My hope for 2010 is that we finally start acting like it is supposed to be the future already. Since my childhood, I have seen that generations before ours have been projecting their notion of the future onto the start of the 21st century. Now were are almost a decade into it, computers and instant communication are more or less the norm, science is working on new breakthroughs, and socially we are all expanding our tolerance for differences. The continued challenge, as I see it, is to continue to embody the synergistic goals that our 1960's sci-fi promised.
I don't think that this shift can be achieved overnight, but I do think that 2010 will be a numerical milestone at the very least, and in my hopes, one that can define how we proceed in the next decade. Mostly, I think we need to keep hope up while we attempt to achieve all these lofty goals. I don't hope for socialism, but I do long for reasonable sociability among strangers and family alike. And I think we are right on target, as long as we don't let our fears and our greed hold us back from the bold choices we will continue to face in the next year. We are each made of billions upon billions of atoms, and we live near one of billions upon billions of stars. Lets find peace this year in that great continuum.
Email Scott
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
My Hope for 2010: David Loftus
I suppose I could hope for something really wonderful and earth-shaking (in human terms, anyway) like an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a world treaty to stop the production of greenhouse gases, or a dependable alternative energy source that replaces petroleum, but none of those seems to be within the realm of possibility within the next year. There are also things I wish to achieve personally in 2010, but those are mostly in my hands; I regard them as closer to plans than hopes.
So my hope is that most Americans will clear up their consumer debt and stop buying things they don’t really need, especially on credit. In the past, about 70 percent of the Gross Domestic Product has depended on consumer spending, but we have to stop measuring economic health this way. It’s become a big, unending, breakneck cycle of production and consumption, mostly for their own sake. One of the great ironies of the past half-century is that corporate America has managed to sell the notion that spending money is an expression of freedom . . . so that citizens overspend on credit, and succeed in losing their freedom to banks, lending companies, and sometimes even the sheriff.
If Americans were to break out of that rut, they would discover subtle but deep psychological and spiritual rewards. Once free of the accumulation-of-debt-in-order-to-keep-consuming cycle, fewer folks would feel tied down to their particular jobs. They’d be more likely to devote their energies to activities -- even work -- that they love, less likely to cling to neglectful and abusive partners, more likely to spend time with their children, and less likely to turn to drugs (from aspirin and shopping and television to alcohol and heroin) in order to get by. And little by little, the world will become a better, happier place. That’s my hope, anyway.
So my hope is that most Americans will clear up their consumer debt and stop buying things they don’t really need, especially on credit. In the past, about 70 percent of the Gross Domestic Product has depended on consumer spending, but we have to stop measuring economic health this way. It’s become a big, unending, breakneck cycle of production and consumption, mostly for their own sake. One of the great ironies of the past half-century is that corporate America has managed to sell the notion that spending money is an expression of freedom . . . so that citizens overspend on credit, and succeed in losing their freedom to banks, lending companies, and sometimes even the sheriff.
If Americans were to break out of that rut, they would discover subtle but deep psychological and spiritual rewards. Once free of the accumulation-of-debt-in-order-to-keep-consuming cycle, fewer folks would feel tied down to their particular jobs. They’d be more likely to devote their energies to activities -- even work -- that they love, less likely to cling to neglectful and abusive partners, more likely to spend time with their children, and less likely to turn to drugs (from aspirin and shopping and television to alcohol and heroin) in order to get by. And little by little, the world will become a better, happier place. That’s my hope, anyway.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Top Five News Stories of the Decade: September 11, 2001
The date alone says it all. Few events can be summed up simply by stating the month and day it occurred, but September 11th has become synonymous with the terror attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center, damaged the Pentagon, and sent an airplane crashing to the earth near Shanksville, PA.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Top Five News Stories of the Decade: Barack Obama Elected President
Barack Obama made history on November 4, 2008 when he became the first African American elected President of the United States. The clip below is from Obama's election night victory speech from Grant Park in Chicago.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Top Five News Stories of the Decade: The Invasion of Iraq
On March 20, 2003 a coalition of nations led by the United States invaded Iraq, in an attempt to disarm the country of weapons of mass destruction. While no weapons of mass destruction were ever found, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was eventually captured and was later executed in 2006. U.S. forces remain in Iraq although President Barack Obama has said most troops will be home by August of 2010.
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Top Five News Stories of the Decade: The Asian Tsunami
Exactly five years ago today, a 9.3 magnitude earthquake – the second largest earthquake ever recorded - hit off the coast of Sumatra, Indonesia. It triggered a tsunami along the coasts of most landmasses bordering the Indian Ocean, killing 226,000 people in eleven countries.
Friday, December 25, 2009
Faith in America: Nikki Lorenzini
Faith is one of the trickiest things out there. You either have it or you don’t. Well, we all have some sort of faith. You have faith that the chair you are sitting in won’t collapse. You have faith that your computer won’t crash, that your bus will show up on time, and that your car will run. Every day, we put our faith in these silly man made things, which we all know will ultimately fail us. Cars will break down, chairs will break, and computers will crash. In my present and former church, when they talked about faith, they always used the example, “You have faith that your pew will hold you up.” Well, the pews in our church are 100 years old, and about a month ago, one broke during service.
Faith is so much more than just believing a chair will hold us up when we sit. When I became a Christian about four years ago, I remember reading in the Bible that “faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” Growing up, I had no clue what this meant. I grew up a shy Catholic, believing everything that I was told. I never really read the Bible. I never got into Mass. Even though I am no longer a practicing Catholic, I still have respect for their reverence during Mass. I felt lost and alone, and I felt like I had no place. So one of my former coworkers invited me to her church, and for once I found what I was looking for. I found that there was a God out there that really did care and who - I finally figured out - I could and should put my trust in Him.
Yes, my faith does lie in Christianity. I do believe that there is a God, and that He did send His Son to die for me. I understand why there are people out there who find it extremely hard to place any faith in God. This world is crazy. People are getting killed, raped, robbed, and abused. On the surface, there seems to be absolutely no reason to believe, but God gave us free will to believe or not to believe. I am at the point where I believe that the people who are committing these horrible acts are so completely lost in their own way that they have no clue where to turn. As a culture, we tend to believe that we can do things on our own and that we do not need anyone’s help, and if we show people we do need help, it is a sign of weakness.
Now, please don’t get me wrong, many Christians do not make it any easier for non-Christians to love God. I remember hearing a quote from Gandhi saying that he would have believed in God if it wasn’t for Christians. Ouch. know that it says in the Bible that we are called first to love God, then our neighbors as we would love ourselves. It says NOT to judge, for however we judge others we will also be judged. So, I apologize if anyone was offended and felt judged by any Christian. I have been judged by people in my own church life and it was not fun. I pray every day that I do not act like that. It’s a struggle
All I know is my own journey with my faith.
Email Nikki
Faith is so much more than just believing a chair will hold us up when we sit. When I became a Christian about four years ago, I remember reading in the Bible that “faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” Growing up, I had no clue what this meant. I grew up a shy Catholic, believing everything that I was told. I never really read the Bible. I never got into Mass. Even though I am no longer a practicing Catholic, I still have respect for their reverence during Mass. I felt lost and alone, and I felt like I had no place. So one of my former coworkers invited me to her church, and for once I found what I was looking for. I found that there was a God out there that really did care and who - I finally figured out - I could and should put my trust in Him.
Yes, my faith does lie in Christianity. I do believe that there is a God, and that He did send His Son to die for me. I understand why there are people out there who find it extremely hard to place any faith in God. This world is crazy. People are getting killed, raped, robbed, and abused. On the surface, there seems to be absolutely no reason to believe, but God gave us free will to believe or not to believe. I am at the point where I believe that the people who are committing these horrible acts are so completely lost in their own way that they have no clue where to turn. As a culture, we tend to believe that we can do things on our own and that we do not need anyone’s help, and if we show people we do need help, it is a sign of weakness.
Now, please don’t get me wrong, many Christians do not make it any easier for non-Christians to love God. I remember hearing a quote from Gandhi saying that he would have believed in God if it wasn’t for Christians. Ouch. know that it says in the Bible that we are called first to love God, then our neighbors as we would love ourselves. It says NOT to judge, for however we judge others we will also be judged. So, I apologize if anyone was offended and felt judged by any Christian. I have been judged by people in my own church life and it was not fun. I pray every day that I do not act like that. It’s a struggle
All I know is my own journey with my faith.
Email Nikki
Behind the Scenes at AMERICAN CURRENTS
Ever wonder what happens behind the scenes at American Currents? Check out what happened when Shaun, Scott, Sasha, Patrick, and Nikki had a little free time on their hands...
Try JibJab Sendables® eCards today!
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Top Five News Stories of the Decade: Hurricane Katrina
The largest natural disaster in the United States, Hurricane Katrina, struck the Gulf Coast on Monday August 29, 2005. Over 1,800 people lost their lives as a result of the storm, which devastated parts of Mississippi and Louisiana. Katrina's storm surge caused nearly every levee in New Orleans to breach, resulting in massive flooding. The Superdome became a “shelter of last resort” for residents unable to evacuate New Orleans, but it soon had no power, clogged toilets, and began to flood. Eventually the refugees of the storm were transported to Houston, the last of them leaving the Superdome on September 3rd after days of intolerable conditions.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Military Pregnancy Ban
Today Jeff, Art, Scott, and Austin discuss if General Cucolo is justified for enacting this order or if boundaries have been overstepped. After you read their opinions, join the conversation by leaving a comment.
Military Pregnancy Ban: Jeff Weiss
As I am writing this, Major General Anthony Cucolo is now saying he would never actually seek to jail anyone for being pregnant, but he wants to bring attention to the matter of soldiers not being able to fulfill their deployment due to pregnancy. I understand that the Army needs every soldier they have and that a lot of female soldiers are sent home on maternity leave. However, there has to be some definitive rule – either you are punished or you are not. Major General Cucola apparently wants it both ways. He wants to make a point of the situation by creating an order stating soldiers can be court-marshaled for becoming pregnant or impregnating a fellow soldier, but then says he won't really court-marshal anyone. So what now?
When you enlist in any branch of the military, you give up a lot of everyday freedoms. Everyone who enlists is made aware of the numerous rules and regulations before they sign on the dotted line (and receive their signing bonus). A person's life changes when they enlist. They do as they are told and they adhere to the rules. If they do not comply, they are held responsible. When a person enlists, they are agreeing to serve our country – not to use that time to start a family. I don't think many married couples serve together and even if they do, I can't imagine many of them staring into the Iraqi moonlight and saying, “This is a great time to have a baby!”
The bottom line is that if Major General Cucola wants to make a rule that will stick, he needs to make a realistic punishment that fits the infraction.
Email Jeff
When you enlist in any branch of the military, you give up a lot of everyday freedoms. Everyone who enlists is made aware of the numerous rules and regulations before they sign on the dotted line (and receive their signing bonus). A person's life changes when they enlist. They do as they are told and they adhere to the rules. If they do not comply, they are held responsible. When a person enlists, they are agreeing to serve our country – not to use that time to start a family. I don't think many married couples serve together and even if they do, I can't imagine many of them staring into the Iraqi moonlight and saying, “This is a great time to have a baby!”
The bottom line is that if Major General Cucola wants to make a rule that will stick, he needs to make a realistic punishment that fits the infraction.
Email Jeff
Military Pregnancy Ban: David Loftus
Although my initial and instinctive response to this situation is umbrage, on second thought I’m not so sure this is necessarily worthy of censure. I should say at the outset that I have never served in the armed forces, though when I was a boy my family was attached to the U.S. Army as civilian dependents and lived on a base in Germany for two years; and my father was a Korean War vet and my brother served in the Navy.
The military is a different culture, with different standards and requirements from those of civilian life – particularly during wartime. Though I am unfamiliar with the governing regulations, I have read that women in the service have been known to get themselves pregnant partly to avoid active duty in a war zone (just as occasionally, men have faked diseases and disorders, or wounded themselves, for the same reason). I do not regard military service as inherently heroic or admirable, by definition, and I have always been utterly opposed to our recent military incursions into Iraq and Afghanistan as wastes of human life, materials, and resources for unclear and probably unattainable goals.
That being said, however, if women wish to regard and prove themselves the equals of men for the purposes of training and advancement via military service, then they have no right to expect to obtain an unequal access to escape from the full performance of their obligations in the course of that service. Many rights and prerogatives that civilians – or even military vets who are no longer in uniform – would automatically enjoy are not available to military service people. Given that it is (or always should be) a free and conscious choice, pregnancy may be one of those prohibited options under certain conditions, such as pending combat duty. (Now, if we only had a way to prevent too-young or obviously unqualified civilians from becoming parents . . . . )
The military is a different culture, with different standards and requirements from those of civilian life – particularly during wartime. Though I am unfamiliar with the governing regulations, I have read that women in the service have been known to get themselves pregnant partly to avoid active duty in a war zone (just as occasionally, men have faked diseases and disorders, or wounded themselves, for the same reason). I do not regard military service as inherently heroic or admirable, by definition, and I have always been utterly opposed to our recent military incursions into Iraq and Afghanistan as wastes of human life, materials, and resources for unclear and probably unattainable goals.
That being said, however, if women wish to regard and prove themselves the equals of men for the purposes of training and advancement via military service, then they have no right to expect to obtain an unequal access to escape from the full performance of their obligations in the course of that service. Many rights and prerogatives that civilians – or even military vets who are no longer in uniform – would automatically enjoy are not available to military service people. Given that it is (or always should be) a free and conscious choice, pregnancy may be one of those prohibited options under certain conditions, such as pending combat duty. (Now, if we only had a way to prevent too-young or obviously unqualified civilians from becoming parents . . . . )
Military Pregnancy Ban: Scott Hinkley
I think that while the move seems a bit overly theatrical, we are also talking about men and women who deal in life and death as a career choice. I think it is a somewhat natural evolution with so many more women serving now than ever before. I think that the overall message is clear in saying that now is not the time for romance and thoughts of family. I think that the military is right to feel that they are entering a new era of reproach and accountability from both American's and the globe, and I also feel that if our President is going to stoke our optimism with mentions of time-tables and withdrawls, we need our soldiers to demonstrate that they will be digging in and making the most of the time they are still in warzones. I am also pleased that this rule attempts to make contraception the responsibility of both parties involved. I will be anxious to see how this rule runs its course. Thank you to all our soldiers, this is not the sort of commitment we can ask of most people, even if the advantages of such a policy were similar.
Email Scott
Email Scott
Military Pregnancy Ban: Austin Lee
It is OBVIOUS that boundaries have been overstepped. What happens if a female soldier's birth control doesn't work, the condom breaks, she forgets to take her pill? What if the solider has waited to have children and now she is in her mid to late 30's? There are just too many variables, not to mention the outrage that would happen if a private employer put those rules in place.
I used to participate in recruiting events at a former job and we were always cautioned that we were not to ask a woman if she planned to have children. The reasoning was simple: It is against employment law in the United States to base a hiring decision on whether or not someone might get pregnant, get married, or have a debilitating disease. Why then can one part of the government enact policy contrary to the laws set forth by another arm of the government?
Does no one think anymore? All Major General Cucolo needed to do was ask someone not in his chain of command if this was a good idea. The answer would have been a resounding NO! But, he is just following the example set by his boss; Commander in Chief Barack Obama. The majority of people in the US know that government health care would be a bad idea, but Barack Obama isn't asking us. So, I guess I can't blame the General, he's just mirroring his boss.
Email Austin
I used to participate in recruiting events at a former job and we were always cautioned that we were not to ask a woman if she planned to have children. The reasoning was simple: It is against employment law in the United States to base a hiring decision on whether or not someone might get pregnant, get married, or have a debilitating disease. Why then can one part of the government enact policy contrary to the laws set forth by another arm of the government?
Does no one think anymore? All Major General Cucolo needed to do was ask someone not in his chain of command if this was a good idea. The answer would have been a resounding NO! But, he is just following the example set by his boss; Commander in Chief Barack Obama. The majority of people in the US know that government health care would be a bad idea, but Barack Obama isn't asking us. So, I guess I can't blame the General, he's just mirroring his boss.
Email Austin
Military Pregnancy Ban: Have Your Say
Now that you've read the opinions of our panel regarding this topic, have your say by leaving a comment.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Visor-Gate
Today Jeff, David, Scott, Sasha, and Ryan offer their opinions on the matter. Be sure to have your say by leaving a comment.
Visor-Gate: Jeff Weiss
Picture it: You are the losing vice presidential candidate in an election where either campaign would make history by winning. Over a year later you are still making headlines, wrote a bestselling book, and are in the midst of a national book tour that includes an appearance on The Oprah Winfrey Show. You are on vacation and want to be incognito, so you... wear one of your old campaign visors with your former running mate's name scratched out in black ink?
The rumors of a rift between Palin and former running mate John McCain have been around since the day after the 2008 election. While neither admits it, I doubt they are friends and I wouldn't be surprised if each think the other is the reason they are not in the White House today. I can't imagine anyone believes that Sarah Palin – one of the most publicized people in recent history – would not be recognized by simply putting a visor on her head. At the same time, I don't think crossing out McCain's name on the visor was done with malice intent. I think the action was, as most of the things we see coming from the Palin camp, just not thought out very well.
I'd love to write more on this, but there are only a few days left before Christmas and I need to finish shopping. The only problem is that every time I go to the mall, I always run into people I know and today I just don't have time to stop and talk. I have an idea. I'll put a visor on before I go to the mall. No one will recognize me!
Email Jeff
The rumors of a rift between Palin and former running mate John McCain have been around since the day after the 2008 election. While neither admits it, I doubt they are friends and I wouldn't be surprised if each think the other is the reason they are not in the White House today. I can't imagine anyone believes that Sarah Palin – one of the most publicized people in recent history – would not be recognized by simply putting a visor on her head. At the same time, I don't think crossing out McCain's name on the visor was done with malice intent. I think the action was, as most of the things we see coming from the Palin camp, just not thought out very well.
I'd love to write more on this, but there are only a few days left before Christmas and I need to finish shopping. The only problem is that every time I go to the mall, I always run into people I know and today I just don't have time to stop and talk. I have an idea. I'll put a visor on before I go to the mall. No one will recognize me!
Email Jeff
Visor-Gate: David Loftus
I couldn’t care less about any rumors, and anyone who still wonders whether Palin and McCain are still friendly at this point hasn’t been paying attention the past fifteen months. It was perfectly obvious that a large portion of the McCain team decided that choosing Palin had been a mistake (whether because of her right-field popularity or loose-cannon goofiness) and they froze her out of campaign appearances – the climax being the concession speeches on election night – before the election had even been decided.
Palin’s story that she was wearing a blanked-out McCain visor to maintain her anonymity shows she is an even bigger bonehead or hypocrite than she appeared to be up till now. She couldn’t afford a better hat? She didn’t think anyone would recognize an old recycled campaign visor? She really wanted not to be noticed? Come on. For her to castigate the “desperate paparazzi” only a week or two after several months of desperately courting paparazzi is the height of absurdity.
That the McCains chose to take the high road on this occasion and pretend nothing untoward has happened is probably less a reflection on their graciousness than on their exhaustion with Palin’s games. They simply don’t want to play anymore, so the less fuel they add to the fire at this point, the sooner she’ll leave them alone. For once, John McCain is being smart.
Palin’s story that she was wearing a blanked-out McCain visor to maintain her anonymity shows she is an even bigger bonehead or hypocrite than she appeared to be up till now. She couldn’t afford a better hat? She didn’t think anyone would recognize an old recycled campaign visor? She really wanted not to be noticed? Come on. For her to castigate the “desperate paparazzi” only a week or two after several months of desperately courting paparazzi is the height of absurdity.
That the McCains chose to take the high road on this occasion and pretend nothing untoward has happened is probably less a reflection on their graciousness than on their exhaustion with Palin’s games. They simply don’t want to play anymore, so the less fuel they add to the fire at this point, the sooner she’ll leave them alone. For once, John McCain is being smart.
Visor-Gate: Scott Hinkley
It is difficult for me to decide the motives behind Sarah Palin's wardrobe. Palin has seemed ill-equipped to deal with the media spotlight since her first arrival on the national scene. The media has not been kind to her, and she has returned the favor. It would seem to me that Palin has struggled to execute a clear message at all times, including her current stance on the Copenhagen conference. This would lead me to believe that she would not be savvy enough to convey meaning through her defacement of a visor. She had her ARMY shirt on, isn't that enough? No, with so much coverage and such a strong demand for new information, Sarah seems to be a bit of a guinea pig in this world of new media.
I think it is probably equally likely that she covered it out of an attempt to lower her profile as it is that she and her family would have had a real knee-slapper about it, but neither case does much to improve her poor showing in the global news market. I hope, for her kids sakes, that she hangs up her blacked out visor for a while and finds something else to do, but too many Americans want an ignoramus to admire to keep her on the sidelines for long.
Email Scott
I think it is probably equally likely that she covered it out of an attempt to lower her profile as it is that she and her family would have had a real knee-slapper about it, but neither case does much to improve her poor showing in the global news market. I hope, for her kids sakes, that she hangs up her blacked out visor for a while and finds something else to do, but too many Americans want an ignoramus to admire to keep her on the sidelines for long.
Email Scott
Visor-Gate: Sasha Smith
Do Palin and McCain have beef? I'm not sure. I've been trying to let go of following Palin gossip for over a year now and for some reason it's virtually impossible. I've let her go and I suggest that the rest of America do the same. Also, I have no idea if Palin is capable of being honest. Do we believe anything she says?
Her reputation has been so tainted that it's hard to trust any of her intentions. She also is known for doing things for attention. She has been in the news lately for arguing with a teenager who fathered her teenager daughter's baby. She wants to be identified as a serious politician but when she is fighting and not accepted in her own party and is in the news for her family drama more than doing any good as a public servant - how can we take her seriously?
Let's not forget that she quit being a public official so it's even more reason to not be thinking about her. At this point, I'm pretty sure that Palin can afford to buy a different hat. As a matter a fact with all her media publicity, I'm pretty sure that she could afford a really, really, really big hat to cover her face. So, the reason of "blacking out" McCain's name is just another publicity stunt. Also, if you are trying to be incognito then don't tweet your whereabouts.
Email Sasha
Her reputation has been so tainted that it's hard to trust any of her intentions. She also is known for doing things for attention. She has been in the news lately for arguing with a teenager who fathered her teenager daughter's baby. She wants to be identified as a serious politician but when she is fighting and not accepted in her own party and is in the news for her family drama more than doing any good as a public servant - how can we take her seriously?
Let's not forget that she quit being a public official so it's even more reason to not be thinking about her. At this point, I'm pretty sure that Palin can afford to buy a different hat. As a matter a fact with all her media publicity, I'm pretty sure that she could afford a really, really, really big hat to cover her face. So, the reason of "blacking out" McCain's name is just another publicity stunt. Also, if you are trying to be incognito then don't tweet your whereabouts.
Email Sasha
Visor-Gate: Ryan John
Back in September 2008, at the height of the Presidential Campaign, the word lipstick became a powerful buzz word used by both sides. Earlier in the month Palin used it to promote a fiery image by saying lipstick is the only difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull. Later in the month, Obama provoked critics when he indignantly compared the election of John McCain to the act of putting lipstick on a pig in reference to the “messy” tendencies of the Bush administration. Although it was easy for Obama to brush off critics by saying he was simply citing a popular phrase, skeptics like myself were convinced it was a calculated political maneuver aimed at Palin.
I think that about all politicians, especially those of the presidential caliber, love the spot light and thoroughly plan for it. They have enormous egos and meticulously search for ways to advance whatever it is they want our eyes to see and our ears to hear. Even if we’re sure, but not quite sure, what they mean, we’re still left wondering a bit. The message lingers.
If Palin is trying to say the “black out” was a spontaneous, unintentional move than I have a few questions for her. A) Is a visor, with or without McCain on it, going to be the difference between incognito and noticeable? B) She didn’t have any other visors or hats to wear other than an old campaign one? C) Who carries black markers with them on vacation anyway and continues to wear something that is marked up like that? I think this was another powerful, yet very dismissible message being sent by Palin. She is trying to separate herself yet again from John McCain but can’t do so blatantly because he launched her onto the national stage and it wouldn't be politically wise to bite the hand that fed you.
And of course, who better to propel some controversy, than a celebrity and entertainment gossip website like TMZ?
I think that about all politicians, especially those of the presidential caliber, love the spot light and thoroughly plan for it. They have enormous egos and meticulously search for ways to advance whatever it is they want our eyes to see and our ears to hear. Even if we’re sure, but not quite sure, what they mean, we’re still left wondering a bit. The message lingers.
If Palin is trying to say the “black out” was a spontaneous, unintentional move than I have a few questions for her. A) Is a visor, with or without McCain on it, going to be the difference between incognito and noticeable? B) She didn’t have any other visors or hats to wear other than an old campaign one? C) Who carries black markers with them on vacation anyway and continues to wear something that is marked up like that? I think this was another powerful, yet very dismissible message being sent by Palin. She is trying to separate herself yet again from John McCain but can’t do so blatantly because he launched her onto the national stage and it wouldn't be politically wise to bite the hand that fed you.
And of course, who better to propel some controversy, than a celebrity and entertainment gossip website like TMZ?
Visor-Gate: Have Your Say
Now that you've read the opinions of our panel regarding this topic, have your say by leaving a comment.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Tweeting Mom Controversy
This has sparked a debate as many people feel that Shellie Ross was reaching out for support while others say Tweeting during such an emergency was in poor taste. Some note that Ross sent over 70 tweets the day of her son's death before the accident, and question her ability to monitor her children while she's excessively tweeting.
Today Jeff, Art, Shaun, Scott, and Austin share their thoughts on the matter. After you read their opinions of whether they feel Shellie Ross was seeking support or exploiting a tragedy, join the conversation by leaving a comment.
Tweeting Mom Controversy: Jeff Weiss
Like it or not, we live in an electronic society. Many people use sites like Facebook and MySpace to update their friends as to what is going on in their lives. People often find it easier to Tweet a message to a friend or a group of friends via Twitter as opposed to calling or texting. Even if this is not your cup of tea, it's not about to change any time soon.
Shellie Ross is a noted “mommy blogger.” She writes about her life and her children. She has a following of many who share a lot in common with her. Is it odd that she took to the internet to inform people – many of which she's never met – of something so personal as the loss of her child? I admit that when I first heard of this, it struck me as being strange. But then I thought about my life. Obviously I am a blogger. Since American Currents launched last month, I've come to work closely with the other bloggers on this site. I've never met any of them – but I've grown to know a lot about each of them through daily communication via the internet.
When tragedy struck, Shellie Ross went to Twitter because it felt right for her. And if by sharing her emotions with others (either personally or electronically) helped her, then who are we to judge?
Email Jeff
Shellie Ross is a noted “mommy blogger.” She writes about her life and her children. She has a following of many who share a lot in common with her. Is it odd that she took to the internet to inform people – many of which she's never met – of something so personal as the loss of her child? I admit that when I first heard of this, it struck me as being strange. But then I thought about my life. Obviously I am a blogger. Since American Currents launched last month, I've come to work closely with the other bloggers on this site. I've never met any of them – but I've grown to know a lot about each of them through daily communication via the internet.
When tragedy struck, Shellie Ross went to Twitter because it felt right for her. And if by sharing her emotions with others (either personally or electronically) helped her, then who are we to judge?
Email Jeff
Tweeting Mom Controversy: David Loftus
Why can’t the answer be both: Shellie Ross used Twitter as an outlet for support and she exploited a tragic event in a (semi-) public forum.
I can’t get worked into a tizzy over this matter. While I might be inclined to think that Ms. Ross displayed extremely poor taste, I don’t see that she harmed anyone. Tweeting about her son’s death was probably very much in keeping with a well-established, previous pattern of self-centeredness and self-inflation, and the only witnesses to it were folks who were apparently familiar with her online persona and interested in it, for some unknown reason. To be a “well-known blogger” is merely to be a big fish in a small (or maybe that should be very broad but very shallow) pond. I had never heard of her, myself.
While I’ve never used Twitter and don’t expect to anytime soon, as a writer and actor I’ve been involved in self-promotional activities of various sorts for decades. Some of it’s necessary, and some of it must inevitably spill into self-aggrandizing blather. Over the past year I’ve become fairly adept (if I do say so myself) at both informing and entertaining my circle of friends, fans, and acquaintances via Facebook. They chose to “listen” to me by linking up as Facebook friends; some respond and play the game with comments and entertaining updates of their own, others rarely check in at all or likely ignore me most of the time. Self-control is the deciding factor, and anyone can employ it to the best of their ability. So go ahead and type and tweet away; if anyone’s had enough, they’ll do what they have to.
I can’t get worked into a tizzy over this matter. While I might be inclined to think that Ms. Ross displayed extremely poor taste, I don’t see that she harmed anyone. Tweeting about her son’s death was probably very much in keeping with a well-established, previous pattern of self-centeredness and self-inflation, and the only witnesses to it were folks who were apparently familiar with her online persona and interested in it, for some unknown reason. To be a “well-known blogger” is merely to be a big fish in a small (or maybe that should be very broad but very shallow) pond. I had never heard of her, myself.
While I’ve never used Twitter and don’t expect to anytime soon, as a writer and actor I’ve been involved in self-promotional activities of various sorts for decades. Some of it’s necessary, and some of it must inevitably spill into self-aggrandizing blather. Over the past year I’ve become fairly adept (if I do say so myself) at both informing and entertaining my circle of friends, fans, and acquaintances via Facebook. They chose to “listen” to me by linking up as Facebook friends; some respond and play the game with comments and entertaining updates of their own, others rarely check in at all or likely ignore me most of the time. Self-control is the deciding factor, and anyone can employ it to the best of their ability. So go ahead and type and tweet away; if anyone’s had enough, they’ll do what they have to.
Tweeting Mom Controversy: Shaun Hautly
Good Lord, America. We have better things to do during the christmas season than criticize a woman who just lost her son. In a time when we've got health-care being voted on, troops in Iraq, a crazy recession, and it's the Holidays! Can't we find a few other things to do than search twitter for sticky situations? This is not a problem, this whole thing, for two reasons:
She did not exploit the event. Or maybe she did. She didn't make any money off of it. No one makes money off twitter. Directly. Let's say this event got her 1,000 new followers. Now what? I've been blogging for years. I've blogged about all sorts of personal things. But they're just blogs. All of this. Blogs. Now, if she had taken pictures of the accident, and tried to sell them to journalists, that'd be bad, but this was just a few sentences on a free site.
Secondly, she was upset. She just lost her son. When you're in a situation like that, your brain doesn't work like normal, you go into shock and do weird things. Especially when you're a regular blogger, when you blog about everything in your life, it becomes part of your expression. It was reflex to tweet, and when her brain wasn't thinking logically, it just tweeted. And now she's being attacked for it? Boo. I will only listen to attacks on this woman from other avid blogging women who have lost a son.
Email Shaun
She did not exploit the event. Or maybe she did. She didn't make any money off of it. No one makes money off twitter. Directly. Let's say this event got her 1,000 new followers. Now what? I've been blogging for years. I've blogged about all sorts of personal things. But they're just blogs. All of this. Blogs. Now, if she had taken pictures of the accident, and tried to sell them to journalists, that'd be bad, but this was just a few sentences on a free site.
Secondly, she was upset. She just lost her son. When you're in a situation like that, your brain doesn't work like normal, you go into shock and do weird things. Especially when you're a regular blogger, when you blog about everything in your life, it becomes part of your expression. It was reflex to tweet, and when her brain wasn't thinking logically, it just tweeted. And now she's being attacked for it? Boo. I will only listen to attacks on this woman from other avid blogging women who have lost a son.
Email Shaun
Tweeting Mom Controversy: Scott Hinkley
Could we please be nicer to a grieving mother? I see the complete lack of sensitivity for Ms. Ross's circumstances as stemming from the animosity about being left behind as so many new social activities are moving to the internet. From what I understand, Ms. Ross had been sustaining her blog for some time, and had built a relationship with those who read her postings. I email with my friends and family often, and many times we exchange more that just pleasant conversation, so I consider these interactions to be a significant portion of our overall relationships. It seems clear to me that in Ms. Ross's time of need, she reached out to those whom she trusted to be kind to her, and it looks like she was right, because if she had come to any of the hateful people who are criticizing her acting, she might well have been driven to do something terrible.
Please can we be nicer to each other? Wait that one extra second before we decide completely and certainly that we disagree with, and therefore have no reason to support others in their time's of need or pain. Shame on all of you with healthy children who judged her so harshly.
Email Scott
Please can we be nicer to each other? Wait that one extra second before we decide completely and certainly that we disagree with, and therefore have no reason to support others in their time's of need or pain. Shame on all of you with healthy children who judged her so harshly.
Email Scott
Tweeting Mom Controversy: Austin Lee
Part of my job is spent helping companies navigate the interesting waters of Social Media. As we talk about Twitter, the topic of community always comes up. Most people view their activity on Twitter as taking part in a discussion in their community of followers and followees.
So, I was not surprised that Shellie Ross sent out a tweet about her son's accident and eventually his death. For Shellie, a professional "mommy blogger" her followers on Twitter were an extension of her actual community of real life friends and acquaintances. It would be normal for her to call or email her real life friends for support and prayers during a time of crisis, so why not reach out to those she "talks" with everyday on Twitter.
I couldn't help but think that a portion of these people "offended" by her actions are probably the same people that say we shouldn't question a woman's right for an abortion, we shouldn't be allowed to tell others who they can and cannot marry, and that we shouldn't butt into anyone's life. Yet, they felt it completely okay to tell this woman what she should and shouldn't Tweet about. Gotta love it.
Email Austin
So, I was not surprised that Shellie Ross sent out a tweet about her son's accident and eventually his death. For Shellie, a professional "mommy blogger" her followers on Twitter were an extension of her actual community of real life friends and acquaintances. It would be normal for her to call or email her real life friends for support and prayers during a time of crisis, so why not reach out to those she "talks" with everyday on Twitter.
I couldn't help but think that a portion of these people "offended" by her actions are probably the same people that say we shouldn't question a woman's right for an abortion, we shouldn't be allowed to tell others who they can and cannot marry, and that we shouldn't butt into anyone's life. Yet, they felt it completely okay to tell this woman what she should and shouldn't Tweet about. Gotta love it.
Email Austin
Tweeting Mom Controversy: Have Your Say
Now that you've read the opinions of our panel regarding this topic, have your say by leaving a comment.
Controversy
Controversy
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Week in Review - Sunday
Today, Patrick and Nikki weigh in with their opinions on two of the topics we covered earlier in the week.
After reading their thoughts, have your say by leaving a comment.
After reading their thoughts, have your say by leaving a comment.
Week in Review - Sunday: Patrick Dresslar
Tiger Woods Takes a Break
Living here in New York I am disgusted to wake up each morning and get on the subway to see every newspaper in town with a new headline about Tiger Woods. I mean, really? This is getting old. With a war in Afghanistan and health care legislation so close to being passed, the New York Post and Daily News find it necessary to plaster Tiger on their front pages every day? This must stop.
Anyway, I digress. Tiger Woods' image is certainly tarnished after the truth of his character has been revealed in such dramatic fashion, but he will be fine. He is not the first, nor will he be the last, sports figure to commit adultery. Babe Ruth, Michael Jordan, Wilt Chamberlain, Roger Clemens, Alex Rodriguez and Kobe Bryant just to name a few, and these are all mega sports icons. Each individual's image has been repaired since their moral transgressions. It is an intelligent move for Woods to take a break from the game to allow the media blitz to subside before he takes to the links again. He has admitted his error and America will forgive him because that's what we do. He will lose advertising partnerships and more than likely lose his family, so the damage is severe. He needs to take the time to become a better person and father, and we need to give him the space to do so. I understand that he makes his money in the public sphere and should therefore be held accountable as a role model, but the media goes too far. Cover the story and then give the man his privacy. Even though he is a billionaire and arguably the most recognized sports icon in the world, Tiger Woods is a golfer first and foremost. And when he returns, he will continue to be the best golfer in the game.
Email Patrick
Living here in New York I am disgusted to wake up each morning and get on the subway to see every newspaper in town with a new headline about Tiger Woods. I mean, really? This is getting old. With a war in Afghanistan and health care legislation so close to being passed, the New York Post and Daily News find it necessary to plaster Tiger on their front pages every day? This must stop.
Anyway, I digress. Tiger Woods' image is certainly tarnished after the truth of his character has been revealed in such dramatic fashion, but he will be fine. He is not the first, nor will he be the last, sports figure to commit adultery. Babe Ruth, Michael Jordan, Wilt Chamberlain, Roger Clemens, Alex Rodriguez and Kobe Bryant just to name a few, and these are all mega sports icons. Each individual's image has been repaired since their moral transgressions. It is an intelligent move for Woods to take a break from the game to allow the media blitz to subside before he takes to the links again. He has admitted his error and America will forgive him because that's what we do. He will lose advertising partnerships and more than likely lose his family, so the damage is severe. He needs to take the time to become a better person and father, and we need to give him the space to do so. I understand that he makes his money in the public sphere and should therefore be held accountable as a role model, but the media goes too far. Cover the story and then give the man his privacy. Even though he is a billionaire and arguably the most recognized sports icon in the world, Tiger Woods is a golfer first and foremost. And when he returns, he will continue to be the best golfer in the game.
Email Patrick
Week in Review - Sunday: Nikki Lorenzini
Houston's Mayoral Election
I am a bit confused when I see when things like this make the headlines. Don’t get me wrong, I am happy that we are finally moving into the 21st century and are more open to vote in people that aren’t straight, old, white men. But why must people’s sexual orientation, race, or sex be the main focal point of the election? Why can’t it be like it was before when people actually concentrated on their political stances?
I researched Annise Parker. I found out that she is a second generation Houstonian and went to Rice University. She spent 20 years working in the Oil and Gas industry, co-owned a bookstore for 10 years, and spent fifteen years at a bookkeeping and income tax company. She won several awards and has been on several community service boards. Her and her partner have been together since 1990 and they have two children.
I am waiting for the day when we focus on the whole person as a candidate instead of just one aspect of their life. If we don’t, we’ll eventually mess everything up.
Email Nikki
I am a bit confused when I see when things like this make the headlines. Don’t get me wrong, I am happy that we are finally moving into the 21st century and are more open to vote in people that aren’t straight, old, white men. But why must people’s sexual orientation, race, or sex be the main focal point of the election? Why can’t it be like it was before when people actually concentrated on their political stances?
I researched Annise Parker. I found out that she is a second generation Houstonian and went to Rice University. She spent 20 years working in the Oil and Gas industry, co-owned a bookstore for 10 years, and spent fifteen years at a bookkeeping and income tax company. She won several awards and has been on several community service boards. Her and her partner have been together since 1990 and they have two children.
I am waiting for the day when we focus on the whole person as a candidate instead of just one aspect of their life. If we don’t, we’ll eventually mess everything up.
Email Nikki
Week in Review - Sunday
Now that you've read what Patrick and Nikki thought of some of the topics we've covered this week, have your say by leaving a comment.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Week in Review - Saturday
After reading their opinions, join the conversation by leaving a comment.
Week in Review - Saturday: David Loftus
Houston's Mayoral Election
Parts of the United States are quite ready for gay politicians, and have been for some time. Barney Frank was elected by Massachusetts voters decades ago. My city of Portland, Oregon elected a lesbian state legislator (Gail Shibley) back in the 1990s and has a gay mayor now (Sam Adams). But Houston’s a different kettle of fish. It’s a modern American city, certainly, but still deep in the heart of Texas: football, oil, and anti-big government and liberal-values country. But it’s the biggest in the country (at 2.2 million, the fourth largest) to elect an openly gay mayor.
Sexual preference aside, it looks as if Parker won the office with good old-fashioned experience (in the public and private sectors) and a solid campaign. She’s a native of west Houston, worked in the oil and gas industry for 20 years, co-owned a bookstore for a decade, was elected to the City Council three times, and then became City Controller -- again winning three consecutive elections for the position. In her run for mayor she managed to land endorsements from labor, police, women’s, gay rights and other groups, as well as the city’s primary newspaper, the Houston Post. Her campaign also worked hard to get out the liberal and gay vote. I’d be curious to know how much anti-gay conservative campaigning against her came from outside the city, and especially outside the state, and whether Parker’s team was able to make political capital out of that.
A candidate’s sexual preference should not be a campaign issue, any more than his or her marital status. But it’s going to remain one, openly or sub rosa, for some time to come. As for an openly gay presidential candidate, that isn’t as unimaginable as it seemed when I first became a voter several decades ago. I could see such a candidate, but probably not a solid one who actually has a shot at being elected; more likely someone running to make a point and draw more attention to the gay rights cause. But an openly atheistic candidate, now. . . .
Parts of the United States are quite ready for gay politicians, and have been for some time. Barney Frank was elected by Massachusetts voters decades ago. My city of Portland, Oregon elected a lesbian state legislator (Gail Shibley) back in the 1990s and has a gay mayor now (Sam Adams). But Houston’s a different kettle of fish. It’s a modern American city, certainly, but still deep in the heart of Texas: football, oil, and anti-big government and liberal-values country. But it’s the biggest in the country (at 2.2 million, the fourth largest) to elect an openly gay mayor.
Sexual preference aside, it looks as if Parker won the office with good old-fashioned experience (in the public and private sectors) and a solid campaign. She’s a native of west Houston, worked in the oil and gas industry for 20 years, co-owned a bookstore for a decade, was elected to the City Council three times, and then became City Controller -- again winning three consecutive elections for the position. In her run for mayor she managed to land endorsements from labor, police, women’s, gay rights and other groups, as well as the city’s primary newspaper, the Houston Post. Her campaign also worked hard to get out the liberal and gay vote. I’d be curious to know how much anti-gay conservative campaigning against her came from outside the city, and especially outside the state, and whether Parker’s team was able to make political capital out of that.
A candidate’s sexual preference should not be a campaign issue, any more than his or her marital status. But it’s going to remain one, openly or sub rosa, for some time to come. As for an openly gay presidential candidate, that isn’t as unimaginable as it seemed when I first became a voter several decades ago. I could see such a candidate, but probably not a solid one who actually has a shot at being elected; more likely someone running to make a point and draw more attention to the gay rights cause. But an openly atheistic candidate, now. . . .
Week in Review - Saturday: Scott Hinkley
Tiger Woods Takes a Break
I think Tiger will be fine. I think what he did was awfully stupid, but not uncommon, and people can sense that even if they won't say it. But more importantly, who can take his place in the mind of his fans. I think that as we come to expect excellent from our stars in their given skill, we look deeper and deeper into the rest of their lives for excitement. I think that Tiger acted arrogantly, and he will have a lot of crow to eat, but I don't see how people will not cheer him as he continues to push an old man's sport into the future.
If any of the products Tiger endorsed held stronger female market-bases, then he would probably be in more trouble, but I don't think his male audience will be reduced much. Who won't tune in for the match he returns for?
Email Scott
I think Tiger will be fine. I think what he did was awfully stupid, but not uncommon, and people can sense that even if they won't say it. But more importantly, who can take his place in the mind of his fans. I think that as we come to expect excellent from our stars in their given skill, we look deeper and deeper into the rest of their lives for excitement. I think that Tiger acted arrogantly, and he will have a lot of crow to eat, but I don't see how people will not cheer him as he continues to push an old man's sport into the future.
If any of the products Tiger endorsed held stronger female market-bases, then he would probably be in more trouble, but I don't think his male audience will be reduced much. Who won't tune in for the match he returns for?
Email Scott
Week in Review - Saturday: Have Your Say
Now that you've read what Art and Scott thought of some of the topics we've covered this week, have your say by leaving a comment.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Moving Guantanamo Detainees
Today Jeff, Art, Shaun and Austin weigh in on detaining international terror suspects on United States soil. After reading their thoughts, have your say by leaving a comment.
Moving Guantanamo Detainees: Jeff Weiss
Most Americans were pleased with President Obama's resolve to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, however now that push comes to shove, no one wants an accused terrorist in a prison located near them. So now what?
I support the closing of Guantanamo Bay even if it means transferring terror suspects near me. Our prison system has kept us safe from homegrown terrorists such as Oklahoma bomber Timothy McVeigh and Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski. I am confident that the federal government will keep us safe from those transferred from Guantanamo Bay.
Additionally, the federal takeover of the Thomson Correctional Facility will create an economic boost in Thompson, Illinois by creating new jobs and bringing in tax revenue in an area where the unemployment rate is currently at 11.1%. All in all, I think this is a move in the right direction.
Email Jeff
I support the closing of Guantanamo Bay even if it means transferring terror suspects near me. Our prison system has kept us safe from homegrown terrorists such as Oklahoma bomber Timothy McVeigh and Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski. I am confident that the federal government will keep us safe from those transferred from Guantanamo Bay.
Additionally, the federal takeover of the Thomson Correctional Facility will create an economic boost in Thompson, Illinois by creating new jobs and bringing in tax revenue in an area where the unemployment rate is currently at 11.1%. All in all, I think this is a move in the right direction.
Email Jeff
Moving Guantanamo Detainees: David Loftus
The phrase “dangerous terror suspects” contains an un-American error in logic: it presumes guilt before proof. A suspect is, by definition, only subject to further investigation; he or she cannot, by definition, be dangerous -- not yet, anyway. So the phrase “dangerous terror suspects” is the sort of phrase I would expect to hear from the mouths of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, or John Ashcroft, but not from any American who truly understands and embraces the Constitutional concept of due process under the law.
This is precisely the sort of insecure, defensive, and presumptuous reasoning that got the United States into so much trouble under the Bush administrations and brought down calumny upon our country from much of the rest of the international community. It exhibits the sort of inferiority complex that pretends to possess great strength but is prey to not-very-secret fears. Either we truly believe in the U.S. Constitution and abide by the Geneva Conventions, or we commit torture at legally ambiguous locales such as Guantanamo and aboard secret CIA jet flights to thuggish allies who allow us to do things we would never allow to be done to Americans on U.S. soil, and would protest loudly if our enemies were found to be doing it to our citizens. Either the Department of Homeland Security has been doing its job and preventing acts of terrorism successfully since 2001, as Bush and Ashcroft repeatedly claimed (and therefore we have little or nothing to fear from future threats of domestic terrorism) or it has not, and Bush and Co. didn’t know what they were talking about (and thus the folks imprisoned at Guantanamo and their affiliates really do pose a threat to us). We can’t have it both ways.
I say house the suspects on U.S. soil. Try them under American principles of due process. Otherwise, we can’t honestly claim to stand for liberty and freedom before the international community, and we aren’t really defending our “American way of life” in Iraq and Afghanistan, We certainly couldn’t realistically expect to have other nations -- especially somewhat friendly but nervous Islamic nations, from Pakistan to Egypt -- look up to and support us.
This is precisely the sort of insecure, defensive, and presumptuous reasoning that got the United States into so much trouble under the Bush administrations and brought down calumny upon our country from much of the rest of the international community. It exhibits the sort of inferiority complex that pretends to possess great strength but is prey to not-very-secret fears. Either we truly believe in the U.S. Constitution and abide by the Geneva Conventions, or we commit torture at legally ambiguous locales such as Guantanamo and aboard secret CIA jet flights to thuggish allies who allow us to do things we would never allow to be done to Americans on U.S. soil, and would protest loudly if our enemies were found to be doing it to our citizens. Either the Department of Homeland Security has been doing its job and preventing acts of terrorism successfully since 2001, as Bush and Ashcroft repeatedly claimed (and therefore we have little or nothing to fear from future threats of domestic terrorism) or it has not, and Bush and Co. didn’t know what they were talking about (and thus the folks imprisoned at Guantanamo and their affiliates really do pose a threat to us). We can’t have it both ways.
I say house the suspects on U.S. soil. Try them under American principles of due process. Otherwise, we can’t honestly claim to stand for liberty and freedom before the international community, and we aren’t really defending our “American way of life” in Iraq and Afghanistan, We certainly couldn’t realistically expect to have other nations -- especially somewhat friendly but nervous Islamic nations, from Pakistan to Egypt -- look up to and support us.
Moving Guantanamo Detainees: Shaun Hautly
Now, I am not a politician. I could NEVER be one. Not based on ethics or principles, but because I'm not smart enough. Politicians get a lot of gripe for being corrupt or having hidden agendas. Now, while some of that may be true, being a politician is tough for another reason. They have to know everything. If they don't, they get yelled at and treated awful. They have to have a well thought-out opinion and plan of action for EVERYTHING: Health-care, foreign policy, military, the war in Iraq, education, taxes, and so much more. I don't even understand the health-care bill and I've read several summaries. So I have a lot of respect and don't always get upset about decisions that government makes because I'm sure there's reasoning and implications that are beyond my scope of knowledge.
So when I am told that terror suspects are being moved from Guantanamo to Thompson, IL, my pulse doesn't quicken it's pace. I'm okay with it for two reasons. The first is simple: We've got pretty good prisons. Towns with prisons are often quite safe. We have maximum security, solitary confinement, and heaps of new technology which does a pretty good job of keeping our prisoners in prison. Heck, they're still in Guantanamo, right?
Now, the other reason I'm okay with it is because Cuba doesn't keep any prisoners in Wyoming, do they? Does Russia keep convicts near the Great Lakes? No. Our prisoners should be kept on our soil. If we need a military base in a country while we teach them democracy, that's one thing, but to move prisoners to that base to keep them away from America? Doesn't seem fair. Sure, Cuban prisoners can be kept there, but transferring people to remote foreign bases doesn't seem like a move we HAVE to make. We've got the space, we've got the security. We can keep a couple people locked up in northern Illinois. I can take a few at the community center, too, if we're that hard up on space.
Email Shaun
So when I am told that terror suspects are being moved from Guantanamo to Thompson, IL, my pulse doesn't quicken it's pace. I'm okay with it for two reasons. The first is simple: We've got pretty good prisons. Towns with prisons are often quite safe. We have maximum security, solitary confinement, and heaps of new technology which does a pretty good job of keeping our prisoners in prison. Heck, they're still in Guantanamo, right?
Now, the other reason I'm okay with it is because Cuba doesn't keep any prisoners in Wyoming, do they? Does Russia keep convicts near the Great Lakes? No. Our prisoners should be kept on our soil. If we need a military base in a country while we teach them democracy, that's one thing, but to move prisoners to that base to keep them away from America? Doesn't seem fair. Sure, Cuban prisoners can be kept there, but transferring people to remote foreign bases doesn't seem like a move we HAVE to make. We've got the space, we've got the security. We can keep a couple people locked up in northern Illinois. I can take a few at the community center, too, if we're that hard up on space.
Email Shaun
Moving Guantanamo Detainees: Austin Lee
Beyond the obvious stupidity of adding legitimacy to the Islamic terrorists by bringing them to the United States, President Obama has given a kick-back to his home state of Illinois. So, not only to these Muslim terrorists get a platform to spew their anti-American agenda, they now get to do so from Barack Obama's back yard.
Frankly, it doesn't bother me that they will be in the United States for security reasons. I doubt they will be able to escape given the amount of news cameras and protestors that will be camped out at the prison. It bothers me that they will be given a hearing as if they were ordinary criminals.
Whether or not you think what they did was an act of war, THEY think it was an act of war. They declared jihad on the United States, which is fancy Muslim Terrorist lingo for war. So, they are fighting a war against us whether we like it or not. You can call it what you want, but these are war criminals...just ask them.
Email Austin
Frankly, it doesn't bother me that they will be in the United States for security reasons. I doubt they will be able to escape given the amount of news cameras and protestors that will be camped out at the prison. It bothers me that they will be given a hearing as if they were ordinary criminals.
Whether or not you think what they did was an act of war, THEY think it was an act of war. They declared jihad on the United States, which is fancy Muslim Terrorist lingo for war. So, they are fighting a war against us whether we like it or not. You can call it what you want, but these are war criminals...just ask them.
Email Austin
Moving Guantanamo Detainees: Have Your Say
Now that you've read the opinions of our panel regarding this topic, have your say by leaving a comment.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Holidays and the Recession
Holidays and the Recession: Jeff Weiss
The Great Recession has encouraged me to cut corners and save where I can. This holiday season, I've made a point to spend more wisely. I haven't cut back on the who I buy gifts for, but I have made an effort to do more comparison shopping in order to find the best prices.
One thing that I will not change is donating to charity. Unfortunately, most charities have have suffered losses in the amount of donations received in both 2008 and 2009. More people than ever have fallen on hard times and need help. Please take a minute to do whatever you can to help. It doesn't necessarily mean a financial donation. Food banks are always in need of donations – canned goods, peanut butter, baby food, and diapers are always in demand. If you aren't in a position to donate goods, perhaps you have a free hour or two to help out by putting together baskets for those less fortunate.
Maybe the recession will change your holiday plans in a positive way – by lending a helping hand to someone who needs a little assistance in this season of giving.
Email Jeff
One thing that I will not change is donating to charity. Unfortunately, most charities have have suffered losses in the amount of donations received in both 2008 and 2009. More people than ever have fallen on hard times and need help. Please take a minute to do whatever you can to help. It doesn't necessarily mean a financial donation. Food banks are always in need of donations – canned goods, peanut butter, baby food, and diapers are always in demand. If you aren't in a position to donate goods, perhaps you have a free hour or two to help out by putting together baskets for those less fortunate.
Maybe the recession will change your holiday plans in a positive way – by lending a helping hand to someone who needs a little assistance in this season of giving.
Email Jeff
Holidays and the Recession: David Loftus
Our holiday situation isn’t much different due to the recession, though our general household habits are, a little. As I explained in my November 27 commentary regarding Black Friday, we largely gave up the practice of buying things for each other and our family and friends years ago. We have no kids and precious few relations who are children; and we live in a tiny urban apartment where space is at a premium. We have no consumer debt, and no intention of creating any.
As a nominally Jewish household, we pretty much bypass the entire Christmas thing altogether -- although yesterday we transported many heaps of wrapped gifts purchased by our Jewish co-congregants for children in the low-income housing tower near the synagogue; next week I may join staged readings of “A Christmas Carol” (and probably play Scrooge at least once) for retirement homes and the AIDS hospice in Portland; and on Christmas Day we will serve hundreds of hot meals to homeless and low-income families at the synagogue. But these events happen every year.
In years past, we often hosted a Chanukah party. Since I’m officially unemployed (have been picking up temp jobs while trying to effect a career shift), we’re on a tighter budget, so we will not be entertaining in that way, and we have been eating out less. We’ll spend the next two weeks quietly at home: reading, writing, and enjoying a little quiet time with our pets after the year’s and holidays’ projects have been completed. I’ll see my Mom and brothers for our annual get-together for several days of cards, board games, eating, and visiting in early January. The 2009 holiday season does not feel to me that it’s lacking in any way.
As a nominally Jewish household, we pretty much bypass the entire Christmas thing altogether -- although yesterday we transported many heaps of wrapped gifts purchased by our Jewish co-congregants for children in the low-income housing tower near the synagogue; next week I may join staged readings of “A Christmas Carol” (and probably play Scrooge at least once) for retirement homes and the AIDS hospice in Portland; and on Christmas Day we will serve hundreds of hot meals to homeless and low-income families at the synagogue. But these events happen every year.
In years past, we often hosted a Chanukah party. Since I’m officially unemployed (have been picking up temp jobs while trying to effect a career shift), we’re on a tighter budget, so we will not be entertaining in that way, and we have been eating out less. We’ll spend the next two weeks quietly at home: reading, writing, and enjoying a little quiet time with our pets after the year’s and holidays’ projects have been completed. I’ll see my Mom and brothers for our annual get-together for several days of cards, board games, eating, and visiting in early January. The 2009 holiday season does not feel to me that it’s lacking in any way.
Holidays and the Recession: Sasha Smith
Holiday shopping has never been big for me, so no - the recession has not changed my holiday shopping plans this year. What has changed my holiday shopping is the fact that I was a victim of check fraud from a major bank and it's taken them over 6 weeks to put my funds back in my account. I have given them all the proof they requested to prove I was not apart of the scheme. But to no avail no funds of been returned as of yet.
I must say that I am more of an online shopper. I have always preferred browsing in the comfort of my own home and looking at multiple websites with the same item to compare prices, color, and size availability. I mean really who has time to run from store to store to compare all these things and then going back to the store with the best deal. If you are out at a store during this time of year, you are just going to get the first item you see because you are trying to get out of the cold, traffic and away from screaming children.
Traditionally, I would be flying back to the Northeast to visit with family and friends but I decided to stay in Atlanta and spend time with my partner. I also feel backed up with all the work that I have to do with my job and non profits that I've involved in. It seems that the recession has affected my work load which I guess in the end affects my holiday plans since I plan on staying home to catch up on some work.
As far as entertaining goes, I will be continuing to watch movies, drink eggnog and find some fabulous party to attend for New Years Eve. This would be my holiday plans whether the economy was good or bad. I would recommend it to anyone.
Email Sasha
I must say that I am more of an online shopper. I have always preferred browsing in the comfort of my own home and looking at multiple websites with the same item to compare prices, color, and size availability. I mean really who has time to run from store to store to compare all these things and then going back to the store with the best deal. If you are out at a store during this time of year, you are just going to get the first item you see because you are trying to get out of the cold, traffic and away from screaming children.
Traditionally, I would be flying back to the Northeast to visit with family and friends but I decided to stay in Atlanta and spend time with my partner. I also feel backed up with all the work that I have to do with my job and non profits that I've involved in. It seems that the recession has affected my work load which I guess in the end affects my holiday plans since I plan on staying home to catch up on some work.
As far as entertaining goes, I will be continuing to watch movies, drink eggnog and find some fabulous party to attend for New Years Eve. This would be my holiday plans whether the economy was good or bad. I would recommend it to anyone.
Email Sasha
Holidays and the Recession: Ryan John
I’d definitely say I’m cutting back this year. Now for the people who know me, they would agree that “cutting back” is impossible. Not because I’m an uncontrollable spender; but because I can't really take it any farther back. I’ve always been relatively frugal, or as I like to say, “fiscally conservative.”
I’d say last year I wastefully spent more money than I ever have. By wasteful I mean spending pretty liberally at bars and restaurants. However, there usually wasn’t a guilt free morning to follow. But, overall the recession has definitely made me reconsider even the simplest form of what I consider wasteful spending. I’m really concerned about the future of our country’s economy and unfortunately I don’t really see much economic hope in the near future. I’m going back to the same hoarding mentality I had in the college time of my life when I could only work part time and didn’t have much of a savings cushion.
Plus, I’m really not feeling Christmas in the air like I used to. I really can’t believe it’s only about a week away. I’m not sure if I’m the only one who feels like this either. I think the recession has definitely put some burden on the minds of the American people. Do we feel guilty celebrating when Obama just announced 30,000 troops are going to Afghanistan? Is all this negative media concerning the war and economy creating an American psyche less capable of enjoying the innocence and magic of the Holiday Season? For me, yes it has.
I’d say last year I wastefully spent more money than I ever have. By wasteful I mean spending pretty liberally at bars and restaurants. However, there usually wasn’t a guilt free morning to follow. But, overall the recession has definitely made me reconsider even the simplest form of what I consider wasteful spending. I’m really concerned about the future of our country’s economy and unfortunately I don’t really see much economic hope in the near future. I’m going back to the same hoarding mentality I had in the college time of my life when I could only work part time and didn’t have much of a savings cushion.
Plus, I’m really not feeling Christmas in the air like I used to. I really can’t believe it’s only about a week away. I’m not sure if I’m the only one who feels like this either. I think the recession has definitely put some burden on the minds of the American people. Do we feel guilty celebrating when Obama just announced 30,000 troops are going to Afghanistan? Is all this negative media concerning the war and economy creating an American psyche less capable of enjoying the innocence and magic of the Holiday Season? For me, yes it has.
Holidays and the Recession: Have Your Say
Now that you've read what our panel thought on this subject, have your say by leaving a comment.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Houston's Mayoral Election
Today Jeff, Scott, Austin and guest contributor Ryan Allen discuss if America is ready for more openly gay candidates. After reading their opinions, have your say by leaving a comment.
Houston's Mayoral Election: Jeff Weiss
The people of Houston have elected their first openly gay mayor, and now just about everyone is saying that it's “no big deal” and that “it shouldn't matter” or that “elections should be based on qualifications” not race, gender, or sexual preference. It's so easy to say things like that, because it's what we want to believe. Reality, however, often proves otherwise.
Just a few weeks ago, postcards were mailed to residents of Houston touting Gene Locke for mayor. Not much was said about qualifications, but it did say that “God judges” the “sin of homosexuality” and that “the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing.” Emails were sent out by a church pastor to potential voters stating that if elected, Parker would legalize same-sex marriage, order public schools to teach homosexuality to kindergarten students, relax laws against pedophilia, and encourage cross-dressing at the workplace. And guess what? Some people believed it.
About 18 months ago, there was a very active email campaign suggesting that African American presidential candidate Barack Obama was an active Muslim extremist who demanded to be sworn in as a Senator with a Quran as opposed to a Bible. A woman actually called Obama a “terrorist” on live television at a town hall campaign rally for Senator John McCain (who quickly corrected the woman).
I don't know if Annise Parker will be a good mayor or not. She was elected and now she's going to have to do her job. I think it's unfortunate that most of the campaigning against her had little to do with her views on policies as her personal lifestyle. As long as people are different than what is perceived as “the norm” there will be others who will do everything in their power to stop them from taking on authoritative roles. It's so easy to say “issues come first” but anyone who's ever observed or worked on a campaign of minority will tell you otherwise.
Email Jeff
Just a few weeks ago, postcards were mailed to residents of Houston touting Gene Locke for mayor. Not much was said about qualifications, but it did say that “God judges” the “sin of homosexuality” and that “the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing.” Emails were sent out by a church pastor to potential voters stating that if elected, Parker would legalize same-sex marriage, order public schools to teach homosexuality to kindergarten students, relax laws against pedophilia, and encourage cross-dressing at the workplace. And guess what? Some people believed it.
About 18 months ago, there was a very active email campaign suggesting that African American presidential candidate Barack Obama was an active Muslim extremist who demanded to be sworn in as a Senator with a Quran as opposed to a Bible. A woman actually called Obama a “terrorist” on live television at a town hall campaign rally for Senator John McCain (who quickly corrected the woman).
I don't know if Annise Parker will be a good mayor or not. She was elected and now she's going to have to do her job. I think it's unfortunate that most of the campaigning against her had little to do with her views on policies as her personal lifestyle. As long as people are different than what is perceived as “the norm” there will be others who will do everything in their power to stop them from taking on authoritative roles. It's so easy to say “issues come first” but anyone who's ever observed or worked on a campaign of minority will tell you otherwise.
Email Jeff
Houston's Mayoral Election: Scott Hinkley
Coming from the Bay Area, I am obviously very excited about any new milestones in sexual equality. I am equally pleased to see this very "grass-roots" success. I think that Ms. Parker's election is a strong reminder that people can transcend their internal stereotypes when they find a person they connect or identify with. Racism and prejudice tends to build up most in places where there are few actual examples of people fitting those minority groups. Texas strongly apposed all recent attempts to increase the legal rights of gays and lesbians, but they are such a faceless group of sinners until you actually meet one you understand.
I think that homosexuality, along with anything else scorned in ancient religious texts, will remain a strong point of contention long after more victories are won and more leaders appointed, because it erodes the very power-structures built around those texts, and for many, that is a lot of influence and money to let slip away. I encourage all people to see prejudice as a tool for the greedy and the self-righteous, and that diffusing their power is as simple as walking away from their self-serving advice.
Email Scott
I think that homosexuality, along with anything else scorned in ancient religious texts, will remain a strong point of contention long after more victories are won and more leaders appointed, because it erodes the very power-structures built around those texts, and for many, that is a lot of influence and money to let slip away. I encourage all people to see prejudice as a tool for the greedy and the self-righteous, and that diffusing their power is as simple as walking away from their self-serving advice.
Email Scott
Houston's Mayoral Election: Austin Lee
I don't care. I don't care if the candidate is Hispanic, Asian, Black, White, Gay, Straight, Bi-Sexual, Transgender, man or woman. I simply don't care. Those are simply descriptions of the appearance, sexual preference, or gender of a candidate. What really matters is how the candidate plans on governing.
I am supposed to write 3 paragraphs about this topic...but the truth is, I care less about this than I do about Tiger Woods and his harem of mistresses. So, I think that's about it from me.
Congratulations, Houston. You elected a new mayor in a peaceful election. You are just like every other city in the United States. Call me when you do something spectacular, like get yourselves off the Most Unhealthy Cities in America list.
Email Austin
I am supposed to write 3 paragraphs about this topic...but the truth is, I care less about this than I do about Tiger Woods and his harem of mistresses. So, I think that's about it from me.
Congratulations, Houston. You elected a new mayor in a peaceful election. You are just like every other city in the United States. Call me when you do something spectacular, like get yourselves off the Most Unhealthy Cities in America list.
Email Austin
Houston's Mayoral Election: Ryan John
I don't know about other openly gay politicians, but it seems like the city of Houston should be ready for mayor-elect Annise Parker to take office in 2010. My knowledge of Houston politics is minimal, and my interest in Annise Parker has only recently been explored, but she appears to have a clean and accomplished political resume I'd be attracted to. And I have to say, with the recent sexual dishonesty from politicians like Larry Craig or Jim McGreevey, it's refreshing to see someone so open about something they know could potentially jeopardize their political career.
Although Dallas is a relatively friendly city for gay-politicians, with an openly gay Dallas county chief of police, campaign viability for Parker was definitely an issue. Many people thought contributions to the campaign were a waste because a lesbian couldn't win mayor of Houston. However, with the well deserved assistance from activists groups, Parkers candidacy was given the credibility it deserved to ultimately win. As mayor elect, she seems eager to take on the problems of the city accordingly, without paying special attention to gay rights, which doesn't appear to be too high on the Houston political to-do list.
I'm probably in the minority when I say this, but in the beginning of the 2008 Presidential campaign I didn't think a young, black, freshman senator with a name like that could beat out the Clinton machine or a guys whose nickname was "Americas Mayor." Everyday I was proved wrong as his campaign unfolded perfectly into one of the most exciting and in spring candidates possibly ever. So, can an openly gay person, man or woman, become president in my lifetime? The answer is Yes. If that person is capable of leading a party into office, a well ran campaign can absolutely accomplish that.
Before, when people would constantly exclaim the historical racial significance of such things like the elections of Obama, Sotomayor and now Parker, I would criticize the celebration and assumed it advanced a segregated mentality. Then, I reminded myself how proud I get when I see someone I admire who shares the same background I do. It is really inspiring. Plus, I'm so sick of people masquerading onto the public stage while benefiting from their perceived persona and hiding their true selves.
All this pollution of character in public office leads me to respect someone whose openness may offend. Authenticity should be the least we owe people.
Although Dallas is a relatively friendly city for gay-politicians, with an openly gay Dallas county chief of police, campaign viability for Parker was definitely an issue. Many people thought contributions to the campaign were a waste because a lesbian couldn't win mayor of Houston. However, with the well deserved assistance from activists groups, Parkers candidacy was given the credibility it deserved to ultimately win. As mayor elect, she seems eager to take on the problems of the city accordingly, without paying special attention to gay rights, which doesn't appear to be too high on the Houston political to-do list.
I'm probably in the minority when I say this, but in the beginning of the 2008 Presidential campaign I didn't think a young, black, freshman senator with a name like that could beat out the Clinton machine or a guys whose nickname was "Americas Mayor." Everyday I was proved wrong as his campaign unfolded perfectly into one of the most exciting and in spring candidates possibly ever. So, can an openly gay person, man or woman, become president in my lifetime? The answer is Yes. If that person is capable of leading a party into office, a well ran campaign can absolutely accomplish that.
Before, when people would constantly exclaim the historical racial significance of such things like the elections of Obama, Sotomayor and now Parker, I would criticize the celebration and assumed it advanced a segregated mentality. Then, I reminded myself how proud I get when I see someone I admire who shares the same background I do. It is really inspiring. Plus, I'm so sick of people masquerading onto the public stage while benefiting from their perceived persona and hiding their true selves.
All this pollution of character in public office leads me to respect someone whose openness may offend. Authenticity should be the least we owe people.
Houston's Mayoral Election: Have Your Say
Now that you've read what our panel thought on this subject, have your say by leaving a comment.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
SC's Sanford Escapes Impeachment
Today Jeff, Art, Scott, and Sasha offer their opinions on Governor Sanford and if he should have been impeached. After reading their commentaries, join the conversation by leaving a comment.
SC's Sanford Escapes Impeachment: Jeff Weiss
I am disappointed that Mark Sanford will not have to go through impeachment proceedings. While it is probably cost effective to let the lame duck governor of South Carolina limp through his last year in office as opposed to mounting an expensive case against him, I can't help but recall just how vocal the self-proclaimed morally upright Sanford was against former President Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinksky scandal. Flash forward one decade, and Sanford was charged with three dozen ethics violations stemming from when he lied to his staff and family by telling them he was hiking the Appalachian Trail when in fact he was with his mistress in Argentina. Did I mention that it occurred during Father's Day weekend?
Sanford won't be facing impeachment charges, but he will be dealing with divorce proceedings now that his wife Jenny Sanford has filed for divorce. Mrs. Sanford left the governor's mansion in the summer, but waited until last week to file for divorce. In recent years we've witnessed many politicians' wives “stand by their man” in the face of scandal and infidelity. I'm impressed with Mrs. Sanford's conduct. She has stood her ground without taking the low road and airing her dirty laundry. I wish her the best.
And as for Governor Sanford, who at times appeared to be more proud of the fact that he could actually catch the eye of another woman instead of showing remorse for what he has done to his family, I wish him exactly what he deserves: a future far away from public office.
Email Jeff
Sanford won't be facing impeachment charges, but he will be dealing with divorce proceedings now that his wife Jenny Sanford has filed for divorce. Mrs. Sanford left the governor's mansion in the summer, but waited until last week to file for divorce. In recent years we've witnessed many politicians' wives “stand by their man” in the face of scandal and infidelity. I'm impressed with Mrs. Sanford's conduct. She has stood her ground without taking the low road and airing her dirty laundry. I wish her the best.
And as for Governor Sanford, who at times appeared to be more proud of the fact that he could actually catch the eye of another woman instead of showing remorse for what he has done to his family, I wish him exactly what he deserves: a future far away from public office.
Email Jeff
SC's Sanford Escapes Impeachment: David Loftus
Since I don’t know the constitution and laws of the state of South Carolina, I cannot say whether the decision not to impeach Sanford was a legal one (the subcommittee decided there was insufficient basis to impeach) or a political one (the subcommittee did not count enough votes in the legislature to make impeachment a workable exercise). Odds are that it was at least partly a legal decision: that Sanford’s misdeeds, unfortunate and immature though they were, did not rise to the level of impeachable offenses.
But let’s say for the sake of argument that there was a firm legal basis to impeach the governor. Impeachment is a tedious and expensive process, and Sanford has less than a year remaining in office. The subcommittee might well have concluded it wasn’t worth the trouble, and the state could just limp along for the next 11 months by mostly ignoring its very lame-duck governor. Perhaps he’ll make it easier for everyone and resign (though I wouldn’t count on that). A poll by Public Policy Polling found last week that only 32 percent of South Carolina citizens polled wanted the governor impeached, while 52 percent were opposed to impeachment proceedings. That doesn’t mean he’s popular (his general approval ratings have been roughly the reverse of those figures since the affair was discovered in June) or even that they want him to stay in office; another factor may be that Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer’s popularity ratings are even worse. (And even Bauer isn’t living at the bottom of the disapproval basement: that dubious honor goes to Senator Lindsey Graham, who has angered his conservative constituency by supporting climate change and cap-and-trade legislation.)
It doesn’t look like Sanford is going to resign, but he should, to maintain whatever shreds of dignity he can muster. Why stay on when he’s destroyed his credibility and effectiveness as a public official? There is no way he can aspire to any higher position. Politicians need to understand that spending money on a private romantic junket and misleading (okay, lying to) the public about it is like shooting craps; you’re gambling to have it all, and if you lose, you should just walk away from the table -- the game is over. On the other hand, misbehavior such as his would not necessarily be regarded as quite as detrimental in the private sector; possibly there are companies or law firms that might even grin and punch him on the bicep as they hired him.
But let’s say for the sake of argument that there was a firm legal basis to impeach the governor. Impeachment is a tedious and expensive process, and Sanford has less than a year remaining in office. The subcommittee might well have concluded it wasn’t worth the trouble, and the state could just limp along for the next 11 months by mostly ignoring its very lame-duck governor. Perhaps he’ll make it easier for everyone and resign (though I wouldn’t count on that). A poll by Public Policy Polling found last week that only 32 percent of South Carolina citizens polled wanted the governor impeached, while 52 percent were opposed to impeachment proceedings. That doesn’t mean he’s popular (his general approval ratings have been roughly the reverse of those figures since the affair was discovered in June) or even that they want him to stay in office; another factor may be that Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer’s popularity ratings are even worse. (And even Bauer isn’t living at the bottom of the disapproval basement: that dubious honor goes to Senator Lindsey Graham, who has angered his conservative constituency by supporting climate change and cap-and-trade legislation.)
It doesn’t look like Sanford is going to resign, but he should, to maintain whatever shreds of dignity he can muster. Why stay on when he’s destroyed his credibility and effectiveness as a public official? There is no way he can aspire to any higher position. Politicians need to understand that spending money on a private romantic junket and misleading (okay, lying to) the public about it is like shooting craps; you’re gambling to have it all, and if you lose, you should just walk away from the table -- the game is over. On the other hand, misbehavior such as his would not necessarily be regarded as quite as detrimental in the private sector; possibly there are companies or law firms that might even grin and punch him on the bicep as they hired him.
SC's Sanford Escapes Impeachment: Scott Hinkley
I think the decision not to impeach Mark Sanford was the right one, but I can see how it must have been a difficult consensus to seek. I appreciate that as a culture we desire personal leadership out of our professional leaders, but I am pleased that the state government chose to make a distinction between professional and personal transgressions. As far as I can tell, the only professional failure he made was to take an undisclosed vacation, which seems irresponsible, but hardly deserving of impeachment.
I can understand how many would have hopped for more serious professional punishment for his violation of marital trust, but to me this smacks of righteous indignation. I am more of the school of thought that we should accept the humanity in our leader's mistakes as reassurance that their so-called "demons" are more likely complexities that arise from a modern sense of collective destiny conflicting with individualism, a condition we all share. This makes the hypocrisy of moralization seem very unappealing to me. I do not attempt to defend Mr. Sanford's poor choices, but I caution those still hungry for retribution, the biggest mistake is to assume that those you know an love would not be capable of the same mistakes.
Email Scott
I can understand how many would have hopped for more serious professional punishment for his violation of marital trust, but to me this smacks of righteous indignation. I am more of the school of thought that we should accept the humanity in our leader's mistakes as reassurance that their so-called "demons" are more likely complexities that arise from a modern sense of collective destiny conflicting with individualism, a condition we all share. This makes the hypocrisy of moralization seem very unappealing to me. I do not attempt to defend Mr. Sanford's poor choices, but I caution those still hungry for retribution, the biggest mistake is to assume that those you know an love would not be capable of the same mistakes.
Email Scott
SC's Sanford Escapes Impeachment: Sasha Smith
I'm currently studying for my Graduate Record Exams (GRE's) to apply to a graduate program here in Atlanta. In practicing for the Issue Essay, we are told to make a list of examples for and against an issue. I decided to use this same technique to decide on the issue of Mark Sanford remaining in office. Sanfordgate is rather interesting. Immediately, I want to say that he should be impeached but I took an extra minute to think about the issue.
Stealing money from the government and essentially the people to take a trip to visit your mistress to keep her company in the Argentinean summer is just not acceptable. He not only took trips on the tax-payers dime but also lied to his family and the public stating that he would be hiking in the mountains. Thinking that this sort of behavior is acceptable as a public servant is not okay. I can't help but to think this is the exact privileged behavior that got our country into most of the problems that we are in today.
The most interesting part of this story is that Sanford voted for Clinton to be impeached during the Lewinsky drama. He was quoted as calling Clinton's situation "reprehensible." The irony that he is caught up in a similar scandal is just typical of Sanford's character. Now, I'm not going to lie and say that I'm not biased. Any opportunity to dismiss a white man in power who shows no love for social justice, gay rights, and abortion is cool with me - but I guess I'm not suppose to judge him on that. I personally would never vote for Mr. Sanford to be in office but the majority did in his wonderful state of South Carolina.
At the end of the day, we should not be judging a government official on his personal life or sexual preference. It has nothing to do with how he or she can perform his or her duties. America is one of the few countries that does judge their officials on their personal lives and I'm not sure that this practice is okay. If a government official has the most scandalous home life but really works for the people and cares about them then it is what it is. And I guess he gets to keep his job since he did pay the taxpayers back for his little getaway to Argentina. If the people that put him in office are cool with it then I guess I am.
Email Sasha
Stealing money from the government and essentially the people to take a trip to visit your mistress to keep her company in the Argentinean summer is just not acceptable. He not only took trips on the tax-payers dime but also lied to his family and the public stating that he would be hiking in the mountains. Thinking that this sort of behavior is acceptable as a public servant is not okay. I can't help but to think this is the exact privileged behavior that got our country into most of the problems that we are in today.
The most interesting part of this story is that Sanford voted for Clinton to be impeached during the Lewinsky drama. He was quoted as calling Clinton's situation "reprehensible." The irony that he is caught up in a similar scandal is just typical of Sanford's character. Now, I'm not going to lie and say that I'm not biased. Any opportunity to dismiss a white man in power who shows no love for social justice, gay rights, and abortion is cool with me - but I guess I'm not suppose to judge him on that. I personally would never vote for Mr. Sanford to be in office but the majority did in his wonderful state of South Carolina.
At the end of the day, we should not be judging a government official on his personal life or sexual preference. It has nothing to do with how he or she can perform his or her duties. America is one of the few countries that does judge their officials on their personal lives and I'm not sure that this practice is okay. If a government official has the most scandalous home life but really works for the people and cares about them then it is what it is. And I guess he gets to keep his job since he did pay the taxpayers back for his little getaway to Argentina. If the people that put him in office are cool with it then I guess I am.
Email Sasha
SC's Sanford Escapes Impeachment: Have Your Say
Now that you've read what our panel thought on this subject, have your say by leaving a comment.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Tiger Woods Takes a Break
On Saturday, Gillette and and other sponsors began taking steps to distance themselves from Woods, who endorses their products. No commercials featuring Woods have aired on prime time television since November 29.
Can Tiger Woods' career be saved in light of recent events?
Jeff, Art and Shaun share their thoughts on this subject today. After reading their opinions, have your say by leaving a comment.
Tiger Woods Takes a Break: Jeff Weiss
Tiger Woods is suffering for the mistakes he's made. He will suffer the loss of product endorsements, which will result in financial loss. He will suffer the loss of fans. But the biggest suffering will be within his family, who now must try to privately put back together the pieces of their life in front of a very public worldwide stage.
He now has the task of winning back the trust of his wife and children while the media replays the events of the last month over and over again. Will Woods be able to stage a professional comeback? Odds are that he will; after all, the public has a way of forgiving celebrities of their transgressions as time goes on. However, the damage done to his family may be more difficult to repair.
I think taking an extended break from professional golf is in the best interest of Tiger Woods. My hope for him and for his family is that he spends this break wisely by working to become a better husband and father.
Email Jeff
He now has the task of winning back the trust of his wife and children while the media replays the events of the last month over and over again. Will Woods be able to stage a professional comeback? Odds are that he will; after all, the public has a way of forgiving celebrities of their transgressions as time goes on. However, the damage done to his family may be more difficult to repair.
I think taking an extended break from professional golf is in the best interest of Tiger Woods. My hope for him and for his family is that he spends this break wisely by working to become a better husband and father.
Email Jeff
Tiger Woods Takes A Break: David Loftus
I haven’t been keeping count and I am not watching the stories, so I’ll take whoever’s word for it that the count is twelve and the ads have ceased. But this one’s easy: Tiger Woods’s career is forever tarnished and he will bounce back. He may not stay married and he may not end up with the same array of sponsors, but the arc of his future isn’t hard to predict.
Things will be quiet for a time, while he gets his personal life sorted out. That will take one to three years, let us say. After that, married or single, sponsored or not, he will go out on the links and start winning again. Once he’s returned to being a golf champ, corporations will want him in their ads again. Perhaps not the same ones as before, but if people want to watch him play, then sponsors will want to feature him.
Few of the rest of us will feel quite the same about him, but it’s not as if he was involved in a gambling scandal that was discovered after his athletic career was pretty much over anyway (like Pete Rose), or he was betting on and breeding pit bulls for fighting (like Michael Vick). He’ll just be human now, not perfectly superhuman. And I suppose there’s no great harm in that for anyone but him and his wife.
Things will be quiet for a time, while he gets his personal life sorted out. That will take one to three years, let us say. After that, married or single, sponsored or not, he will go out on the links and start winning again. Once he’s returned to being a golf champ, corporations will want him in their ads again. Perhaps not the same ones as before, but if people want to watch him play, then sponsors will want to feature him.
Few of the rest of us will feel quite the same about him, but it’s not as if he was involved in a gambling scandal that was discovered after his athletic career was pretty much over anyway (like Pete Rose), or he was betting on and breeding pit bulls for fighting (like Michael Vick). He’ll just be human now, not perfectly superhuman. And I suppose there’s no great harm in that for anyone but him and his wife.
Tiger Woods Takes a Break: Shaun Hautly
Sadly, he probably can't. Save for some giant contrived marketing scheme, this may be his exit from the good favor of the public. And it's a damn shame. This is another great example of a scandal that should have been the business of Tiger and his family only. What have we gained here?! The ability to point a finger and say the famous are corrupt once again? What we have done is lost an amazing American role model.
We keep doing this. We know JFK had mistresses, but we still respected him. We did this to David Letterman, Michael Jackson, Jon and Kate, Mel Gibson, Britney Spears, Vanessa Hudgens, the Janet Jackson Superbowl Halftime Show, and so many more. If we keep publicizing all of the indiscretions of our icons, we're going to run out of American Heroes. We now know of Babe Ruth's vices, but in his time, every kid wanted to be him. He was a flawless legend. Who, now, do kids look up to? Every time someone slips, we talk only about the slips, not the hours of practice in their field, their charitable donations, or their community service.
Yes, these stories sell and gain popularity, and yes, to and extent, the 'people' have a right to know. However, how much better would we be if we kept these stories to ourselves instead of selling them? We'd still have singers, athletes, and people in show business for our children to aspire to be. If we could punish those players who have taken steroids, but without televising the court hearings, maybe we'd be just that much better off. Let's just get on with it. Stop making the tabloids our headlines.
Email Shaun
We keep doing this. We know JFK had mistresses, but we still respected him. We did this to David Letterman, Michael Jackson, Jon and Kate, Mel Gibson, Britney Spears, Vanessa Hudgens, the Janet Jackson Superbowl Halftime Show, and so many more. If we keep publicizing all of the indiscretions of our icons, we're going to run out of American Heroes. We now know of Babe Ruth's vices, but in his time, every kid wanted to be him. He was a flawless legend. Who, now, do kids look up to? Every time someone slips, we talk only about the slips, not the hours of practice in their field, their charitable donations, or their community service.
Yes, these stories sell and gain popularity, and yes, to and extent, the 'people' have a right to know. However, how much better would we be if we kept these stories to ourselves instead of selling them? We'd still have singers, athletes, and people in show business for our children to aspire to be. If we could punish those players who have taken steroids, but without televising the court hearings, maybe we'd be just that much better off. Let's just get on with it. Stop making the tabloids our headlines.
Email Shaun
Tiger Woods Takes a Break: Have Your Say
Now that you've read what our panel thought on this subject, have your say by leaving a comment.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Week in Review - Sunday
Today, Patrick and Nikki give their opinions on two of the topics we covered earlier in the week. After reading what is on their minds, be sure to join the conversation by leaving a comment.
Week in Review - Sunday: Patrick Dresslar
Sexting Tragedy
Jessica Logan's story is a tragedy of epic proportions. A simple picture ended her life because it fell into the wrong hands. Throughout this country we have seen the torment and powerful repercussions of teenage bullying resulting in suicide time and time again. I don't know all of the details of the case, but the school's administrators and school board should have been done more to deter the overt harassment she was suffering, including suspension or expulsion of students found guilty of throwing things at her on graduation day or any other incidents of extreme harassment. School administrators have to step up in these situations and impose a zero-tolerance policy on student harassment. We have seen stories like Logan's too often for teachers and principals to just turn a blind eye. These students are criminals, and certainly guilty of the Logans' accusations of severe infliction of emotional distress.
I am sure the parties involved are all guilt-ridden, wishing they could have changed the way they acted. Logan's boyfriend is culpable in all this, even if the break-up is nasty, man up and don't distribute nude photos of your ex. But I simply cannot get past the school administration's part in all this. Again, without knowing all of the details, it is safe to say that early on they knew about the photos spreading throughout campus and did not do enough to protect Logan against all of the harassment. They have to be in her corner entirely, she is the victim of teenage bullying and someone with authority needs to ensure that she will be protected, and this includes the police. I hope the Logans are successful in their pursuit for some semblance of justice, although winning any lawsuit will never replace their daughter.
Email Patrick
Jessica Logan's story is a tragedy of epic proportions. A simple picture ended her life because it fell into the wrong hands. Throughout this country we have seen the torment and powerful repercussions of teenage bullying resulting in suicide time and time again. I don't know all of the details of the case, but the school's administrators and school board should have been done more to deter the overt harassment she was suffering, including suspension or expulsion of students found guilty of throwing things at her on graduation day or any other incidents of extreme harassment. School administrators have to step up in these situations and impose a zero-tolerance policy on student harassment. We have seen stories like Logan's too often for teachers and principals to just turn a blind eye. These students are criminals, and certainly guilty of the Logans' accusations of severe infliction of emotional distress.
I am sure the parties involved are all guilt-ridden, wishing they could have changed the way they acted. Logan's boyfriend is culpable in all this, even if the break-up is nasty, man up and don't distribute nude photos of your ex. But I simply cannot get past the school administration's part in all this. Again, without knowing all of the details, it is safe to say that early on they knew about the photos spreading throughout campus and did not do enough to protect Logan against all of the harassment. They have to be in her corner entirely, she is the victim of teenage bullying and someone with authority needs to ensure that she will be protected, and this includes the police. I hope the Logans are successful in their pursuit for some semblance of justice, although winning any lawsuit will never replace their daughter.
Email Patrick
Week in Review - Sunday: Nikki Lorenzini
Can You Hear the Fee?
I deal with Verizon at work. We get about 20 different some odd bills in from them a month, including our wireless bill. I was also blessed by being given the responsibility of handling the company's cell phones, and we have about 120 lines. I knew months ago that Verizon charged the $1.99 for the mobile internet, and I knew that it was a big rip off. But I didn’t realize about the increased early termination fee until a month ago when one of my co-workers sent me an article about this. Boy, was I upset.
First, all I have to say about the early termination fee: Verizon, if you are so worried about losing money on your discounted phones, don’t discount them. Is that fair of me to say? Cell phone companies discount phones all the time, and I don’t see my carrier trying to recoup their money. I personally think Verizon’s cell service is over priced and their customer service is horrible.
But with that $1.99 stuff, that is really sneaky of them. I know with my carrier, if we hit the mobile web button, it lets us check our phone account, and that’s it. And it's for free. I was looking at some Verizon cell phones after I first heard of this, and they do make it nice and convenient for people to hit with out meaning to. I think with our bill, we might have about $20 dollars being billed from this particular charge, and it makes me curious as to how many of those people actually meant to hit that button. I tried contacting our Verizon rep to see if he can block accidental internet access. I still haven’t heard back from him.
Last month I found an old map from Verizon from about 3 yrs ago that shows their coverage. It was about ½ of the US. I just got a recent one. It covers approximately 99% of the nation. Can we say monopoly anyone?
Email Nikki
I deal with Verizon at work. We get about 20 different some odd bills in from them a month, including our wireless bill. I was also blessed by being given the responsibility of handling the company's cell phones, and we have about 120 lines. I knew months ago that Verizon charged the $1.99 for the mobile internet, and I knew that it was a big rip off. But I didn’t realize about the increased early termination fee until a month ago when one of my co-workers sent me an article about this. Boy, was I upset.
First, all I have to say about the early termination fee: Verizon, if you are so worried about losing money on your discounted phones, don’t discount them. Is that fair of me to say? Cell phone companies discount phones all the time, and I don’t see my carrier trying to recoup their money. I personally think Verizon’s cell service is over priced and their customer service is horrible.
But with that $1.99 stuff, that is really sneaky of them. I know with my carrier, if we hit the mobile web button, it lets us check our phone account, and that’s it. And it's for free. I was looking at some Verizon cell phones after I first heard of this, and they do make it nice and convenient for people to hit with out meaning to. I think with our bill, we might have about $20 dollars being billed from this particular charge, and it makes me curious as to how many of those people actually meant to hit that button. I tried contacting our Verizon rep to see if he can block accidental internet access. I still haven’t heard back from him.
Last month I found an old map from Verizon from about 3 yrs ago that shows their coverage. It was about ½ of the US. I just got a recent one. It covers approximately 99% of the nation. Can we say monopoly anyone?
Email Nikki
Week in Review - Sunday: Have Your Say
Now that you've read what Patrick and Nikki thought of some of the topics we've covered this week, have your say by leaving a comment.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Week in Review
Week in Review: Patrick Dresslar
Bearing Arms
Alongside the right to an abortion, the right to bear arms is arguably
the most contentious constitutional debate in our country. The second
amendment, written in a less-than-satisfactory manner has been mulled
over and debated since pen was put to parchment. For myself, I have
had painstaking internal deliberation to shape my opinion on gun
rights. Over the years my view on the matter has steadily shifted
from steadfast pro gun control to what now is a view somewhere on the
right of the middle. I believe that we have the right to bear arms,
but I believe the government has every right and responsibility to
regulate the manufacture and sale of firearms with due diligence in
order to protect the citizenry.
Donna Jackson's tragic tale is a perfect platform for discussion on
this divisive political issue. She was forced into a precarious
situation where owning a gun helped protect her from harm. The
criminal is Riley, he is breaking and entering, and Jackson has no
idea what kind of threat he is. She is an older woman and for all she
knows he is there to rape and kill her. She warned him, which further
justifies her actions. If the government banned sale of guns to
citizens, people would be unable to properly protect their homes and
persons. Criminals and killers are still going to buy guns, just
illegally. If you make it impossible to protect oneself with a gun,
an armed criminal will run rampant. If a criminal were breaking into
your home or threatening you with a firearm, would you rather be armed
or praying for God to spare you? If pro gun control advocates had it
their way, there would be more victims because more people would be
unable to fight back. Just as drugs are illegal yet still permeate
our society at every corner, making guns illegal won't eliminate guns
getting in the hands of criminals, it will only eliminate guns getting
in the hands of those who need protection from criminals.
Having said that, there need to be strict regulations on who can
purchase a gun. Thorough background checks are required and should be
handled at the state level with proper communication with federal
agents. I was once of the mind that less guns equals less crime, but
I now see honest citizens owning guns (or more accurately the right to
do so) as a helpful deterrent to crime, and just one of many pieces of
the puzzle of decreasing crime.
Email Patrick
Alongside the right to an abortion, the right to bear arms is arguably
the most contentious constitutional debate in our country. The second
amendment, written in a less-than-satisfactory manner has been mulled
over and debated since pen was put to parchment. For myself, I have
had painstaking internal deliberation to shape my opinion on gun
rights. Over the years my view on the matter has steadily shifted
from steadfast pro gun control to what now is a view somewhere on the
right of the middle. I believe that we have the right to bear arms,
but I believe the government has every right and responsibility to
regulate the manufacture and sale of firearms with due diligence in
order to protect the citizenry.
Donna Jackson's tragic tale is a perfect platform for discussion on
this divisive political issue. She was forced into a precarious
situation where owning a gun helped protect her from harm. The
criminal is Riley, he is breaking and entering, and Jackson has no
idea what kind of threat he is. She is an older woman and for all she
knows he is there to rape and kill her. She warned him, which further
justifies her actions. If the government banned sale of guns to
citizens, people would be unable to properly protect their homes and
persons. Criminals and killers are still going to buy guns, just
illegally. If you make it impossible to protect oneself with a gun,
an armed criminal will run rampant. If a criminal were breaking into
your home or threatening you with a firearm, would you rather be armed
or praying for God to spare you? If pro gun control advocates had it
their way, there would be more victims because more people would be
unable to fight back. Just as drugs are illegal yet still permeate
our society at every corner, making guns illegal won't eliminate guns
getting in the hands of criminals, it will only eliminate guns getting
in the hands of those who need protection from criminals.
Having said that, there need to be strict regulations on who can
purchase a gun. Thorough background checks are required and should be
handled at the state level with proper communication with federal
agents. I was once of the mind that less guns equals less crime, but
I now see honest citizens owning guns (or more accurately the right to
do so) as a helpful deterrent to crime, and just one of many pieces of
the puzzle of decreasing crime.
Email Patrick
Week in Review: Nikki Lorenzini
Sexting Tragedy
I have so much to say about this topic and so little space to vent. I would like to pose two questions: Why do these kids have cell phones and where are their parents?
I might sound old fashioned, but cell phones were just coming out when I was in high school (mind you, I graduated back in 2001). They weren’t fancy. I don’t even think they had text messaging. I had a crappy one in 11th and 12th grade that was a pre-paid from Bell Atlantic (remember them? Thank you, Verizon for buying them), and it didn’t even have voice mail. But heck, it was mine and I was paying for it. Yes, I always paid for my cell phone. Now, I see kids rolling around with blackberrys (I don’t even have a black berry). I see them with these fancy phones and I wonder if it's really necessary. I know for sure it is not necessary for me, and I’m 26! I can wait to get home to check my Facebook and email. But can these kids really be trusted with cell phones?
And I would really like to know where are the kids' parents. Kids today are more sexually active. Call me old fashioned once again, but why can’t parents teach these kids to keep their clothes on? I believe that teaching kids about sex should start at home. Yes, school is where kids spend a good chunk of their day, but the schools did not give birth to them. The parents need to teach their children some type of responsibility. I am tired of hearing about children getting harassed for doing this type of stuff when the parents should have taught them that these things have consequences. I was always taught to be careful what you say in emails because they can be forwarded onto others. The same thing applies to texting, especially when it comes to these types of things. What teenage boy will really delete a nude picture of their girlfriend?
Yes, I believe that the school and police could have done more to protect this student. But to put all of the blame on the school? Nay Nay. I am waiting for the day that parents teach their children some type of responsibility and self respect.
Email Nikki
I have so much to say about this topic and so little space to vent. I would like to pose two questions: Why do these kids have cell phones and where are their parents?
I might sound old fashioned, but cell phones were just coming out when I was in high school (mind you, I graduated back in 2001). They weren’t fancy. I don’t even think they had text messaging. I had a crappy one in 11th and 12th grade that was a pre-paid from Bell Atlantic (remember them? Thank you, Verizon for buying them), and it didn’t even have voice mail. But heck, it was mine and I was paying for it. Yes, I always paid for my cell phone. Now, I see kids rolling around with blackberrys (I don’t even have a black berry). I see them with these fancy phones and I wonder if it's really necessary. I know for sure it is not necessary for me, and I’m 26! I can wait to get home to check my Facebook and email. But can these kids really be trusted with cell phones?
And I would really like to know where are the kids' parents. Kids today are more sexually active. Call me old fashioned once again, but why can’t parents teach these kids to keep their clothes on? I believe that teaching kids about sex should start at home. Yes, school is where kids spend a good chunk of their day, but the schools did not give birth to them. The parents need to teach their children some type of responsibility. I am tired of hearing about children getting harassed for doing this type of stuff when the parents should have taught them that these things have consequences. I was always taught to be careful what you say in emails because they can be forwarded onto others. The same thing applies to texting, especially when it comes to these types of things. What teenage boy will really delete a nude picture of their girlfriend?
Yes, I believe that the school and police could have done more to protect this student. But to put all of the blame on the school? Nay Nay. I am waiting for the day that parents teach their children some type of responsibility and self respect.
Email Nikki
Week in Review: Have Your Say
Now that you've read what Patrick and Nikki thought of some of the topics we've covered this week, have your say by leaving a comment.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Bearing Arms
Very early last Friday morning in Cushing, Oklahoma, Billy Dean Riley wrecked his car and walked to the nearest house where he attempted to gain entry. Awakened by her barking dog, 57 year old Donna Jackson called 911. While on the phone with the dispatcher, Jackson warned Riley that she had a rifle. Riley then threw a chair through a window, and was shot to death by Jackson. No charges were filed against Jackson.
911 Call:
Today Art, Shaun, and Austin take on the topic of the right to bear arms, as well as whether Donna Jackson was justified in her actions. After reading their thoughts, have your say by leaving a comment.
911 Call:
Today Art, Shaun, and Austin take on the topic of the right to bear arms, as well as whether Donna Jackson was justified in her actions. After reading their thoughts, have your say by leaving a comment.
Bearing Arms: David Loftus
This tale of monumental stupidity (on Billy Dean Riley’s part) doesn’t serve to illustrate anything with regard to gun rights or gun control. Riley should have known better than to break into someone’s house -- especially at that time of day, in that part of the country -- without announcing himself and making sure he was fully identified before entering. He had to have been drunk or stoned or completely out of his mind. Donna Jackson was on solid legal ground when she fired a gun at an unidentified and possibly violent intruder, but that may not make it much easier to live with herself afterward. A shotgun is not a very tactically useful weapon; perhaps a different sort of firearm would have been more effective -- for firing a warning shot and giving Riley a chance to come to his senses instead of having to die.
All that being said, I don’t see how anyone can still believe there’s an individual right to bear arms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, when the courts have repeatedly ruled that it is not so. I can’t understand how anyone still hasn’t grasped that people who keep firearms in their homes are statistically more likely to see themselves or their loved ones hurt by those guns, than to “protect themselves from an intruder.” (Ask yourself what would have happened if Jackson had not been armed; would Riley have beaten her up? Raped her? Robbed her? Unless he had an extensive criminal record, probably not. More likely, they would have ended up talking, and if he needed medical treatment or a tow truck for his vehicle, she would have helped him telephone the right folks.) And anyone who still buys that National Rifle Association hokum that “guns don’t kill people…” and actually believes that just as many wonderful folks would be dead today if we had tighter controls on who gets to own and use guns, simply isn’t using his common sense.
But that’s quasi-democratic representative government for you: a majority of moronic sheep are perfectly free to be led around by a vocal minority into “protecting” their own fear, insecurity, and lack of safety with jingoistic slogans and disregard for reason and reality.
All that being said, I don’t see how anyone can still believe there’s an individual right to bear arms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, when the courts have repeatedly ruled that it is not so. I can’t understand how anyone still hasn’t grasped that people who keep firearms in their homes are statistically more likely to see themselves or their loved ones hurt by those guns, than to “protect themselves from an intruder.” (Ask yourself what would have happened if Jackson had not been armed; would Riley have beaten her up? Raped her? Robbed her? Unless he had an extensive criminal record, probably not. More likely, they would have ended up talking, and if he needed medical treatment or a tow truck for his vehicle, she would have helped him telephone the right folks.) And anyone who still buys that National Rifle Association hokum that “guns don’t kill people…” and actually believes that just as many wonderful folks would be dead today if we had tighter controls on who gets to own and use guns, simply isn’t using his common sense.
But that’s quasi-democratic representative government for you: a majority of moronic sheep are perfectly free to be led around by a vocal minority into “protecting” their own fear, insecurity, and lack of safety with jingoistic slogans and disregard for reason and reality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
