Response to Editorial

I have really enjoyed reading your blogs these past five weeks or so, and seem to agree with most of your opinions and ideals on things; especially this one. The main thing I don't understand about this topic though is why people feel it is necessary to take other peoples rights of an abortion away. If pro-lifers want to have the baby no matter what, then they can choose to do that. But they shouldn't try to impose their beliefs on a law that would completely restrict all others from not being able to get an abortion. That is just ridiculous that people feel they have that kind of authority to make absolute decisions for other people. So in this topic as well as the others I agree with you 100%. Good work.

Arrogant Obama?

Lately in the news, America is leeching off of the latest Obama story; “Obama is arrogant”. Who cares! America is great at trying to break down people as they get to be famous, and transforming them into something to laugh about. Shows such as The Daily Show, Saturday Night Live, and The Tonight Show undermine people’s abilities. For the past months Saturday Night Live, has opened with some sort of election routine, but now even CNN is reporting Obama’s mistake of being cocky. Videos of Obama speaking as if he already has his place in the oval office, and his very own presidential seal with his face and his presidential slogans underneath it written in Latin. I think this is an appropriate mindset for anyone who wants to win or do well at something. It is said that you envision what you want before you set out to do something then you act as if you already do. Or do what is necessary to get to where you want. An arrogant attitude is sometimes mandatory just to relieve some of the stress that has been going on. Now I am not an Obama supporter by any stretch of the imagination, but he has been working towards the election non-stop for almost (if not) a year already. We need to give the guy a break. He is only human. Lay off his back and everyone else’s for that matter. The public should understand by now that even celebrities get into some troubles every now and then. Of course some more than others, but no one is perfect. And it is none of our business how others live their lives or their ignorance. We get so hung about trying to find mistakes with the candidates that we don’t even know what their policies are. Most people just vote about what they hear in the media and who is cocky, who has the better-looking wife, who makes the most money, etc. The mass media should such as CNN should focus more on giving us the candidates’ policies and lay off the worthless news.

This is my comment I posted on iBlog: politicus's blogger profile about Obama's policy on the "rich" tax:

I absolutely agree with your commentary. It is completely absurd that people are backing up Obama and his "rich" tax. Taking more from the "rich" than what is already being done to give to the poor is outlandish. People work their butts off earning enough money to live a lifestyle they enjoy, and now Obama wants to come in here and heavily tax the hard workers of America to give to the poor. Now I am not saying that those who aren't rich are not hard workers. I am saying that those who are rich tend to be the harder workers of society. This policy of Obama's is Communism where everyone has different jobs but gets paid the same. Making everyone "equal" is not what Americans should strive for and Obama has gone way out of line.

"Let Them Marry!"

It is not any of the governments business about whether or not Bob and Tom or Jill and Sue get married. Same-sex marriage should be allowed all over the United States, and should not be restricted for a man-woman relationship only. When someone loves someone else that's going to be the way it is. The government cannot restrict who loves who, or who marries who. And now that California has allowed same-sex marriage in its state borders, homosexuals all over the United States are fleeing to California to become cute little married couples. So why ban gay marriage if anyone can fly off to California and get married. This just becomes a hassle for the state governments and the gay community themselves. Now that homosexuals see that changing the law can be done, I feel that there will be more protests and activity displayed by the gay community to try and change the laws in the rest of the country. The protesting is not the problem though. The problem lies with the government. If the government would not have banned same-sex marriage (a right that the government doesn't and hasn't had since the beginning of the United States), none of these protests or problems would have occurred. So I say to the state governments, "Let Them Marry!"

Splittin' Texas

This is the typical "What If" paper which describes all of the possibilities of splitting or removing Texas and/or California from the union, and the effects it would have on the United States as a whole in terms of the electoral college and the addition of democratic or republican delegates. The Author, Mark Steins, explores in detail each possibility and by the end seems to decide that the way the states are now is best suit for our voting districts.
Stein explains that if Texas were to split into 5 states that most likely ten more republican Senators would be elected causing "Republican control of the Senate's agenda (to) be airtight today." Another benefit for the Republican party is the many democratic delegates that would be lost if California and all of its predicted states to join it were to leave the United States.
Overall if anything were to have happened with Texas or California the results would have been good for the Republicans.
This is an interesting paper for a columnist to write because it contains no opinions. Stein neither claims or disclaims whether or not he would agree with dividing Texas or getting rid of California. This paper is merely a short little history lessons with little anecdotal "what-ifs" thrown in. I personally feel that the way the United States is with a big Texas and a California has seemed to work out well with balancing the Democrat and the Republican votes.

New York Times Columnist, Friedman, Shows Some Bias

On Monday, Ahmadinejad stated that Israel “has reached its final phase and will soon be wiped out from the geographic scene.” The author Thomas L. Friedman, the foreign-affairs columnist for the New York Times, caught wind of this statement on the Israel Radio as he was driving away from Iscar Headquarters and published a rebellious commentary against Ahmadinejad, comparing him to Warren Buffet.

Friedman’s article contains some obvious bias. First of all Iscar, the company headquarters which Friedman says he is leaving, is the first enterprise company that Warren Buffet bought overseas and one of Friedman’s “stronger” arguments. We actually don’t know why Friedman was at Iscar, but there is a high potential that he has some kind of connection their causing some bias. Because of Warren Buffets investment, Friedman says (in a round a bout way) that if Warren Buffet will invest in Israel’s future, then Israel will have a future. So Friedman’s article is dedicated to disclaiming Ahmadinejad’s radiobroadcast. Second, Friedman shows a little American pride by comparing the Iranian President, Ahmadinejad, to our own American investor, Warren Buffet. There is definitely bias when Friedman compares the thoughts and opinions of a foreign president to an American investor.

However, when all things are considered Friedman’s article does create some good arguments, and whether it is some personal American bias or not I am convinced that Israel will be around longer than Ahmadinejad suggests. I found Friedman to have an interesting writing style and convincing.

STDs Making a Comeback!!!

A new report shows that despite the millions of dollars put into teaching teenagers about abstinence, sexual activity among teenagers has actually increased and condom use has decreased. (Not very good results for a program that is supposed to lengthen the time before teenagers become sexually active and increase the use of condoms.) Some officials say this is because of the "the messages kids are getting in the digital world" and how their own abstinence program actually "bashes" the use of condoms. How do we solve this government made dilemma? Some suggest that a new form of sex-education should be taught. A sex-education that is not focused on waiting until marriage, but teaching the importance and proper use of contraceptives. It is thought that a contraceptive based sex-education could put us back on the right track of lowering teen birth rates and fewer people reporting STDs. Report: Efforts to Reduce Teen Sex.