Extended Unemployment Benefits To Lapse Again

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.

Does that seem fair to you?

Philadelphia Flash Mobs

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.

The 2010 Census: Be Counted

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.

Face Off Friday: Now What?

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.

Health Care Reform Becomes Law

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.

Health Care Reform Becomes Law: Shaun Hautly

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.

Email Shaun
Follow Shaun on Twitter!

Health Care Reform Becomes Law: David Loftus

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?

Health Care Reform Becomes Law: Roseanne Frangione

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.

Email Roseanne

Health Care Reform Becomes Law: Ryan John

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.

Health Care Reform Becomes Law: Nikki Lorenzini

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?

Email Nikki

Health Care Reform Becomes Law: Have Your Say

Now that you've read the opinions of our panel, join the conversation by leaving a comment.

A Weighty Goal

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.

A Weighty Goal: Austin Lee

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.

Email Austin
Follow Austin on Twitter!

A Weighty Goal: David Loftus

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.

A Weighty Goal: Nikki Lorenzini

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.

Email Nikki

A Weighty Goal: Scott Hinkley

Looking at Ms. Simpson, which I will admit I find a difficult task in itself, she seems to me to represent an important rising (or should we say expanding) problem in America. Do we have the right to be medically obese? I wish the answer were no, but I think it is fairly certain that many in this country feel otherwise. Supporters of "fat-rights" argue that they shouldn't be discriminated against for their size. I feel that this is a misguided view, since I don't see their discrimination as being rooted in their size, but is instead based in their demonstrations of gluttonous behavior and a lack of self-disciplining. I would never support limiting an individual's rights based on their weight, no more than for a person's height, or the quality of their voice, or the number of tattoo's they have, but I believe we are defined by our actions and choices.

I find Ms. Simpson's decision to consume enough food for 5 other people to be a disgusting demonstration of her values. I think is is a disappointment that people can support her in her values while disparaging other lifestyles openly and heartlessly. When will our American egotism subside? If we had to go to war right now, 34% of Americans would struggle to rise from their seats, and would completely incapable of defending themselves, or the nation they claim is so great. Don't tread on me? Just don't sit on me.

Email Scott

A Weighty Goal: Have Your Say

Now that you've read the opinions of our panelists, have your say by leaving a comment.

Are You Good Without God? by David Loftus

Last November, David Loftus wrote about the United Coalition of Reason and their ad campaign that asked, "Are You Good Without God?" It was one of our most-read articles on American Currents, so we decided to share it with you again today.



Last week, an organization that calls itself the United Coalition of Reason placed ads on subway trains in New York City, Philadelphia, and Boston; on billboards in Chicago, Newark, San Diego, and three Ohio cities; and aboard buses here in Portland, Oregon.

The sign shows a blue sky with white wisps of clouds and the message “Are you good without God? Millions are.” In the corner it lists a URL for more information.

I was struck by the local response to the brief story about this ad. It went online at The Oregonian's web site just before noon Wednesday, Nov. 18. In less than 48 hours, there were more than 200 comments in response to the story and a graphic of the ad. The total has now topped 300. Before it goes offline in another week or so, you can read the thread here.

As will become obvious if you visit the thread, after the first day I contributed some comments of my own. Several things surprised me about the contributions, however. Although there was some outrage, and a few snarky insults from both sides, many more of the remarks expressed puzzlement and genuine confusion on the part of religious people. The secular humanist front was well represented, in number and quality. And the discussion didn’t deteriorate into a flamefest between a couple of repetitive and abusive die-hards. By my count, more than 110 different people commented, most of them only once or twice; less than a dozen posted five or more times.


The sign wasn’t proselytizing; it addressed itself to like-minded individuals. Yet that was too much for some Christians. People acted as if atheists were on some sort of crusade; they made the classic complaint about “pushing it in my face”; they attributed multiple millions of 20th-century deaths to “atheistic Nazi and Communist regimes”; they were certain a person couldn’t be moral without a Christian god to guide him.

A lot of these arguments were familiar from my teens. They hadn’t gotten any more sophisticated. It’s odd that so many people would continue to presume that a life without God would be immoral and frightening. I don’t know why they haven’t noticed how many of their neighbors and coworkers live contented, fulfilling lives, and do good works, without church or God (especially in Oregon, where census figures have shown that regular church attendance is the lowest in the entire U.S.).

Religious people actually wrote that folks who don’t believe in a higher power would have to be “non-stop partygoers,” would kill and steal if they thought there were no afterlife, and morality would disappear completely.

Why would I want to party all the time, just because I know the world will end (for me) with my death? I’ve never felt like “partying hard”; to me, the need to party can only come out of a life that is otherwise dissatisfied and unhappy. I assume that’s why so many twenty-somethings party: because they’re confused, fearful, unsure about their futures. I was all of those things, too, but partying was never a solution for me; I was too busy reading, writing, going to movies, trying to make something of my life. When people continue to party into their 30s, 40s, and 50s, I have to think they continue to be ambivalent about what they’ve made of their lives.

Why would I want to kill and steal in a world without God? That wouldn’t give me any particular pleasure. Why would any reasonable person do such a thing, knowing that sooner or later, you will bring down the anger and vengeance of other human beings on your head? Knowing that this life is all I have and how mortal and vulnerable everyone else is, I feel a great imperative to live my life well, to seek and create beauty when I can, to avoid causing unnecessary pain, and to try to leave the place a little better than I found it.

For the most part, morality (or more accurately, ethics) seems a fairly simple matter. Purely selfish motives (that is to say, those that best serve your self-interest) can provide a groundwork for an ethical life without any resort to higher powers. Treat other folks the way you would like to be treated. Don’t cause unnecessary pain, because it makes other people angry and vengeful. Don’t spoil and waste natural resources, because that too will come back to haunt you or your descendants.

Catholic Church Abuse Scandal

In a letter sent Saturday to Irish Catholics, Pope Benedict XVI admonished Irish bishops for their "grave errors of judgment" regarding sex abuse cases. The Pontiff also ordered an investigation into the Irish church. However, he did not place any blame on the Vatican's policies of keeping priest sex abuse cases a secret. This comes amid hundreds of new allegations of abuse in Europe, including several cases in the diocese where the pope served as archbishop.

Today we asked our panel if they feel the is pope heading in the right direction by acknowledging the scandals and ordering an investigation, of if it is too little too late. After reading their opinions, have your say by leaving a comment.

Catholic Church Abuse Scandal: Ryan John

Call me unethical, but I can sometimes justify covering up certain situations in your organization for it's common good and sustainability.  Assuming your organization is a good one, I can see cutting a few corners and avoiding certain legal consequences if you can because sometimes, less face it, the law can be too bureaucratic and time consuming.  If I ran a home security business and found out one of my guys was using his technical skills to steal cars on the weekends, at the very least I'd fire him.  I may not offer a press release, but I wouldn't simply transfer that guy to another branch so I didn't have to deal with him.  It's amazing the church did that.
 
Why the Catholic Church both in the United States and Europe covered up so many sex abuse scandals is beyond me.  I guess I have a few theories.  They were afraid of reducing an already diminished priesthood and catholic community.  Plus, they feared the fund raising difficulties if donors knew that some of that money was used to handle court cases.  And maybe they thought, one abuse case was a mistake and it may never happen again if the man had a fresh start.
 
Yes, the letter Pope Benedict wrote to the Irish is a step in the right direction.  However, what the Catholic Church needs to think about is why so these cases of sexual and physical abuse was so rampant in the first place.  This is obviously more than just some PR work that needs to be done.  People look at the Church as God's place on earth...A priest is almost the personification of God and a priest is someone expected to embody God like qualities that the average man doesn't possess which is why we turn to them.  Needless to blog, molestation and pedophilia is the antithesis of this principle.  So, a letter is a step. A leap would be a philosophical look at the recruitment of and orientation of new priests in the Catholic Church to not just consider, but implement a very different one.

Catholic Church Abuse Scandal: David Loftus

He’s headed in the right direction, I suppose, but like Jesse James’s apologies to Sandra Bullock, it’s too little and far too late. A mere admonishment of the rank-and-file is never going to make up for years of abuse and other transgressions, let alone put an end to whatever present and potential future abuses may be in the offing.

Pope Benedict needs to search his conscience on his own behalf, for one thing. Back in 1979, when he was Archibishop Joseph Ratzinger in Germany, a priest named Father Peter Hullerman was reported to him for abusing three boys. Instead of reporting the transgressor further up the line, Archbishop Ratzinger reassigned Hullerman to a new parish and ordered psychotherapy. The psychiatrist, Werner Huth, told the archibishop that Father Hullerman was untreatable, and that “He did not seem to want or be able to co-operate fully during the therapy. He had an alcohol problem and the assaults on the children mostly happened when he had been under the influence of alcohol.” Huth said Hullerman should never be allowed to work with children again, but he was, and committed several subsequent incidents of child abuse, with only a fine and probation to show for them as punishment.

The Roman Catholic Church made the same wrong choice in such cases that so many other powerful individuals and institutions have made: it chose its position, power, and image over its true role, mission, and responsibility to protect the weak and powerless. This reminds me of the ending to A Few Good Men. After the trial is over, one of the Marines who was tried for the fatal beating of their comrade says they hadn’t done anything wrong and the other replies: “Yeah, we did. We were supposed to fight for the people who couldn't fight for themselves. We were supposed to fight for Willie.” But this shouldn’t surprise anyone: This is the same Roman Catholic Church that took 53 years to apologize to Jews for not fighting the Holocaust, and 359 years to apologize for condemning Galileo for his scientific impudence.

Catholic Church Abuse Scandal: Shaun Hautly

Save for grades 5-8, I attended Lutheran schools from preschool through college. Regardless of my thoughts on Jesus or God, I have had my fair share of classes about theology and organized religion. I don't know which denominations or religious have certain things right: prayer, hats, communion, ordination, sacraments, evangelism, or books. However, across all major (and minor) religions, there is one characteristic which can doom one from success. A human figurehead.

Most religions have presidents or boards of directors, but only a few have humans in an untouchable role. The Mormons have a living prophet, the Catholics have a pope, and the Branch Davidians had David Koresh. Religions thrive on life lessons molded by traditions, morals, ethics, and values. However, the fastest way to destroy morals, ethics, and values are to give a single human being the power to influence and dictate their beliefs. The United States Presidency works because the president only has Veto power. Not the power to pass laws he feels are right. That's why we don't have health-care yet. The people don't want it yet, so it's not forced on them. However, regardless of what the people want, the churches in question are handing down mandates for sexual orientation, birth control, and political opinion.

If a religion truly wants to survive, they need to stop making rules. Cite a book or story from long ago, let its message be interpreted and offered to the followers, but don't cram it down their throats and pass it as law. Soon you're going to say that some people aren't allowed to have sex, and then you get sexually repressed individuals working with children and it turns into a big mess. Let the people take from it what they need to live upright lives-- if they need religion to do so. Otherwise leave them alone. We've got too much healthcare to worry about right now.

Email Shaun
Follow Shaun on Twitter!

Catholic Church Abuse Scandal: Sasha Smith

The Catholic Church has been in a sexual abuse scandal since I was a school girl at a Catholic school over 15 years ago. When is this going to end? If nuns were in a sexual scandal for over 15 years the pope would have had an investigation 15 years ago. I think the Catholic church is finally moving in the right direction with airing their dirty laundry and settling all these sexual abuse cases. The first step is acknowledging that there is a problem.

Moving into the second step, an investigation does need to be happen and the Church needs to eradicate all those standing in the way of a valid investigation and those trying to hinder the truth from coming out. The final step will probably be the most difficult task for the pope and that will be to punish all those involved and allow them to go through the secular legal system as well.

The sad part about this story is that these children are sexual abused by their spiritual leaders who they are taught to worship, traumatized and end up becoming perpetrators themselves. It's a vicious cycle and the pope addressing this issue can save millions of other children from being abused. The Catholic church has a reason to be proud of the pope taking an aggressive stand against those abusing their power.

Email Sasha
Follow Sasha on Twitter!

Catholic Church Abuse Scandal: Have Your Say

Now that you've read the opinions of our panelists, have your say by joining the conversation.

The Palin Factor

Wife. Mother. Mayor. Governor. Vice Presidential candidate. Fashionista. Author. Television personality. Celebrity.

Sarah Palin has - more than any other politician in recent memory - steamrolled into the minds of the American public and shows no signs of going away any time soon. Whether you love her or hate her, Sarah Palin is a rock-solid public figure who draws media attention whenever she speaks out on any topic. She's not the first woman to run as a Presidential running mate, and she doesn't possess a long list of political accomplishments, but she continues to keep the attention of the American public.

Today we asked our panel why they believe Sarah Palin fascinates so many people. After reading their observations, join the conversation by leaving a comment.

The Palin Factor: David Loftus

Well, she’s cute, for one thing. That counts for a lot, especially among politicians, where physical beauty tends to run thin on the ground. She stopped being attractive to me the minute she opened her mouth, though; I regard intelligence, articulateness, and street smarts as very sexy but I understand that’s a matter of taste.

Gender aside, Palin appears to be the latest beneficiary of a peculiarly American version of the cult of personality that began, I believe, with Ronald Reagan. A good chunk of the American electorate seems to have become accustomed to according their precious quadrennial vote for President to a person they “like” -- to the “regular guy (or gal)” you wouldn’t mind meeting over a beer or burger. Perhaps this is part of a subconscious backlash against a dangerous and complex world, where problems often seem insurmountably large or complicated: many citizens are drawn to someone who speaks simply, makes such problems sound like no big deal after all, and, in short, offers comfort in lieu of actual solutions. Too many voters seem taken with a potential leader who can make them feel safe and comfortable, rather than one who sounds prepared to devote the time (and money) required to do the right thing.

The President ought to be smarter, wiser, tougher than the average citizen (or his or her team should collectively be able to make the President so), not someone “just like me” that I can trust to be as gullible as I was when I sent my son off to Iraq, believed the banks and investment companies were taking care of my retirement money, and assumed Honda and Toyota and beef and peanut butter companies were selling me goods that were safe and healthy to use.

It makes no sense to me to elect a likable guy instead of someone you can respect, even be a little intimidated by -- why would you want to give the girl or guy next door power over life, death, and the future of the planet? -- except perhaps as a byproduct of our hyper-consumerist, über-spectator culture. If we have been trained, over and over, year after year, by movies and ads and TV shows to want things that make us look good and feel good, and to desire that which is readily accessible, and to expect all problems to be solved within the space of a half-hour sitcom (or at most, a six-hour miniseries), then of course we’ll be drawn to a presidential candidate who assures us America’s the greatest, we’re just experiencing a minor blip here with this climate change thang, and otherwise everything’s just hunky-dory.

The Palin Factor: Austin Lee

Sarah Palin is fascinating because her life is full of drama.  It's the same reason people watch "Jersey Shore", "The Hills", or any other not-reality show.  People gravitate toward drama.  I am of the mind that most people lead fairly mundane lives.  So, when they see someone like Sarah Palin, whose life is filled with drama that only keeps getting bigger, they are drawn like a moth to a flame.

This drama, however, is not completely her own doing.  She is an evangelical Christian and in our society those who are public figures and identify themselves in this way are immediately subject to a higher level of scrutiny.  So, when it was discovered that her teenage daughter was pregnant and not married, immediately the already elevated scrutiny was ratcheted up another notch.  So, while Hollywood starlets can have babies out of wedlock with positive news stories about their "baby bumps", Sarah Palin's family and daughter are subjected to negative stories and accusations that she might be a bad mother.

She is also an outspoken, woman, Republican.  This in and of itself seems to require Hollywood to lampoon her as if she were Satan incarnate.  Katie Couric may have done the only hard news interview of her whole career with Sarah Palin.  Does anyone think for a second that Joe Biden would have been subjected to that kind of questioning from the third place news anchor.  (I place the blame for that interview solely on the back of the McCain campaign.  Katie Couric shouldn't have landed that interview.  Her ratings get beat by reruns of Jeopardy.)

The part that is her fault: She didn't just shut up and go away for a while.  If she would have just gone home to Alaska and finished out her term as governor, I wouldn't have had to write this column.  If I was her handler last November I would have said, "Governor, when the press ask you about your political future you should tell them, 'I am going to get back to serving the great people of Alaska until my term is completed.  I have no intention of focusing my efforts on anything else until that time.'"  She could have just faded away as the answer to this Jeopardy question: "I was the former Governor of Alaska that was a Vice-Presidential candidate."

Email Austin
Follow Austin on Twitter!

The Palin Factor: Ryan John

I’m curious to see just how far media hype can take someone.  I think we’re fascinated with Palin for the reason Jeff mentioned when setting up this topic for discussion.  She was a governor, yet a nationally unknown politician who was launched on the stage to compliment an old, seemingly out of touch, non charismatic, non attractive, republican male.  Although she did have strong conservative roots and a political resume to be proud of as governor of Alaska, she wasn’t picked for her political clout or because she’d be a competent number 2 if the president can’t finish his term.  She was picked to give the McCain camp a fighting chance in 2008.  At least that what I hope. 
 
I can’t imagine she was picked as VP to lead the Republican Party in future years.  I have to say that although I say less than flattering things about her whenever given the bloggertunity, the bottom line is that I would be humbled and very gracious to be in her presence.  I’d probably find her attractive, and even more so in person, because of the confidence I’m sure she exudes.  But, I’m thinking big picture here. I think Palin would be a perfect fit for a Press Secretary, but please not president.  Didn’t she want to be a sports broadcaster when she was younger anyway? 
 
Bush, like Palin certainly wasn’t known for his intellectual prowess.  But, he spoke cowboy and there something’s all American and comforting about that.  Bush wasn’t so concerned about appealing to the universal language of intelligence as much as he was with scaring people away from messing with America. It doesn’t take a great vocabulary to get that message across. 
 
I'm not like Chris Matthews.  I don’t get chills up my leg after an Obama speech. But every time, without fail, I YouTube Bush at ground zero with his bullhorn telling the firemen and rescue workers that pretty soon, that the people who knocked down these buildings will hear all of us, I get chills. In an unscripted moment of candor as firemen chanted “U.S.A” and “go get me George”, he delivered probably the most impactful couple of sentences I’ve ever heard from a president in my time.  For a couple minutes I forget any 9/11 conspiracy theories.  Why is that relevant?  Bush spoke common man and tough while Obama speaks intelligent, but apologetic. Both have their purposes.  That power of perception just doesn’t work in Palin's favor if she has presidential ambition. 
 
However, that doesn’t mean she can’t make the crossover to celebrity as a politician first.  Most of Hollywood gets famous before they become liberal activists.  Perhaps Palin will just do it the other way around.

The Palin Factor: Nikki Lorenzini

Do you want to know why Palin fascinates me so much? I am hoping for a surprise. Kind of like a jack in the box and hoping that something else would pop out. Yeah, its mean, but it is what it is. When she first came out, she was fun. She was peppy, she was cute, and I thought that she would of been a breath of fresh air. Then she kept on talking. And talking. And talking. Yeah, her Alaskan accent is fun, but what comes out isn't. Its irritating. Pointing her nose in subjects where I really do not think that they belong.

But I give her credit. She is actually staying in the spotlight, and as irritating as she is, I think she's doing a pretty good job at it. I mean, she is sticking up for what she believes in and her family, like when people are using the "R" word. She seems like a willing participant in life, like when she was willing to run for Vice President even though she did not have the background. Was willing to do it and take a shot. She was able write a book (even though I have no plans of reading it). She was able to make plenty of people love her and hate her. And just irritate me. If you think of it this way, she’s not in the news for something even more irritating, like a sex scandal.

I can't speak on why EVERYONE loves Palin, but for me, I give her kudos for having the pep and will power to stay in the spotlight while being a mother.

Email Nikki

The Palin Factor: Shaun Hautly

I think Palin is an underdog for many people. Being a woman, and a younger woman, no less, stacks the odds against her. People cheer for that automatically. She has a child with down-syndrome and another that got pregnant as a teenager. She gets pummeled by the media every time she opens her mouth, it's not hard to feel bad for her as a person. However, her political opinions seem archaic to many people: the nuke-em-all, drill-baby-drill, no-homos, and other strong conservative views turn many people off. The 1774 republican is slowly going extinct and she may very well be just the martyr they need.

However, regardless of my political opinions, there is no doubt something incredible about Sarah Palin. Something still makes her a threat to democrats and keeps us talking about her. One of the reasons democrats consistently put her down is likely because she's a legitimate threat. Bullies always picked on the kids they were jealous of, and this is no different. It's a complement to her every time we address her. She has a legitimate following just like Obama did. I know her supporters seem stupid and misinformed sometimes (and as they're portrayed in the media), but I know first-hand, Obama supports were just as dumb and he got elected. I interviewed hundreds of people in tons of US cities, all of them said, "Change!" I asked, "how?" they responded, "uhhhhhhh." People latch onto a relatable image, and our voters just aren't smart enough to see beyond marketing. That's why Axe Body spray is so popular, not because it's a great product, but because it makes you a man.

That's what Palin is to many people, a sub-par product that's marketed correctly. However, that didn't stop Obama. This is what our system produces, candidates and separation. Rivalries and unhappiness. Palin may get elected and make just as many people happy as Obama did, and piss off the same number. I'm anxious to see what Palin does in the upcoming months to solidify her status as a genuine politician ready to take America to the next level. She did Jay Leno, and who knows what's in store. Obama made his rounds, now she's making hers. Let's see where this goes.

Email Shaun
Follow Shaun on Twitter!

The Palin Factor: Have Your Say

Now that you've read the opinions of our panelists, have your say by leaving a comment.

Rielle Hunter in GQ

Rielle Hunter, the former mistress of former presidential candidate John Edwards, breaks her silence in the April issue of GQ magazine. In the interview, Hunter states that Edwards lived in fear of his wife Elizabeth among other things, however it is the photo spread accompanying the interview that is getting the most attention. Hunter is photographed wearing a shirt, underwear, and pearls. Hunter has expressed shock at her photos, calling them “repulsive” while GQ's Lisa DePaulo has shot back, ““She knows what she wore and what she was doing in the photo shoot.”

Today we asked our panel to share their thoughts on Rielle Hunter, her GQ interview, and her photo shoot. After reading their opinions, join the conversation by leaving a comment.

Rielle Hunter in GQ: Shaun Hautly

I had always liked John Edwards. I was supportive of him in the days where it was him, Obama, and Hillary. He's a UNC fan, and seemed like a family man. His marriage may have been terrible, and his timing even worse, but he still has to own up to breaking the vows of marriage. Not a smooth move for someone trying to win the trust of the American public. While I do understand that maybe getting a divorce during a presidential campaign is a lot more difficult than sneakily sleeping with a videographer, he should have at least used protection. There are a lot of "at leasts..." in his story. However, this article isn't about him, it's about the woman he chose to take him out of his political career forever.

So she's okay with being covered up from the media during the campaign, but now that it's all out of the bag, she decides to spill the beans to GQ (and their hard-hitting journalism) and while she's at it, strip down and pose. I'm with GQ on this one: get pissed at the photographer for making you wear something revealing or making you arch your back in the photo suggestively, but don't DO it, and then get pissed later. This is on par with someone suing Playboy for defamation of character. Besides, if she's becoming America's most talked about mom, shouldn't she have avoided suggestive photo shoots for a historically suggestive magazine?

Email Shaun
Follow Shaun on Twitter!

Rielle Hunter in GQ: Roseanne Frangione

Dear Rielle Hunter,

Where shall I start with you? First of all, your name isn't even “Reille Hunter.” You were born “Lisa Jo Druck” but I guess that wasn't glamorous enough. After calling yourself “Lisa Hunter” and “Lisa Jo Hunter” followed by “Rielle Jaya James Druck” (my personal favorite!), you finally settled on “Rielle Hunter,” which has a nice “scandal ring” to it, not unlike Fawn Hall or Jessica Hahn. But, enough about your name. So, you've already ruined a marriage, a political career, and given the ladies of “The View” enough hot topic material to last an entire sweeps week. What's next? An exclusive interview of course! Tell your side of the story! Make “Johnny” Edwards sound like even more of a loser than he's already perceived! And, just for giggles, throw some dagger's at his cancer stricken wife.

Let's not stop there. Surely you can get more mileage out of this! Why not pose provocatively clad only in a shirt (and pearls, don't forget the pearls to remind everyone how ladylike you are) and then state that you are outraged by the photos! Congratulations Rielle, you are not officially a Tabloid Queen! I hope you enjoy your title because you have truly earned it!

Email Roseanne

Rielle Hunter in GQ: David Loftus

Lemme see. A nonentity hooks her wagon to a demi-celebrity, their little dance gets tripped up so she gets left out in the cold, she decides to cash in on her 15 seconds of fame, and finally she expresses shock that she doesn’t get to control everything that’s shown or said about her.

What did she hope to accomplish by allowing herself to be interviewed by GQ? To “set the record straight”? To explain that it was all just about love – really! -- between her and John Edwards? To maybe even win him back permanently after she’s dragged out the humiliation and discomfort of his collapsing marriage a little longer? How foolish can the woman be? Does she think anybody really cares?

For the record, though I don’t plan on reading the interview or studying the photos, I viewed the video GQ released in its defense after Hunter said the results of the photo shoot were “repulsive.” And though I have to say her reaction -- her ostensible naivete -- strains credulity, once again nobody comes out of this with clean hands. I suspect the other people in that room -- the photographer, the videographer, the makeup women -- all knew they were getting away with something, that there was at least a 50-50 chance their subject would not be happy with the results (photographic or buzz-wise), but they also knew they would be safely off the field by then. They’d been through this drill with other folks who hoped to control the spin and ended up getting put through the spin cycle, many times before. And I have to say that for at least the first 30-45 seconds of the video, Ms. Hunter looks a little nervous, a little puzzled, a little uncomfortable, maybe even a little trapped . . . as if it’s beginning to dawn on her what she’s gotten herself into.

I was tempted to make a crack about how it all seems rather sur-Rielle, or that she ought to get her own Rielle-ity show . . . but actually, I feel kind of sorry for the poor thing. Not as sorry as for her daughter, for Elizabeth Edwards, or for her children, but sorry nonetheless. Hunter gambled big, getting involved with Edwards in the first place, and she should known enough to walk away from the table in dignified silence the first time the roll came up snake eyes.

Rielle Hunter in GQ: Nikki Lorenzini

I liked it when Hunter was quiet. There was enough crap talking going around in just the Edwards' camp that made me want to vomit and not care. I really wish that these type of problems would be handled in quiet, especially since children are involved, but here we are almost being forced to watch this. I liked it when Hunter was silent, almost made me think she knew she was in the wrong and ashamed, so that is why she was keeping her trap shut. Almost made me wish she wasn't like the other mistresses out there who are going to the media and trying to get their 15 min. Now I'm thinking I'm wrong.

I have mixed feelings about the photo shoot. I seen some of the pics. Well, only 2 of them, and I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand, I understand why she did it. She probably got caught up in the moment and was having some type of fun with it. Now, I never was part of a photo shoot, so I am not really sure of the logistics of it all. But Hunter probably seen the pictures at a later date, and probably had an "Oh Crap" moment, and thought "What did I do?" Shoot, I do stuff like that all the time. So when I seen her reaction, I wasn't really too shocked. Personally, I think she showed a better reaction than the whole Miley Cyrus photo shoot debacle, but I'm odd like that.

I really wish this whole interview didn't happen. I wish that she would of stayed away, not even gotten her daughter's picture taken in the shoot (just gross in my opinion). I didn't read her article. Not really interested in reading her article. I'm hoping people would boycott this stuff so the Edwards' and Hunter would just go away.

Email Nikki

Rielle Hunter in GQ: Have Your Say

Now that you've read the opinions of our panel,have your say by leaving a comment.

Texas Textbook Controversy

On Friday, the Texas Board of Education approved a revised social studies curriculum that will put a conservative slant on history textbooks. The curriculum includes the superiority of American capitalism, a focus on the Founding Fathers’ Christian beliefs, adding the violence of the Black Panthers movement to lessons about Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the “conservative resurgence” of the 1980s and 1990s including Phyllis Schlafly, the Contract With America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority, and the National Rifle Association.

Today we asked our contributors if they believe a school board should pick and chose what students should learn after years of using standard textbooks. After reading their opinions, join the conversation by leaving a comment.

Texas Textbook Controversy: Scott Hinkley

The Texas board of education made it clear last week that if any minds were going to expand in Texas, it wouldn't be a result of their school-books. The rulings on updates to the social-studies curriculum in Texas classrooms is just the latest propagandist approach being taken by and aging and fading class of authority. Our country is locked in an egotistical battle of wills right now. In many 'progressive' areas of the country, the predominant view of the nation is shifting to that of one of many nations in a world of people, while in many 'conservative' areas, our nation (chosen by god to be the greatest nation regardless of who we rape or kill) is under attack and is at risk of being reduced to being a regular nation, with peers and shared interests (like one of those crappy nations in Africa or Asia or whatever).

It seems as if America is the recovering child-star. When we were really popular, we could do all sorts of horrible things to "other" people and the world still loved us. Then we started to get awkward looking, and way to full of ourselves, and our fans lost their sense of awe in our greatness. No we are working at the mall (all be it in the couture section) and telling our friends that we will be a huge hit again, if we can only keep people focused on our accomplishments and downplay (read: erase) our mistakes.

I think Don McLeroy, Texas Board of Education member, says it best: When asked to justify the dramatic changes he supported, In true xenophobic predictability, Don said "I don't want to be just like the rest of the world. I don't want to share the world's values. America's different. Our students need to understand that." Seems hard to believe that the Christian belief of loving all God's children has any home in the American addiction to "exceptionalism" (Don's word not mine). Don, you are a tool bag, and for one second I wish to change my agnostic viewpoint, just so I can hope that you get to burn some place for a long time. Too bad you will just be worm food like the rest of us.

Email Scott

Texas Textbook Controversy: Austin Lee

Well of course liberals think its just awful that Capitalism should be given a starring role in a social studies book.  Besides the empirical evidence that Communism and Socialism are complete and utter failures, how else can you explain why the United States is far and away the leader in almost every endeavor we undertake? (Soccer of course being the exception.)

And why is it bad to mention the violence of the Black Panthers?  I live in Atlanta and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is certainly worthy of being celebrated for his non-violent approach to civil rights.  However, does it really do our children good to ignore the fact that not all proponents of civil rights were so peaceful?  Why can't we mention that there was a segment of our society (on both sides of the race issue) that wanted to use violence?  The Ku Klux Klan and the Black Panthers both used violence to attempt to accomplish their goals.  Why is it so bad to talk about?  Facts are facts.

If our children have to learn about The National Organization for Women, the AFL-CIO, SEIU, and Planned Parenthood, why can't they also learn about the NRA, The Heritage Foundation, The Contract with America, and the Moral Majority.  The reason: Liberals don't want our kids to learn these things, because the kids might start thinking for themselves and realize...hmm...we don't have to depend on the government for our lives.  And isn't it the JOB of the school board to pick curriculum?  Liberals are just mad that one school district chose books they don't like.

Email Austin
Follow Austin on Twitter!

Texas Textbook Controversy: Nikki Lorenzini

When I originally saw this topic, I was ecstatic. I thought, “Finally, a school board is deciding to teach on something out of the norm. To go beyond the standard.” Because, after all, isn’t that what makes a great teacher? To go outside of what the “standard” is and make children interested in the subject that they are teaching? I remember the text books I had back in school, and they were all the same. It seemed like one big giant history box with no room to learn any of the fun stuff. MLK was breezed over. Vietnam was barely touched upon. The 60’s and beyond might have well not existed.

I talked with two of my friends/co-workers who are both former teachers, and I asked them about this topic, because I wanted to see what their comments/concerns they would have regarding this topic. My one co-worker was telling me how there is actually no such thing as a standard textbook, that they are sold and marketed to specific regions by having them tailored or slanted to the individual regions. She said that in 11th grade, her US history teacher showed the class two textbooks, it had the same cover, table of contents, copyright, etc. One was from the deep south; the other was the one her class used. Her book showed a depiction of a lynching, the one from the south didn’t. My other co-worker said she thinks that we should have a country-wide mandatory standard of what kids are taught, just to make it more cohesive.

Plus, if you think about it, is the history that we are taught really that comprehensive? I know people who are not from America who have a better understanding of our history. Take a look at the citizenship test people have to take. I have a friend from Russia who said it was crazy easy, yet many Americans have a hard time passing it. So if Texas wants to make their history text books more comprehensive and to include more things that actually happened in our history, more power to them.

Email Nikki

Texas Textbook Controversy: David Loftus

Enough’s enough. I try to be fair and open-minded, and give the opposition the benefit of the doubt in my commentaries; but the Texas Board of Education has tried to go too far. With the same sort of Alice-in-Wonderland reverse logic that has characterized conservative opposition to health care reform, the constitutional principle of separation of church and state, and dissent in time of war, the Christian zealots who have swamped the Texas Board try to argue they are “bringing balance” back into social studies and history curricula that have been overrun by liberal values and multiculturalism ever since the 1960s. (Make that the 1950s, because that’s the last time they seem to think American history and values made sense.)

These activists know in their hearts that they’re not being fair or objective. They know they’re fighting a cultural war and they’re trying desperately to weight the dice unfairly in the direction of their personal beliefs. “To me, it’s just providing accurate history and my observation is that the left doesn’t even know they have biased it,” says Don McLeroy, a dentist and member of the conservative bloc on the Texas Board who openly describes himself as an orthodox, fundamentalist Christian. Now, anyone who knows anything about history has to admit that it’s never about being totally fair and objective; someone’s always advancing an agenda, whether consciously or not, and someone’s ox is going to get unfairly gored. Still, there are standards of fairness and factuality, and if anything, the writing of history involves gradual, ongoing corrections to the assumptions of the winners: the ruling party, the folks whose descendants have incorrectly been feeling (spurred on by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck) that they have been persecuted, discriminated against, and diminished by history. What they’re trying to do is become the winners in history again when historians have been laboring to correct the misconceptions of the winning classes.

I can’t see that anything they want to put into textbooks is an outright lie or inaccuracy. But it does give undue weight to their pet organizations and theories, in a way that is no more self-questioning or rigorously analytical than the imperialist dogmas of a century ago. And that’s not right. There’s a part of me that would love to just let Texas school districts have at it, because the results will be continued ignorance and insularity for those who continue to live in that state, and a rude awakening for native Texans who try to advance in their careers and social lives when they leave it. But this power play by a vocal handful on the Texas Board of Education has a potentially greater reach than across the landscape of their own state; so many textbooks are purchased in Texas that national publishers tailor their products to that market, which in turn affects the rest of the country. (Not even California school districts purchase their textbooks in a bloc anymore, the way Texas does.) And that is simply unacceptable.

Texas Textbook Controversy: Have Your Say

Now that you've read the opinions of our contributors, have your say by leaving a comment.

Louisiana Prom Controversy

The Itawamba County, Mississippi school district decided last week to cancel a high school prom after a lesbian student demanded she be allowed to attend the function with her girlfriend. The school district originally cited their policy which requires prom dates be of the opposite sex.

The American Civil Liberties Union requested that the school allow Constance McMillen, 18, to bring her girlfriend as her date the prom, stating that failure to do so would violate McMillen’s constitutional rights. However, the school district claims the prom was not canceled due to McMillen's request, but rather “due to the distractions to the educational process caused by recent events.” The ACLU is now filing a federal suit against the school district.

Today we asked our panelists to share their thoughts on this topic. After reading their opinions, have your say by leaving a comment.

Louisiana Prom Controversy: David Loftus

I’m of two minds about this matter. On the one hand, it’s obvious the school district bowed to anti-gay bigotry in choosing to cancel the prom (and hinting that parents might choose to host a private event that could exclude gays and lesbians without raising any legal issues) in Fulton, a small town of 3,900 in the northeast corner of Mississippi. (That’s just over the border from Alabama and not too far south of Tennessee, for the benefit of us coastal types.)

On the other hand, I think McMillen and the ACLU should have thought twice about stirring up this hornet’s nest at this particular location and time. It’s not just that McMillen should have foreseen that any negative turn of events would be blamed on her and not the school board’s cowardice or the surrounding county’s bigotry; it’s that she and her girlfriend are probably poised to move out of the county (and possibly even the state of Mississippi) within the year, and they and the ACLU will leave a bitter taste in the mouths of the long-term residents, who will come down harder on the next same-sex couple that surfaces in Fulton.

Obviously it’s wrong for school officials to threaten to throw the girls out if their presence makes other students “uncomfortable” at the April 2 dance. The problem is, this is probably how things work all the time in Fulton among people who are no longer in high school, when they are not on public property and run a similar risk of making their neighbors uncomfortable. Until an actual crime is committed, the ACLU won’t be there to back people up.

You have to choose your battles. Sometimes it’s not worth the effort to try to change an entire region’s attitudes -- especially if you aren’t prepared to stick around and do the hard work of effecting change over time with your continuing presence and example. Assuming Constance and her girlfriend don’t plan to make a life for themselves in Itawamba County over the next few years, then their symbolic protest, backed up by the ACLU’s big stick, is more likely to be counterproductive. Of course everything looks more important to the average teen than to you or me, whether that teen is a crusading lesbian or a fearful, anti-gay bigot. I simply didn’t go to most of my high school proms when I was a teen because I had better things to do (and so did my girlfriend, I might add). Certainly a lot of people need to be reminded that there are gays and lesbians living among them, and they should be treated with kindness and respect; but maybe a lot of people need to learn that proms are not all that important in the big scheme of things, and some battles are more trouble to fight than they’re worth.

Louisiana Prom Controversy: Sasha Smith

Mississippi should be ashamed of itself. Every year there is some prom scandal in this state. Most years it's connected to a white student wanting to take a black student to the prom or the fact that some cities in Mississippi still have  have segregated proms. Since I've moved to the South, I've realized two things in regards to civil rights. 1. Some parts of the South are going to hold on to the past as long as they can and 2. It will try to bring back the days of old. It's like some parts of the South are stuck in a time warp. 

In 2010, why does the school district think it's okay to make decisions about an 18 year old woman's sexuality. The school board should be focused on what their national rankings are and how they will combat the economic conditions of schools. Since the methods of funding education is still based on property tax, Mississippi should be worried about getting school books, saving the arts and providing meals to those students in Mississippi. 

Why is it illegal to sell vibrators in Mississippi but not guns? Has anyone every killed themselves at school with a vibrator? Of course not but school shootings are on the rise. Why are the school districts more concerned about an 18 year old woman's sexuality versus safety? Mississippi needs to get it's priorities straight. I think the ACLU has a very valid case. Public school's have no right to make a student feel horrible about there prom date choice. I also hope the students at this high school stand up for the classmate and challenge the administration. 

Email Sasha
Follow Sasha on Twitter!

Louisiana Prom Controversy: Scott Hinkley

I am not at all surprised by the actions of this small-minded authority, but I am pleased that because it intertwined with a hot-button issue, this abuse of power is receiving more attention than usual. In my mind, this is another blatant attempt to keep lifestyles out of the community because those in power know that they will lose their support on these issues when average people because exposed "subversive" influences. The best scam ever hatched by the power-hungry is the notion that humans hold a "devil" inside them, and that only through submission and donations can that devil be exercised. I agree, people are weak, but not to the devil, to the undue influence of their peers and superiors. We want to belong, and to fit in. Constance McMillen demonstrated that she is less willing to submit under pressure from those in power, and she has been used as a strong reminder of how deep that influence runs in Itawamba County.

I am most saddened by the lack of support from other students, since it seems like a clear sign that this community will continue to champion the lowest of humanity. I have no sympathy for those who confuse a love of god with their dirty-minded self-worship. I have no respect for the drivel you preserve in your otherwise biologically capable brains. I look forward to a day when bigots can be openly despised regardless of the particulars of their hatred.

Email Scott