Last Christmas, Nikki Lorenzini shared with us her thoughts on Faith in America.
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
Before I begin, the iPad is this: An Apple device announced in January. It's basically an oversized iPod Touch on Steroids. Almost a 10" screen, 1.5 lbs, and 1/2 an inch thick. It plays videos, music, browses photos and the web, all in an intimate touch-centric way. There is also a model appearing in "late April" which will also have a 3G radio to provide internet when WIFI cannot be found.
It's the 3G version that I'll be getting, so on today's big launch, I'm not going to buy one. However, that won't stop me from waiting in line for 2 hours just to play with one. It went like this:
I arrived at about 8:45 for the 9am launch. The line was down the mall for almost 500 feet. Two lines, actually. One for those who reserved one online and were picking it up and paying, and another for those who did NOT reserve, but still wanted one. I was in the latter. As we waited, some having been there for hours already, Smart water was offered to us for free, and mall restaurants were offering to deliver food to us in line while we waited. The wait seemed to fly by, however. Before I knew it, there was cheering, and ALL the employees (well over 40 of them) came running down the line, the leader was holding an iPad, and the rest were giving high-fives. The energy was high.
The employees regrouped in front of the store, said a few words that we couldn't hear from our spot in line, and then counted down the seconds to 9 O'clock. The gate flew up and moments later, the first customer entered the store amidst cheers and applause.
During our 2 and a half hour wait, the entire line of reservations left happy, and we made our way in at a much slower pace. The wait wasn't awful though, because employees were coming around the line with iPads, demonstrating them, and allowing us to touch them, use them, play games, type, pinch, zoom, swipe, tap, read, watch, write, and drool. While I have been anticipating the iPad since before it was announced, this blew me away. I'd watched EVERY video demonstrating the interface and read every review on the product before launch. However, they were right. Nothing does justice the experience of holding this device in your hand and having it react INSTANTLY to your gestures.
The staff was so friendly and just as excited as the rest of us. It was so worth the wait to hold one, and I'm looking forward to waiting again when the 3G version becomes available.
As far as my experience with one, everything blew me away. I spent most of my time trying things in pages as I'm always creating documents and proposals. Adding pictures was like scrap booking. I was able to move them around with a finger, rotate them with two, and resize them by pinching and zooming. I had complete control, a feeling that I've never had on a desktop or laptop before. Once in the store, I also took the time to type with all my fingers. I really was like a real keyboard. Only smarter. It corrected extra letters that my fingers hit, it added apostrophes to the words that needed them, and it felt natural. My advice on typing would be the same as it is on the iPhone: Go quickly and confidently and be pleasantly surprised at what comes out. Just because you hit the wrong letter doesn't mean you need to go back.
So I can't wait for "Late April" and I'm looking forward to writing my submissions from the new tablet computer that's probably going to change the world.
Every American seems to favor the First Amendment right of free speech until it comes to people he or she disagrees with. When a conservative commentator says something a liberal finds offensive, the latter calls it "hate speech"; when a liberal says something a conservative objects to, it gets labeled "unpatriotic," even "treasonous." And in extreme cases, the law and the courts have found certain forms of speech at both ends to be actionable.
Is there a difference between the two? Or are they more the same than they are different? After David and Austin face off, you can have your say by leaving a comment.
DAVID LOFTUS:
Many conservatives don’t really value free speech rights because they don’t like having to hear certain things, whether they’re fundamentalists upset about sex and strong language on TV or so-called patriots who don’t like to hear about anti-war dissent, multiculturalism and other liberal values. But as soon as they want to insult and threaten people with whom they disagree, then it’s all about “freedom of speech.”
The difference I see is, the objectionable things liberals talk about -- evolution, sexuality, divergent points of view and spiritual belief, disagreement with American war policy -- do not normally involve criminal acts, but the things I hear conservatives say (for example, Glenn Beck’s “I’m thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I’m wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it,” or Michael Savage’s “I’d hang every lawyer who went down to Guantánamo to defend those murderers”; and remember former Congresswoman Michelle Bachman’s exhortation to a campaign-trail crowd to “get armed and dangerous”?) sometimes do.
Now, I don’t believe Tea Party fanatics who threaten and insult Obama are any real threat. They’re blusterers and mouth bullies. It’s hilarious that Austin Lee tries to make people like Limbaugh, Beck, or Sean Hannity out to be victims: these men made their reputations and maintain their audience numbers by behaving “mean, angry, and scary.” It’s also amusing that Lee equates being shouted down, lampooned, or made to look mean and scary with a loss of free speech; that’s nothing more than one expression of free speech battling another -- openly and freely. However, I fear the rising tide of verbal rage over Obama and health care reform may embolden individuals who were crazy to begin with and needed an excuse to pull an act of domestic terrorism, whether a random bombing or an attempt on the life of the President.
In a nice bit of ironic timing, yesterday Scott Roeder the man who killed physician George Tiller “so he could not dismember another innocent baby,” was sentenced to life in prison. Perhaps Mr. Lee can provide an example of where liberal ideology led someone to take another human being’s life. I’m as staunch an advocate of free speech as anyone; we can’t shut these loud-mouth bullies down. But there’s gotta be some way to out-shout, out-ridicule, or humiliate them so that one of two things happens: they choose to simmer down themselves, or people just stop listening to them.
AUSTIN LEE:
These are the exact same issue as far as I am concerned and the very reason that the freedom of speech was included in the Bill of Rights. These men knew then what we still know to be true today: Opposing sides always want to shut down the competition.
Unfortunately it seems to me that after the McCarthyism of the 1950's the main opponent of free speech has been Liberals that shout down dissenting opinions from conservatives as closed minded or hate speech. As soon as a conservative radio host voices an opinion that is contrary to their beliefs or world view they begin to lampoon this opinion no matter how widely held by the American people.
The problem is that Liberals control the main stream media. So, while the issue is the same, the problem is more pronounced for the conservatives. In the media they are made to look mean, angry, and scary, while the Liberals are made to look like the free speech victims. Anytime that a conservative complains that his freedom of speech has been violated the media paints it as an over reaction. When a Liberal voices the complaint the media makes the offense out to be the worst violation of civil rights since Jim Crow.
Until the media begins to treat ALL forms of free speech violations as harmful to our freedoms we will be in a perpetual state of unbalance and unfairness.
Easter Traditions: Bunnies, Candy, and Eggs! Oh My!
The exact origins of the Easter bunny are not very clear, but rabbits are a symbol of fertility and new life. Some sources say that the Easter bunny arrived in America in the 1700’s with German immigrants who settled in PA. Their tradition of egg laying rabbits was called “Osterhase” or “Oschter Haws.” Children made nests so that the bunnies could come and lay their colored eggs, and this tradition spread across the US. Eventually the tradition expanded to include chocolate and other kinds of candy, and the nests were replaced with decorated baskets.
As well as the bunny, the egg is an ancient symbol of new life and it has been associated with pagan festivals that celebrate spring. The tradition of decorating eggs dates back to at least the 13th century. One reason for decorating eggs comes from a time when people were forbidden food during Lent, so they would paint and decorate eggs to mark the end of the season and then eat them as a celebration on Easter.
After Halloween, Easter is the second largest candy selling holiday. Jelly beans became associated with Easter back in the 1930’s, but they also date back to the Biblical era in a concoction called “Turkish Delights.” Another well known Easter candy is Peeps. They were first sold back in the 1950‘s by the Pennsylvania based company Just Born.
Easter: The celebration of the Resurrection
Easter is the most important and oldest holiday in the Christian religion. Since the 4th century, it has been celebrated on the first Sunday following the full moon after the vernal equinox on March 21, which has Easter fall anywhere between March 22 and April 25. The holiday celebrates the resurrection of Jesus three days after his death by crucifixion. Christianity teaches that God sent his one and only son, Jesus, to die for our sins, and his death is the perfect atoning sacrifice for mankind’s sins.
During his three years of preaching, Jesus taught that he was the prophesied son of God. Because of that teaching, the Jewish high priests and the Sanhedrin accused him of blasphemy, which lead to a death sentence through crucifixion. Jesus was found innocent by Pilate, a Roman governor in Judea. Despite Pilot finding Jesus innocent, he feared the crowds and let the chief priests decide Jesus’ fate. With a declaration, “Crucify him!,” history was forever changed. Jesus ended up being scourged, or beaten, with a whip before his crucifixion. The whip was made of leather pieces with tiny pieces of iron and bone chips tied to the end. He was spit on, mocked, and crowned with a crown of thorns.
Carrying his cross after being stripped, he ended up at Golgotha. Nails that were the sizes of stakes were driven through his wrists and ankles, and he was crucified between two convicted criminals. He had an inscription above his head reading, “The King of the Jews.” He hung on the cross for about six hours. During his hanging on the cross, soldiers cast lots for his clothes, insulted, scoffed at, and spoke with his best friend John and his mother Mary. The Roman soldiers usually broke crucified people’s legs to show more mercy by helping them die quicker. Since Jesus had already died, they pierced his side as blood and water flowed from his side. After being buried in a borrowed tomb, Jesus broke the chains of death by rising again, for which we celebrate Easter Sunday, as accounted in Luke 24:
On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, "Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: 'The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again."
Since AmericanCurrents.com debuted last Fall, we've written about various topics – such as Tiger Woods, Sarah Palin, health care reform, Sarah Palin's visor, Barack Obama's presidency, Sarah Palin's opinion of the Family Guy animated television series, the Toyota recalls, Sarah Palin's possible 2012 presidential bid, global warming, and then there was something else about Sarah Palin.
Judging from the comments and emails we receive, some of you agree with us, some of you really disagree with us, and some of you have read things here that have enlightened you and allowed you to look at an issue with a different approach.
Today, we've asked the members of our panel to take a look at the issues they have written about, along with what their co-contributors have written on the same topics, to see if anything they've read here has allowed them to look an issue with a new angle. And yes, one of them is about Sarah Palin.
ROSEANNE FRANGIONE:
It has been well over a year since the inauguration of Barack Obama and I would guess that more has been written about his presidency than any other before him, at least at this stage of the game. I've been a critic of the Obama administration and some of you may go as far as to say that I've been a harsh critic. All I can tell you is that I write from my heart and my heart guides my mind. Upon reflecting upon the past year and two months, I'm willing to say that I may have been a bit too hard on Barack Obama.
Here are a few things that I can honestly say that I like about Barack Obama. First, he looks great with more gray in his hair. It makes him look mature, and more “presidential.” His resume may say “I don't have a lot of experience,” but his hair says, “I look like a president!” Next, he kept his Blackberry. Other presidents before him had to turn in their cellphones and PDA's, but not Barack Obama. He's a busy man on the go with an active wife and two kids. Good for him for being able to text an “lol” or two to Michelle from Air Force One. For as much as it pains me to say this, he can pronounce the word “nuclear,” and that is all I'm going to say on that topic. Even the strongest Republican has to respect a man who can earn a Nobel Prize for an hour's worth of work. Also, as a fan of Bravo's “Real Housewives” series, he and his administration gave the upcoming “Real Housewives of Washington, D.C.” the best storyline ever when they allowed Michaele Salahi, a soon-to-be “Housewife” cast member, along with her hubby Tariq, to crash a state dinner party! Let Bethenny Frankel and her wedding, her baby, and her Skinny Girl Margaritas try to compete with that! Best of all is Obama's Vice President, Joe Biden, who is always there to drop an “F” bomb or to say something totally inappropriate in front of an open microphone or a large group of reporters. He's funny and he makes me laugh, which is something I just can't say about Dick Cheney.
All in all, while I didn't vote for Barack Obama in 2008, I have to admit that while I don't agree with everything he does, he's making his presidency very enjoyable. The Bush administration, safe and stoic as it was, lacked the sense of humor found within the Obama presidency. For that alone, Barack Obama has earned my vote in 2012!
JEFF WEISS:
We at American Currents have spent many hours writing about Sarah Palin. She's consistently remained visible in the news media even though it's been more than a year since John McCain lost his bid for the White House. For the most part, I haven't portrayed Mrs. Palin in a very favorable light. To me, she seemed to be a bit of a dim bulb who was pushed into the spotlight because she fit an image that the GOP needed in the 2008 presidential campaign. I believed that the fact she continued to remain in the public eye was because of own hunger for attention.
However, I've taken a closer look at Sarah Palin and her views, and I was surprised at what I found. For example, she said at a fundraiser back in 2008, “We believe that the best of America is not all in Washington, D.C. ... We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation.” Can anyone not agree that the best of America is actually in America? Think about it. The best of America is not in Canada. It's not in Australia. It is, as Palin stated, right here in the US of A. And who better to be Pro-America than American citizens? When is the last time you saw a North Korean singing the praises of America? That is something you will only see in America, as Sarah Palin wisely stated.
In 2009, when asked if she would be subjected to the same ethics inquiries as president that she faced as the governor of Alaska, Palin responded, “I think on a national level your Department of Law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we've been charged with and automatically throw them out.” Now think about that. People mocked Palin because there is no “Department of Law,” but if you really, really think about it, you can clearly see that Palin was using the example of a non-existent department to say the ethics charges against her were the same as that department – non existent. An answer like that is simply brilliance at work.
Thank you, Sarah Palin. Thank you for enlightening me and bringing this soon to be former Democrat into the loving arms of the GOP. I cannot wait to vote “R” in November. After all, like one Palin supporter posted Facebook recently, “its Rong not to vote for Republicans.”
SASHA SMITH:
The fact that that free health care passed is absolutely ridiculous. Why would our country want to improve the status of all citizens? Our country has always been established by privilege and with everyone getting the opportunity to have health care it puts everyone on the same playing field. It will give over 40 million Americans the opportunity to receive care that they have not been able to receive anymore. I feel as though if all Americans want affordable health care then they need to go out and get it on their own. Of course we all know how expensive health care is so not everyone will be able to get it and that makes sense.
I also want to talk about how this health care bill will affect the drug companies and lobbyist. I mean they no longer will be able to regulate the market with their own prices. What are the drug companies suppose to do now? It will be much harder for them to increase the prices since the government is the one who will be regulating the new health care policy. The health care policy will be taking money away from the rich. How are they going to get richer? I understand that some might find it a human right to have health care but I think it's a benefit and government does not need to get involved. The private citizens of the United States were handling the situation on their own.
In any case, we need to figure out what will happen now and how this is going to affect our tax dollars.
* * * * * * *
On behalf of Roseanne, Sasha, and all of the AmericanCurrents.com editors and contributors, I'd like to wish everyone a very happy APRIL FOOLS DAY! - Jeff Weiss
The Senate adjourned last week for a two week break without passing an extension for unemployment insurance benefits. Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma blocked a one month short term extension of the unemployment package by insisting that it must be paid for before a vote could be taken. The current unemployment extension package is due to expire on April 5 while Congress is on vacation. The lawmakers return to Washington on April 12.
Many unemployed Americans feel that their leaders in Washington have forgotten them, as this is the second time in a month that lawmakers have let benefits lapse before voting for an extension. Other say that it is time to stop extending unemployment benefits and start to work on building new jobs for the unemployed.
After reading our contributors' opinions on this topic, share your thoughts by leaving a comment.
AUSTIN LEE:
I was laid off from my job last October. I called a few of my friends to tell them of the news and their initial response was telling. My Liberal friends immediately said, "Go get on unemployment as soon as possible." My Conservative friends said, "How can we help you find a job, you have to get back to work." And getting a job is just what I did. For me there was no other option.
I live below my means as a part of my life and so when I had to take a significant pay reduction in my next job I ended up being able to sustain my life. It is high time that people take their medicine. Stop extending unemployment benefits and start getting people back to work. When this round expires the very least they can do in Washington is to assure us that if they extend these benefits that they are paid for.
I don't want people to be without work, but unemployment rules as they are now don't encourage anyone to take a job unless it is perfect and continuing to borrow money to provide entitlement benefits doesn't help that problem. I am proud of Sen. Coburn for finally standing up and saying that we have had enough borrowing. And I predict without another extension of benefits more people will just go and finally get a job.
SCOTT HINKLEY:
I think we should call this what it is: another Republican filibuster. This seems to be an awfully cowardly way to handle an issue that means the difference between food and shelter for our most destitute citizens. I appreciate, though marvel at the seemingly periodic significance, the drive to deal with our budget deficit, but I don't see how we can sit back idly as tax-breaks for the rich last decade are trickling down into losses in benefits for those that never got the tax cuts. I find it one of America's biggest ironies that the party which claims strong Christian values can consistently turn its back on the most needy, and because the rest of America greedily covets the fancy things those leaders have, no one will call their bluff.
My heart extends to all those families whose lives are touched by this callous oversight. Why don't we find another way to pay for all those fancy Washington dinners or stop them until we can. I hope every congress-person gets to interact with a person on the verge of financial collapse, and I hope that person spits in the resort food the congress-person probably doesn't even know the cost of as they funnel it down their fat throats.
NIKKI LORENZINI:
I’m really not sure how to answer this one to be honest with you. I have a job, and luckily have not been fired or laid off from any of my jobs. I've never had to collect unemployment. For me, I could easily say that the people on unemployment should just get a job, but I know its not that easy. There are just no jobs out there.
It's easy to get mad at the government about them letting the unemployment extension lapse. It's really hard to depended on a job for your money, but to rely on the government for it? I’m sure I would feel forgotten too if it caused my checks to lapse. Even though I feel bad that are on unemployment, and I’m sure that there are a lot of people who actually do want to work, and didn’t have a choice in the matter of not working, I really think the government needs to start creating jobs. I’m sure they could create some more jobs somewhere to help stimulate the economy and get people off of unemployment. It’s a shame that there are so many people on it, but the government needs to push people into doing for themselves, and go get a job, and that’s even if the government needs to create them. Sure, it’ll cost more money, but if it involves saving money on unemployment, then I’m sure its worth it.
JEFF WEISS:
There are many ironies regarding this sad situation. First and foremost, the Senate is well aware that the last time they waited for the very last minute to try to pass an unemployment extension package it was held up, the deadline passed, and people in need were cut off (albeit temporarily). When they finally passed a one month temporary extension, what did they do? They again waited until the last day possible to try to pass yet another one month temporary extension – and again it's been held up, the deadline will pass without them being able to vote, and people in need are about to be cut off.
Another irony is that they actually have until the 5th of April to get an unemployment extension package passed – a package that would give a lifeline to people who have lost their jobs and have no other source of income to provide for themselves and their families – but the Senate won't be voting before April 12th because they are on vacation. So, people are forced to suffer because they have lost their jobs, while the people who should be helping them will be on a paid vacation – a paid vacation from jobs that were given to them by the votes of many of the same people who are now unemployed and about to be cut off from their benefits.
Over the past year, “flash mobs” have popped up as a way for large groups to meet up via social networks They have taken to Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, and texting to organize everything from mass snowball fights to a giant dance tribute after the death of Michael Jackson. In Philadelphia, however, the flash mob phenomenon has taken a decidedly violent turn.
Today we asked our panel what they think causes groups of teenagers to turn violent. After reading their opinions, share your thoughts by leaving a comment.
RYAN JOHN:
For the un-evolved mind, beating someone up is the same as getting an A on a paper to the intellectual mind. Although it doesn't take much to beat someone up with the help of four or five other people, there is still that feeling of dominance and superiority an ignorant person gets. Now, when professional fighters fight other professional fighters one on one, like boxing or MMA, its a science that involves skill, mental and physical dedication and I admire the guys who can do this. The physical jousting of two trained fighter is just as impressive to me to watch as two minds debating the meaning of life.
However, when you see the sometimes violent result of these flash mobs and other vicious beating as showcased on the internet, it's human behavior at it's worst. I haven't encountered these flash mobs in Philadelphia, but It infuriates me to think about the victimization of innocent people and business owners from some kids who have nothing better to do.
So, here we go again with the never ending question any social ill prompts. Who do we blame? Is it the public schools, social networking sites, or the rec centers for not having enough weekend programs? Consumers should suffer from the jacked up prices of business owners so we can tax them more to create more social programs so these kids will have something to do. I kid, of course. It's the kids faults for participating in this and the parents who don't care enough to stop it. Pay attention! If your son or daughter shows signs of being involved in this type of stuff, don't let them out of the house.
If these kids want to congregate all throughout the city wreaking havoc on who or whatever they want, they should be prepared to suffer the consequences. The mayor of Philly and police commissioner have taken a pretty tough stance on this, but if the problem persists, bring in the national guard and start using violence on these kids if you have to. I can see it now. Somebody is going to get in trouble for using excessive force on one of these kids and that will create another issue on top of the one at hand. However it's dealt with, it needs to stop. Innocent people shouldn't have to suffer if they want to enjoy the city streets on a nice spring weekend they look forward to all week.
SCOTT HINKLEY:
It is difficult for me to say what drives teens to violence, as I was never much for violence when I was a teenager, but I can certainly look to the usual culprits: a desire to have impact on your own life, boredom, revenge, angst. The first thing people seem to say when they hear of youth violence is "where were their parents?" I would guess that in many cases the answer is working, or caring for other younger children. I think the important aspect of this story is to look at the ways young people are using technology to leave their parents out of their decisions. I am reminded of the poor girl in Massachusetts who hung herself recently in response to bullying, much of which took place on social sites. I think the double importance here is that parents are pretty much absent from their children's on-line activities, and that the results of these activities have very real, physical, consequences.
I think it is important for parents to step up and guide their child's life on-line as well as off, but I am doubtful that there is much guidance to be had. It seem unlikely that there is much wisdom in how to conduct yourself with respect, especially with adults using on-line persona to live out all the devious and deceitful things they are too ashamed to be associated with directly. Social networks are here to say, and trying to control behavior through restrictions to these sites seems about as misguided as closing the mall to stop truancy. We need to begin to accept that communication is power, and we better respect that power, or our voices will quickly be drowned out by those looking to have their say for the first time.
ROSEANNE FRANGIONE:
While reading about the flash mobs in Philadelphia as well as the television news coverage, my first question is, “Where are the parents?” As the mother of two young boys, I am always aware of where they are and what they are doing. Of course, my children aren't teenages, however I have no plans to stop parenting when my boys become older. It may not be easy to handle children as they grow into teens, but it is still the job of a parent to guard and to guide, to love and to teach, and to lead by example. However, even with all the love and guidance a parent can give, there must be social outlets for teenagers.
Ryan and Nikki are both contributors for American Currents who are from Philadelphia. I'd like to ask them both if they are aware of any programs in Philadelphia for teens. What kind of resourceful recreation is available for the kids in the city? Fortunately for the teens my area, Tampa Bay is a year round tourist spot which enables many of them to have part time jobs after school and in the summer. There are also many youth groups and teen clubs around Tampa Bay to keep kids active and off the streets. To me, it seems as though the youth of Philadelphia have become bored and reckless, which sadly is leading to violence.
May I suggest to Philadelphia's Mayor Nutter that he look into expanding teen-related activities before being so quick to condemn and persecute his city's next generation.
DAVID LOFTUS:
“Flash mobs” are expressions of a confluence of basic human needs: for getting together with others, for escape from solitariness and boredom, for power and its expression. There’s nothing inherently dangerous in them, but when they’re not particularly well organized -- when they’re largely spontaneous -- they can bring together a volatile combination of a few people with dangerous ideas and many other followers who feel safely anonymous while committing unlawful or unethical acts.
I don’t think it’s the youth of the participants that makes a mob inherently unstable. Though there is undeniably such a thing as testosterone-overdosed teenage males (which also finds expression in extreme sports, fights organized and unplanned, gang violence, and speeding tickets), on the other hand the mobs of Nazi Germany were mostly composed of grownups.
I haven’t seen a close examination of the kids who participate in the rowdier, more violent mobs, but I have to suspect many of them are no longer under the control of adults in any case. They’re either out of high school by virtue of their age, or they’ve dropped out and/or left home anyway. God knows there are plenty of families where there hasn’t been sufficient or proper adult supervision of the children, but somehow I suspect that’s not the problem here. There’s really not much society can do except make sure law enforcement responds quickly and firmly when these things start to gather steam.
As the government continues working on the 2010 Census, some Americans are suspicious about filling out the forms the have received. Some have privacy concerns, others feel it is not important.
Today we asked our contributors if the plan on participating in the census, and if they have any concerns about being counted. After reading their opinions, join the conversation by leaving a comment.
JEFF WEISS:
I find it silly that people would not want to be counted in the United States Census. First and foremost, I can't think of any reasons why anyone wouldn't want to be counted. I can, however, think of plenty of reasons why everyone needs to be counted.
For starters, the census directly affects funding for communities. The government allocates hundreds of billions of dollars each year to individual communities for education, road improvement, public health, transportation and more. The census data is used to establish state legislative districts and determine the number of seats each states has in the U.S. House of Representatives. Census numbers are used to determine the amount of federal assistance areas receive in the event of a disaster. And let's not forget another important reason: all census information is completely confidential.
If you haven't filled out your census form and returned it, do it today.
RYAN JOHN:
For anyone who didn't know this, the 2010 census has a great website and a very citizen friendly approach to it's information. The director of the 2010 census, Robert M. Groves , keeps a routine blog where he discusses all things census including myths to ease our apprehension. I learned a lot from this website and was really happy to see the federal government taking this approach to educate us, as opposed to having a mandatory, punitive tone.
Turns out, this isn't a modern exercise in big government. It was ran by the federal government since 1790 and the line of questioning is very similar to that of the founding fathers. Now, what their true intentions were, I guess we'll never know for sure. But it's sold as a tool to determine the number of seats your state will hold in the House of Representatives. Therefore, even though it's a federal government plan, state officials should encourage participation to ensure maximum representation in congress. Plus, it a rather expensive cost for tax payers so delaying the process only costs fellow citizens more money.
I'm not worried about it. Maybe it's because I saw the website. Or maybe it's because I have nothing to hide. I mean come on- We shop and pay bills online, Google whatever our private minds inspire, share photos and personal information with our friends through social networking, blog and whatever else technology allows. I sacrificed privacy for convenience a long time ago.
SHAUN HAUTLY:
I had an opportunity to talk with census officials back in September and they told me about some of the reasons for the census and how it's used. One notable fact was that for every 100 people in my county that down turn it in, we lose about $10,000 of federal funding. That's our schools, our police force, etc. It seemed like taking the 4 minutes to fill it out was worth it.
As far as people being concerned about security, they need to stop being so paranoid. The only questions on it are about your age, whether or not you own your home, and if you're white or not. For all I care, they can tell that information to the Taliban. It's clearly important or the government wouldn't spend the millions of dollars on the coordination and collection of data from EVERY individual.
I know this isn't that long of a piece, but this isn't that complicated of a situation. Part of being an American is taxes, fireworks, and filling out the census. Security? Not really an issue. Unless someone is dumb enough to write their credit card information on the form for some reason, it shouldn't matter. Just go fill it out and complain about health care for now.
DAVID LOFTUS:
In 2000 I filled out the extended U.S. Census form. If I remember correctly, it was five or six pages with dozens of questions, and I enjoyed answering them all. This year my wife and I only received the basic ten-question form. We’ve already filled it out and sent it off.
It’s just another symptom of the silly, ignorant paranoia of too many American citizens (or perhaps the bill of goods they’ve been sold by conservative and Libertarian commentators about “government intrusion”), that some are loathe to complete and return the form. Dozens of Web sites urge people not to do it. Libertarians call it an invasion of privacy. Others are offended by the racial and ethnic classifications delineated on the form. Still others are afraid the census is another tool for the government to pursue nefarious ends, such as deportation or tax liens. A staff member of the large law firm I was doing some temp work for last week sent around in-house email asking whether we were required by law to answer all the questions because she was uncomfortable releasing her Social Security and telephone numbers. (An attorney laconically answered that the law requires all the questions to be answered.)
The Census Bureau assures us that it does not share the information it collects with either the IRS or the Immigration Service. And really, if such were not the case, do you think there would be no complaints? That they would be able to hide the fact? Census workers are bound by law and oath not to reveal the personal information they gather. Besides, don’t we freely hand out credit card information on the Web all the time? If someone were really out to get us, he or she could probably find out a lot more just by some concerted Internet surfing. Just like working-class Americans regularly get suckered into voting for conservative candidates whose economic policies end up hurting them the most, the people who seem the most nervous about the Census -- immigrants, racial minorities, and other unusual ingredients of the Great American Melting Pot -- are the ones who stand to gain the most if they participate. As called for in the U.S. Constitution, Census Bureau info is collected specifically to allocate apportionment of Congressional seats, and to guide Congress and other government agencies on where to allocate funding for education, jobs, and other vital functions. If you go uncounted, you could be underrepresented and under-served by the government.
Now that health care reform has been signed into law, what is the next move for the Democrats and Republicans? Austin Lee and David Loftus face off over this topic today. After reading their opinions, share your thoughts by leaving a comment.
Austin:
Everyone wants to know what's next. What do we do now that ObamaCare has been signed into law? If I could talk to the Republican leadership here's what I would say:
They may have won the battle, but they will not win the war. To pass such sweeping legislation in the face of extreme public opposition was arrogant, elitist, and stupid. The democrats will only lose the House and Senate majority this fall if we quit talking about how horrible this bill is now and will be later. We don't need talking point like the Democrats do, we have all of the facts on our side.
First we need to keep reminding the American people that in the history of the United States there has not been one government program that didn't cost more than it was estimated to cost. Just like a road widening project, they don't look far enough into the future to realize that by the time they add 2 lanes they should have added 4. Its the same old short sighted thinking the Dems ALWAYS use.
Second we need to keep showing the American people that this bill is simply a stepping stone to a complete government takeover of their health care. Here is what will happen in the next 10 years:
In the short term things will work just as the Dems say it will. (Do not think for a second this was by design.) Everyone will be happy with their health care and wonder what we were all so worried about. Insurance companies will get more customers because of a mandate to purchase health insurance and Barack Obama will proclaim, "See, our plan worked, just like we said!"
After a while businesses and individuals will realize that it is cheaper to just pay the fine instead of pay for health insurance. They will all drop coverage from private insurers and pay fines to the government instead. Since pre-existing conditions must be covered, most will only buy insurance when they get sick and drop coverage once they are well.
The insurance companies will be forced to increase their premiums because a great majority of the people buying are sick. The Democrats will cry foul over the increase in rates and will vote to cap insurance premiums. Insurance companies across the country will go out of business because of these limitations and the Democrats will say, "There is nothing we can do, we have to have a government option."
Make no mistake. This is the direction we are heading. Keep talking to the people in your districts, keep them informed of the long term ramifications of this horrible bill. Keep reminding them that Democrats are after power and control not your best interest. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will be long gone by the time their horrible legacies are truly revealed. Remind the people of American that it is our PEOPLE that make America great, not our government.
David:The Republican Party, rather to its surprise, has released an evil genie out of the bottle. Although the ball is still very much in play, there’s a possibility that the fierce battle the GOP chose to wage over health care reform -- probably intended as a strategy to gather momentum rolling into the 2010 mid-term elections -- could just possibly backfire on Republicans.
Congressmen are accustomed to insulting one another on the floor of the capitol, even in front of TV cameras, then going off together afterward for drinks (or at least heading separately and quietly to their homes). But average Americans are not used to operating this way. They actually took the health care debate very much to heart. Now even Republicans, not one of which voted for health care reform, are shocked by the ferocity of the backlash against it.
In the five days since the vote, at least 10 Democrats have reported harassment and menacing: obscenity-laced voicemail messages to Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio), e-mail messages urging Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (D-Fla) to commit suicide, a fax bearing the image of a noose and a voicemail urging Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich) to “bleed … [get] cancer and die,” bricks thrown, a gas line cut, and an envelope containing white powder sent to the Queens borough office of Rep. Anthony Weiner. Thursday was the first time 2 Republicans reported that they, too, had been menaced. These are all the acts of a tiny crazed minority, but they reflect poorly on the more mainstream opponents of health care legislation and will possibly alienate the more neutral middle. Despite all the Republican opponents’ claims to the contrary, a post-vote poll by USA Today/Gallup found that 49 percent of Americans thought passage of the legislation had been a good thing, versus 40 percent who opposed it. President Obama’s approval numbers bounced upward four or five percentage points this week, too.
It won’t last, of course. Voters will become disenchanted about something else. The Democrats will lose seats this November, as almost inevitably happens to the “ruling party” during the mid-term elections. But this particular battle has tarnished the Republican Party more than it managed to demonize the Democrats for “ramming this bill down the American people’s throat.” And seven months is likely sufficient time to demonstrate that all those horrid things that would inevitably transpire due to health care reform (i.e., Rep. Boehner’s “Armageddon”) aren’t going to happen after all. I predict a less-then-massive turnover of Congressional seats in the fall, and the Republicans might do well to move on and find a different issue upon which to base their campaigns.
After months of debate, the Health Care Reform Bill was finally passed early Sunday morning without one GOP vote and was signed into law by President Barack Obama the following day.
We asked our commentators to have their final say on health care reform. After reading their opinions, have your say by leaving a comment.
We have a system of checks and balances. An American system where "majority rules." So it's safe that so that if our REPRESENTATIVES are representing their constituents who selected them by majority, then the majority of representatives, selected by the majority of their constituents wanted to pass health care reform. Call it the nuclear option, call it whatever you'd like. There is NO WAY to pass a vote through our government that requires less than half of the voters to support it. America just voted to pass Health Care Reform because THAT'S WHAT AMERICA WANTED.
NOW, conservatives, buckle up, this is going to be hard to hear: Barack Obama won the presidency because more Americans wanted him in office. All the decisions and bills that he has helped advance were not MANDATED by him. He has Veto power. That's all. No scepter by which to dictate America. So before you go and hate him for it, all he did was sign the bill that our representatives got to him. He sat down with both sides and listened to arguments for MONTHS until finally something was created that was agreeable enough to vote through. He didn't even get to vote!
Now conservative bloggers have released the addresses of Democratic politicians and encouraged their pro-gun followers to drop by. Democratic offices have been vandalized in the name of what? This is America. If you have a problem with a fellow American. USE THE SYSTEM. That's what the democrats had to do to get health-care through. They didn't terrorize or threaten republicans. No republican offices were vandalized because Dems weren't getting their way. This petty, BiPartisan shit has got to stop. There are two sides (At least) to every decision and it's so sad that we waste time worrying about one side or the other instead of looking at ourselves as ONE Nation and trusting a majority. This system was established by our founding fathers because it works. If you're truly a patriot, then please honor them by honoring the system they gave us to ensure that our country could never become a dictatorship. Let's be diplomatic and not stupid. It's just healthcare and taxes. Not worth death threats or vandalism. Grow up.
It’s not worth the wait, it’s not enough, and it’s stupid to have to jump through so many hoops to get what Americans should have gotten nearly a century ago when President Theodore Roosevelt (a Republican, by the way) first proposed it.
It’s been many years since I’ve heard such extravagant horse puckey as the objections raised by Republicans Sunday night when I watched C-Span. They said they stood for “freedom”; but how free were we when most of us had no choice but to accept the insurer our employer chose for us (or could afford), insurance companies told us which doctors we could go to and which medical procedures we would be allowed to undergo, and many of us had no access to insurance at all. Opponents of health care reform charged “socialism” when most of them couldn’t explain what the word means, and they didn’t seem to realize that A) Medicare and Social Security, now supposedly so American and beloved, are socialistic programs, and B) the Republican Party opposed those programs just as vehemently when they were first proposed. (I suggest anyone who used “Socialism” or “socialistic President” as epithets this year should immediately forfeit any access to Social Security or Medicare benefits, since they are evidently ideologically opposed to such government coddling.)
Opponents said the Democrats were ignoring the will and wishes of the American people, but gosh, a majority of Americans voted to put those Democratic congresspersons in office, so by definition, the latter were representing the interests of the former. Republicans made a big deal about a recent poll that apparently found 54 percent of those questioned were opposed to the current legislation, but they didn’t ask why. Some part of that 54 percent were undoubtedly tea-baggers and anti-socialist patriots, but perhaps a portion were also annoyed with the current legislation because it didn’t go far enough, too much had already been sacrificed, and they felt betrayed by the process. (I could include myself in that category without much trouble.)
Republicans complained about the cost, and the addition to the deficit, when few of them ever made a peep about rising government spending under two terms of George W. Bush, and nobody seems to have noticed that we have spent the better part of a trillion dollars already on the Iraq War ($713 billion, as of this week, according to www.costofwar.com; it’s nearly an even trillion if you add the war in Afghanistan) -- a “program” which does almost no Americans any good at all (save a few war contractors) and in fact has killed more than 4,000 Americans and maimed thousands of others, instead of giving them health care.
The most laughable sight of all were Republicans denouncing a process of “backroom deals and secret bargains.” Because that’s YOUR standard operating procedure?, I yelled at the screen. You want to go back to square one and “craft a bill that all sides can agree on”? Where was your input when President Obama invited it? What were you doing about health care reform during the long years and decades you controlled the White House and Congress? Do I really think that if health care reform legislation had been voted down on Sunday the Republicans would have rolled up their sleeves and said, okay, let’s get to work? Of course not, those arrogant hypocrites. Now they’re going to activate a nationwide legal challenge that will last at least a year and cost millions of dollars more that could be going to health care (or the war, if you prefer). Just how is that in the best interest of Americans struggling with unemployment, foreclosures, and the lack of any medical insurance coverage?
The atrocity known as health care “reform” is just another example of Barack Obama's concerted effort to strip Americans of our right to freedom. A more appropriate description of said atrocity is “health spending law.” It is ludicrous that in the midst of a sweeping recession, liberal Democrats (led by the ever-spending Obama administration) could even consider spending nearly one trillion dollars on “reforming” the health care system while so many Americans are unemployed and facing home foreclosures.
This health spending law needs to be repealed and replaced as soon as possible. Fourteen states, including Florida, have filed lawsuits based upon the fact that this law is in violation of the Constitution. I firmly believe that it is my right as a tax paying American citizen to pick and chose the health care options that I prefer for myself and for my children without government intervention. It is truly a sad day when Barack Obama, with just a sweep of his pen, can take my personal freedoms away.
If you're like me, the worst thing about getting a new job, besides warming up to your coworkers, is the HR stuff you have to go through. I never know what type of coverage to get, I hate trying to figure out what retirement strategy is right for me and I usually just cross my fingers and sign. Of course the responsible thing to do is to actually read the boring information regarding health coverage and choose one that actually makes sense for me. But, that's why I stopped taking MBA classes. i find that stuff utterly dry and boring. I'd rather just ask the HR lady which one most people in my situation go with. Trust me, I know it's lazy.
As for as medical coverage, I go with whatever my employer offers, and hardly notice the amount that's taken out every pay period. I rarely visit a doctor and don't take any medications, thank God. I can imagine if I had children or my own business, would be more of an issue for me. Currently, I have neither, so therefore, I don't worry too much about what goes on in health care because I doubt I'll be seriously affected by this in the immediate future. I say this of course as i knock wood, because the universe has a funny way about it.
But, I'm fairly apathetic with this debate. Republicans are quick to say that the government can't run anything efficiently and this is just one step closer to Obama's socialist agenda. On the other hand Democrats preach the necessity of every American to have affordable health care. I give credence to both stances. Thankfully, I haven't encountered any serious health issues in my life, or suffered through a trial with an insurance company leaving me sick and bankrupt. Politically though, this was a huge win for the Dem's and the republicans have to be scared of loosing their America.
To be honest, I wasn't really following health care reform in the news. I had the mentality that I had health insurance, so why should I care (I am so not saying that this is right of me, but it is what it is), so I had to go and do my research.
In doing so, all I saw was money, money, money and my taxes just being raised. Yes, everything that was said seemed great in theory, but how realistic can it be? Our country is already struggling with a bad economy, so how can they think we could afford this type of overhaul? I think they should at least start working with the insurance companies and make them more accountable for their actions (I've heard too many stories of insurance companies not covering people for some nonsense of a reason).
I just think this whole health care system is a real shame. How can countries like Canada do it and have it seem like it is running so smoothly?
At 600 pounds, Donna Simpson of Old Bridge, NJ has set a weight goal for herself – and it's not what you may be thinking. She's not attempting to lose weight, but instead to gain even more weight. Her goal is to weigh 1,000 pounds, thus making herself the world's heaviest woman in the Guinness book of World Records.
Today we asked our contributors what they think of Simpson's goal and the message it sends, especially as First Lady Michelle Obama has declared war on childhood obesity.
I don't know that Ms. Simpson's goal sends any message to anyone. I linked to this story last week on my personal blog and no one seemed to think that it was a worthy goal. Unfortunately for Mrs. Obama her message has been overshadowed by her husband's health care bill.
The truth is her campaign actually starts to address the root issues of our health care problems. Her husband is attempting to just throw money at the problem, while she is attempting to actually change the way people relate to food and exercise. I can definitely get behind a program like that. It seems to me that we elected the wrong Obama. Mrs. Obama thinks long term, while her husband can't seem to look up from his teleprompter long enough to see that he operates in a much more shortsighted manner.
As for Ms. Simpson, her child should be taken away from her and raised in a family that places a higher value on health and well-being. Ms. Simpson should be allowed to eat herself to death if she chooses, however, she should be exempt from any financial assistance for her health care when it is required. I am sick and tired of my tax dollars going to people like this. I guess I could call my congressman, but he didn't listen the first time.
Guinness should declare here and now that it will not only not list Donna Simpson, 42, of Old Bridge, New Jersey as the new record holder even if she beats the current champion, but that it is retiring the category permanently. The company should not only offer no encouragement to a 5-foot-4-inch woman who currently weighs 604 pounds and already holds the record for world’s fattest mother (she gave birth in 2007 when she weighed a mere 532 pounds, and required a team of 30 doctors to assist the delivery), but it should actively discourage her.
This woman is basically choosing to commit suicide, slowly, in public. However she may publicize this ridiculous endeavor, and in whatever bright colors she may paint it in her own conscious mind, choosing to balloon from an insane 600 pounds to an inconceivable half a ton is little more than a particularly rarefied form of despair. Simpson has decided she literally has nothing else to live for but performing … well, not self-mutilation, but I guess you could call it self-inundation: she’s going to smother herself in her own flesh. A normal person’s Body Mass Index is 19-24, while a BMI of 40 is classified as morbidly obese; but Simpson’s BMI is currently 103.9! A licensed dietician, Beth Lanzisera, was quoted in news stories as regarding Simpson’s irritated skin, arthritic conditions in joints, and serious cardiovascular risks as “worrisome.” No kidding?
How does this ostensibly unemployed woman afford the $750 a week that constitutes her grocery bill? She earns it on a Web site where viewers pay to watch her eat fast food and pose scantily clad in photos and videos. The “entertainment” and news outlets who have beaten a path to her door since she announced her mission --“Entertainment Tonight” in the lead and Oprah, Dr. Phil, and “Inside Edition” reportedly close behind -- are doing nothing more than ghoulishly assisting a suicide, not to mention the premeditated orphaning of her daughter. When this woman dies (not if, and I’m willing to bet it will happen within 3 years and she will not have reached her goal), they should be prosecuted as accessories to murder. Really.
This story irritates me on many different levels. One is that Simpson already holds the record for the heaviest mother. Just think of the health concerns regarding that. Think of the complications during pregnancy, running around after a child, taking care of a child. How would that child feel that her mother can’t do the other things mothers do because she weighs over 600 lbs? I do not have any kids, but if I ever have any, I would want to be in my best health so I can take care of my child. Granted, I do like to eat, and I know I should start watching what I eat now if I ever want to be in good health to have any children.
Then, think of her own health. I have extra weight on me (only an extra 30 lbs, but its a lot on my 5’1” frame), and I know how my back feels. I can only feel how her back, her knees feel, how hard it is for her to breath, to walk. Then think of her blood pressure, cholesterol, risking getting diabetes. Think of the amount of meds she will need to take to control the health risks (and the amount of money that will take). And her life span will be shortened (and that many less years she will have with her daughter).
She is already asking for donations from the general public to help her get to this goal. If she can’t afford to eat this way now, what makes her think she can continue to afford to eat this way when she gets to 1000 lbs? Will she continue to have the public pay for her grocery bills then? This bothers me greatly when I see stories of children dying in third world countries. The more I think of this story, the more it angers me. Just the pure selfishness of it angers me. She is taking years away from being with her daughter and husband. She is begging for money for her food which could be given to people who can’t afford to eat for one day. Now I’m made. I see plenty of people working hard to loose weight because they see the health pitfalls of being over weight, and here she is just ignoring all the signs and throwing her health way.
David Loftus, a free-lance writer and actor, is the author of AMERICAN CURRENTS. A native Oregonian who has lived on the East Coast and traveled much of Europe and parts of Asia and Africa, he makes his home in Portland with his wife Carole and toy fox terrier Pixie. David reads more than a hundred books a year and watches an average of less than two hours of television a week. He does not own a car, has no children, and pretty much avoids meat. Click the photo for more by David.
Posts
