it's supposed to be) alienates the emotional. An example, whether or not you think people should wear furry jackets instead of hoodies. That's your opinion, and no one should be able to tell you that you're stupid for your opinion. But it works both ways. Arguing your point to an opponent of your viewpoint is a waste of time, since you can't defeat opinions like you can defeat facts. Opinions are supposed to be different. People are also particularly offended when you try to attribute certain traits to them based on given labels, regardless of whether or not there is actual, seemingly valid scientific evidence in favor of the argument. It's just sometimes easier to say that everyone has the same opportunity, since hopelessness or other forms of negative emotion can set in pretty easily when you start to realize that things you cannot control affect quality of life. And that's for either side, for the emotional or the logical. It goes without saying that some scientific facts are offensive, and the truth hurts. If that fact means things are favorable for you, then consider how you'd feel if someone said the same thing about you. That somehow, you were inferior, for a lifestyle or something you couldn't control. That there's a standard you're "supposed" to be living up to in order to matter; I'm under the assumption that we prefer when things are fair.

Too much emotion is bad, as well. True, emotion is what makes us human and it's one of the thing everyone is born with. But consider this: a friend goes up to you and tells you one of your other friends is spreading spiteful rumors about you. Without considering the contrary, you confront them on it and an argument breaks out. Then a fight, and the problems from there keep escalating until you two are no longer talking. Now, is that really fair? Instead, you could have considered a more controlled route and you could have asked the accused of whether or not they were guilty. Not satisfied with their answer? Try to get more people to corroborate with the story of the accuser or accused. But reacting to the first emotional impulse without trying a logical approach just creates problems. You don't need to return every punch, especially if punishment for the other party will come even if you don't respond. It's as simple as just thinking before you act.

If balance were applied, then maybe, for example, politics would not be such a fiery issue. It's more logical to accept a person's views, regardless of how they conflict with yours, than to feel an obligation to make them more like yours. There's nothing wrong with debate, but I find too often people treat political arguments the same way they treat religious ones: differences in opinion spur anger or an unwillingness to consider the other side's validity.

Links/References

Definitions courtesy of dictionary.com (didn't have a dictionary handy)

Balancing Emotion, Logic - Key to Success (in Business)

Balancing Logic and Emotion in Trust and Politics

Aggression in Politics

Emotion vs. Logic

The "First Dude"

So i fell upon this news story explaining that on september 19, after Joe Miller had an interview with Fox News by Sunday's Chris Wallace, that Sarah Palin's husband, Todd Palin (also known as the "First Dude"), sent "an angry email to Joe Miller. The email was said to be sent because, the GOP Senate nominee, Joe Miller, was less than enthusiastic in his appraisal of a possible Sarah Palin 2012 presidential bid. First of all, i don't get why he is sending the email when this problem is clearly between his wife, Sarah Palin, and Joe Miller. Yeah he is standing up for his wife, but all this does is make him look back which then makes Sarah Palin look bad, and no one wants a president with a husband that may send every person in the country an email for every time they bad mouth her.

In his email he explains how Sarah did so much for Joe to endorse him and that to him it looked like this endorsement stuff was one sided do to Joe Miller's response when asked if Sarah Palin was a good candidate. Incase you don't know what he said, Chris Wallace asked Miller if Palin was "qualified to be president." Miller replied by saying, "That's not my role to comment on those candidates." I can see his unwillingness to not answer the question as bad because it means first of all your not supporting someone that supported you and then it means your not sure of that person.

The next thing that surprised me was that when Todd Palin talked to Matt Continetti of Weekly Standards, he downplayed the email. He tried to play off the email as a mistake and that he got his information wrong and that he was wrong about Joe. I know all of this isn't true, he is just going out there and redeeming himself because he embarrassed himself and his wife and he needed to fix it by saying he was wrong. Also, after replying to the email on September 22, Joe Miller was again asked about Palin's 2012 presidential chances by Fox News's Neil Cavuto. Joe didn't alter his position but he did add, "There are a lot of great candidates out there... Certainly Palin is at the top if the ticket." I know he added that to make himself look like the bigger person and to show that he supports Palin somewhat but still believes that "... this is not a race about Palin."

I feel that all of this was so pointless because Todd Palin just turned around and said the email was a mistake because he misunderstood Miller and that Miller wanted to make himself look better by saying Palin is a good candidate. Really what's the truth, because i can't tell.

Trolls. Do not feed them.

Have you ever gone on an online forum, posted a huge response on a controversial issue, and have someone post something completely irrelevant or stupid in response? More specifically, was it hurtful, or did it seem particularly inflammatory or unnecessarily confrontational? If you've spent any time on the internet at all, you've probably at one point or another encountered a troll.

Bear in mind that some of the information regarding trolls is horribly graphic, and quite dangerous for me to post about, so I'm restricted to very basic explanations. According to Encyclopaedia Dramatica (do yourself a favor and avoid that website), a troll is "most commonly encountered on the internet... any person who purposely causes controversy in a web community." Basically, the definition speaks for itself. A jerk on the internet. Someone who will fight an argument by using your sexual orientation, regardless of whether or not you've even mentioned it at all. Someone who can and will ignore all your carefully picked arguments just to spite you. You know, like arguing with a fool, except these guys know exactly what they're doing.

I think basically, trolls are the direct result of those who were bullied, harassed, or picked on by tougher people (i.e. insert random high school stereotype above "geek" on the social ladder) from the generation in which being technologically savvy was looked extremely unfavorably upon. Being unable to fight back in person, they had to get clever. And there it was: the internet. A vast expanse of anonymity that these people could utilize to stage their revenge. Trolling can range in severity from a simple "brittney sux" in a forum dedicated to the iconic pop idol, to something as thoughtless and evil as the mockery of a teen who committed suicide (see links at the bottom). FOX News has done segments on Trolls and Trolling, but sadly a lot of the information is quite... for lack of a better phrase, just incorrect.

The dangers of trolling can go far beyond just simple bouts of online "flaming," however. Some examples of extreme trolling include Denial of Service Attacks (DoS), Dedicated Denial of Service Attacks (DDoS), and hacking. 4chan, an image board website based on the popular Japanese 2chan, is commonly accredited to being the biggest cesspit full of trolls and hatred on the internet (and in my opinion, the world).

Trolling, which can be compared to online bullying in some respects (thought notably more sinister), is easy to avoid. First of all, I really don't know what to say other than it's just the internet. These people don't really affect you in any way for the most part, so why does their opinion matter? I find it personally helps me to ignore them just by knowing that their intent is simply to annoy me. Secondly, don't respond to them. And I can't stress this enough.

DO NOT ARGUE WITH A TROLL. IT MEANS THEY WIN.

DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS.

So, there you have it. What do I think of trolls? I'm not really sure. I'm somewhat ambivalent on the topic. I can't help but wonder if maybe trolls are kind of like the internet's rendition of natural selection, like a twisted form of antibody for the organism that is the Internet. But I also think that perhaps trolls represent an inborn evil in all of us that comes to the surface when you push a human to their limits. Not only that inborn evil, but how captivating it is to give in to it. But make no mistake, trolls are dangerous. Bank accounts have been frozen, lives have literally been ruined by them.

Links

"Jessi Slaughter" (A victim of Trolls) on "Good Morning, America"

Example of Severe Trolling

Taliban and Afghan Government in the Process of Peace Talks

The Taliban has recently had a change of heart, and has agreed to talk to the Afghan government to end the war. Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, has often times said that he is willing to talk to insurgents if they "renounce violence, sever ties to terrorists and embrace the Afghan constitution." I don't think he's asking for too much, but I don't think the Taliban will agree to all of Karzai's demands or even a few of them. According to General David Petraeus, reconciling with the Taliban is being pursued by the Afghan government at very high levels. The Afghan government has a 70 member peace council to reconcile with the Taliban. Hopefully something good will come out of this, but I am very doubtful. If it does happen to be successful, I'll be very happy! I think the world needs some peace!

Do you guys think this talk will be successful? Do you think the Afghan government is taking the right steps? Also, do you guys think that Karzai's demands are too much? Why do you think it's taken so long for the Afghan government to finally talk to the Taliban?