You're killing me McCain

I think Brittany makes some good arguments in her post titled You're killing me McCain. While I am not an advocate of the "don't ask don't tell" policy, I sorta understand it's purpose. I can see how some people could feel "uncomfortable" knowing that one of their fellow soldiers is homosexual, but then again, what about women serving along side men? What are the heterosexual soldiers really afraid of? Are they afraid that the gays will come on to them or "touch" them in their sleep? I mean come on... What about allowing women to serve along side the men, straight males like women, so shouldn't they pose a threat as well? To be honest, I think for most people, it would not affect them much. You're always going to have insecure "homophobes" and that's just a part of life, but people should also have the right to live their life how they want to and shouldn't have to "hide" their sexual preferences just because a few people might get bent out of shape over it. If it truly does become an issue with military readiness, then fine, do away with it again.

Has the TSA gone too far?

So I'm sure we have all heard of some of the insane encounters with TSA agents while traveling through busy airports, especially on the holidays. For instance, the incident where an 8 year old boy was strip searched in Salt Lake City, a breast cancer survivor who was forced to remove her prosthetic breast, a bladder cancer survivor who had his urostomy bag seal broken which caused him to become soaked in urine, a 3 year old child who had her teddy bear taken away and then was subjected to a pat down etc... Of course though, the most controversial of all, the full body scans... The TSA has been under heavy fire as of lately, but I think the real question is whether or not it is necessary.

One could argue that full body scans are necessary, even for young children. You could argue that terrorists might try and use little children to sneak things on to a plane, and if you don't want to be subjected to invasive body scans and pat downs, then drive or take a bus. On the other hand, you could also argue that it is getting out of control and isn't necessary. You could say that the terrorists have already won... I mean the objective for a terrorist is to strike fear into people's minds, and you could definitely argue that they have succeeded. You could argue that if you have nothing to hide, then you shouldn't be worried or concerned right? How about putting a camera in your bedroom at home (to make sure you aren't plotting something illegal of course), I mean if you have nothing to hide, why would you object?

To be honest, I think they have gone too far. I know it's for our own "protection" and all, but where do you draw the line? What if another 9/11 occurs, could you imagine how tight the security would be then? Perhaps full body cavity searches on everyone, no matter their age. Once you give the government certain powers, it's really hard to take them back again. I think it's time people stood up and did something about it. Everyone has the right to feel safe I agree, but at what cost? How many freedoms must we give up to feel safe? There's nothing wrong with trying to keep passengers safe while traveling, but you have to draw the line somewhere. I think it's really something that should be thought about, before it's too late.

Hey! Try Thinking Before You Speak..or Act..

In Hannah's article titled "Hey! Try Thinking Before You Speak.. or Act..", I think she makes some great points on both sexual harassment and bullying. In my commentary, Department of Education Stands Up to Bullies, I make very similar statements regarding sexual harassment (especially towards the gay and lesbian population) and its negative effects, and also explain how the Department of Education plans to combat these issues. After reading in her commentary about how a SCHOOL BOARD member has now resigned after making anti-gay remarks via his Facebook page shortly after the suicides of several gay/lesbian youths , I am now more supportive than ever of the Department of Education stepping in and threatening schools with the loss of federal aids if stricter bullying policies are not put into place. Bullying and harassment is bad enough among students, but now we have school employees making remarks about another person's sexual orientation as well? What kind of example are they setting for students if they themselves are participating in bullying? High school can be an extremely difficult time in a teen's life, and while the older and more mature gay and lesbian crowd may be able to take the insults and still hold their head up high, these same insults aimed towards a young, emotionally unstable, and confused teen could be devastating...


She also mentions that we should refrain from "racial, homosexual, politics, and religious comments..." on the internet, but I would have to slightly disagree. I agree with her reasoning behind it but I also support the freedom of speech, and part of the concept of free speech is the ability to say or express things that might be controversial or even offend others. Someone who dislikes gays has just as much right to express it as someone who hates heterosexuals... The discussion of religion, politics, sexuality, and racism in an almost unrestricted manner is what makes this country what it is (for better or worse, you decide). In some countries merely mentioning homosexuality or speaking ill of their government is a punishable offense. But I do think there is a time and a place for everything, just as she says, "So save the racial, homosexual, politics, and religious comments for that drunken dinner table talk (although that could potentially get just as ugly)." 

So while I don't think there should be any restrictions on a site such as Facebook, I don't personally think it's appropriate to spew your hatred there either. I think people should have better judgment and know the when and where when it comes to expressing strong opinions such as racism and homosexuality. So while I don't believe censorship to be the answer on the internet or in public places where you may choose to be, someplace such as a public school where you are forced to go five days a week, censorship should most definitely be applied in certain cases. But the concept of "thinking before you speak" should probably be applied everywhere, so I agree with that part and I wish more would do it.

Department of Education Stands Up to Bullies

For many kids, bullying is a serious problem in our schools. Unfortunately there are some who still don't take bullying seriously, even some school officials. It seems as though many cases of bullying are just swept under the rug until someone gets seriously injured or even worse, commits suicide. Sure enough, after someone gets hurt, everyone becomes "concerned". In many cases, school officials stated they didn't even know it was going on, despite numerous complaints from both parents and students. The Department of Education has decided to step in and even threatened that schools who fail to enforce anti-bullying policies could lose federal funding. These policies came after the recent suicides of five gay teenagers, but some wonder whether these policies are the right way to handle the situation, and many even think the Department of Education is "bullying" the schools into submission.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan is urging schools to enforce federal civil rights laws that prohibit harassment of students based on race, national origin, religion, and gender. The Department of Education will also use court rulings on gender discrimination to include gay and lesbian students to these protected groups. Both schools and colleges must enforce anti-bullying policies or face the possible loss of federal aid, and the possibility of the Department of Justice being brought in to investigate.

In my opinion, I think the DoE is doing the right thing. In too many cases bullying is overlooked by school officials despite both students and their parents coming forth. Bullying can make school a miserable experience and I firmly believe that every student should have the right to feel safe at school, regardless of their gender, sexual orientation, religion etc... Some might even consider what the DoE is doing as bullying too, and while that may be true, sometimes when nothing else works you have to fight fire with fire, and that's exactly what the DoE is doing. High school can be hard enough as it is and you shouldn't have to also worry about being picked on because you look or dress a different way. Perhaps a better "solution" that doesn't involve the federal government would be stronger school policies regarding bullying. It seems that in most cases, the only punishment for bullying received is a slap on the wrist. The old saying "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" isn't always true. You can choose what clothes you wear and how you act/talk, but you can't help your sexual orientation. While any harassment can be hurtful, harassment regarding someones sexual preferences can be the most devastating. Apparently schools have had their chance and failed, so I am glad the federal government has stepped up to the plate.

The Wars on Drugs and Terror: mirror images

In Glenn Greenwald's editorial entitled The Wars on Drugs and Terror: mirror images, he talks about Proposition 19; a bill that will be voted on in November, which for the most part would legalize marijuana in California. He also compares the "War on Drugs" to the "War on Terror" stating "...the War on Drugs is a mirror image of the War on Terror:  sustained with the same deceitful propaganda, driven by many of the same motives, prosecuted with similar templates, and destructive in many of the same ways.". His argument is that the War on Drugs, like the War on Terror, is nothing short of a failure and he states that "Both wars ensure an unlimited stream of massive amounts of money into the private war-making industries which fuel them." He also says, "Both wars rely upon cartoon depictions of Scary Villains (The Drug Kingpin, Mexican Cartels, the Terrorist Mastermind) to keep the population in a state of heightened fear and thus blind them to rational discourse.  But both wars are not only complete failures in eradicating those villains, but they both do more to empower those very villains than any other single cause -- the War on Drugs by ensuring that cartels’ profits from the illegal drug trade remain sky-high, and the War on Terror by ensuring more and more support and recruits for anti-American extremists."

I would have to say that I just about completely agree with everything he has to say in this article. For years now I have thought the War on Drugs was not only a waste of tax payer's money, but a waste of prison space too. I mean, our prisons are so full of non-violent drug offenders it's ridiculous. People locked up along side of rapists and murders for a simple possession charge... I think Proposition 19 is a step in the right direction. He also provides a bit of research to help back his claims. He mentions a comprehensive report he wrote for the Cato Institute discussing his research he did in Portugal in 2008 on "...documenting how decriminalization has single-handedly enabled that country to manage, control and even reduce the problems associated with drug usage far more effectively than other nations (i.e., other EU states and the U.S.) which continue to criminalize drugs.".

With November 2 right around the corner, I would imagine his intended audience would be potential voters. With a background as a lawyer and a civil rights litigator I would imagine he might be slightly more informed on the damages this "War" has caused this country when compared to the average Joe who may be more apt to believe the propaganda that has been associated with it.

I think marijuana should be legalized, or at least decriminalized more than it already is. I've done my fair share of research on the "harmful" effects of marijuana, in fact I even wrote an English paper on it. But without getting into all of that, that's where I stand. I also believe, like Greenwald, that even the harder drugs should be decriminalized. While I don't think heroin or meth should be completely legalized, I believe we should have less harsher punishments, at least when caught with small amounts for personal use. It's sad to see people's lives completely ruined just for being caught with a couple grams of coke, it's truly sickening. I am actually a pre-pharmacy student aiming for a Doctor of Pharmacy and I have spent years researching the effects of various drugs on the human brain and body (mainly recreational drugs, but hey can you blame me, they are the most interesting), and over the years I have found almost everything they taught us in D.A.R.E to be either completely false, or half truths. I suffered from a mild-ish opiate addiction several years ago, so i can somewhat understand where the government is coming from and why they feel it is their duty to "protect" us, but I also believe that people should be able to make their own choices so long as they don't hurt other people.

Palaima: U.S. gun laws allow normal day at UT to take a scary turn

 SOURCE: Palaima: U.S. gun laws allow normal day at UT to take a scary turn

Thomas G. Palaima, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin, writes about his experiences on the day of Tuesday, Sept. 28, 2010 as shots and sirens rang out on that dreadful Tuesday morning at UT. He says “...news reached us that a gunman was near or in the library. Violence had come into the heart of our campus.”. He goes on to describe from his own point of view exactly what happened that morning. By the end of the editorial he not only questions our State's current gun laws, but why ANY gun, assault weapon or not, is legal to buy or use at all. “...but also thanking a clearly disturbed person for not making us pay a horrible price for the gun laws that prevail in our country.” he mentions in closing. 

I would have to say that on most topics, I am quite the liberal. However, on the topic of gun control, count me as a conservative, and big time. The problem I have with gun control is that it just doesn't work, period. Dr. Palaima seems to suggest that if we had stricter gun regulations in the United States, like the U.K for example, this may not have happened. While he would probably be right if we somehow went back in time and banned all firearms before so many made it into circulation, it's just too late for any effective ban nowadays. If you take away all of the law abiding citizen's firearms, the only people left with guns are the criminals.

Imagine this, let's pretend a state passed some “obscene” law that requires ALL persons over the age of 21 to carry a firearm and know how to use it. Sounds pretty crazy huh? Well let me ask you this, would you risk robbing a bank knowing full well that every single one of those 26 people in there are packing heat? Probably not. What about the next state over where all firearms are banned? Now you're the only guy with a gun because guess what... You're a criminal! Criminals don't care that guns are illegal, that's why they're criminals in the first place.

While that may have been a little bit of an extreme example, I think it counters his argument quite nicely. The second I saw that he teaches “seminars on war and violence...” I pretty much knew where he stood on the topic before even finishing the editorial. The events of Tuesday seems to have sparked up the old debate of whether or not students with concealed carry permits should be allowed to carry their handguns on school campus and whether or not they may have been able to stop the gunman (although thankfully no one else other than the gunman was killed) and I believe his aim was to counter that argument. He doesn't actually post any evidence or statistics to back his claim of our absurd gun laws and how restricting them would reduce crimes such as these.

Anyhow that's my take on it. I actually own an AK47 myself, so I'm sure my opinion on the matter is quite biased as well. But I have grown quite tired of people like him who think that by removing guns from law abiding citizens, it will somehow remove them from the hands of criminals as well. While the shooter at UT probably legally purchased and owned his rifle, the majority of gun crimes committed in the US are with illegal firearms anyway.

Bush-era tax cuts soon to expire

Tax cuts put into place under former President George W. Bush will expire at the end of this year, and lawmakers must come to an agreement on extending these tax cuts. Failure to extend these tax cuts will result in families at every income level to see an increase in taxes withheld from their paychecks. A typical American family of four with a combined income of $50,000 a year would see a $2,900 increase in taxes in 2011, the same family of four earning $100,000 a year would see an increase of approximately $4,500. Wealthier families would see an even larger tax hike in 2011.

Many argue the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 actually benefited the wealthy more so than the working poor and middle classes. President Barack Obama wants to extend these cuts, however he only wishes to extend them to individuals earning less than $200,000 a year and joint filers earning less than $250,000 a year in adjusted gross income. According to a recent poll conducted by Associated Press, 39% of Americans surveyed backed the idea of raising taxes on the highest earners and keeping the tax cuts for the poor/middle class, 15% supported raising taxes on everyone by allowing the cuts to expire, and 44% believe we should keep the existing tax cuts in place for everyone, including the highest earners. Under Obama's new plan, the wealthy would actually see a larger increase in taxes than they would if the cuts simply expired.

I believe we should keep the current cuts for the poor and middle classes and either go with Obama's plan to increase the highest earner's taxes, or at least tax them with the rates used before the cuts were put into place. While some may argue that the rich shouldn't be taxed any higher than the poor since it's their money and they earned it, I think that by taxing the super rich higher and the poor/middle classes lower not only would the wealthy not suffer nearly as much of a blow to their pockets, but it would help the less fortunate and the economy significantly. The way I look at it is this; if I took 50% of someone's yearly salary away who only earned $20,000 a year, they would suffer a tremendous blow to both their pocket, and their quality of life/standard of living. However, taking half of someone's salary who earns $8 million a year, while still being a major blow to their earnings, it probably wouldn't effect their quality of life or standard of living in the same degree (if any at all) as it would someone in the poor class. Yes I know it's a bit of an extreme example, but I believe it to be necessary to get the point across.

SOURCE: Expiring Tax Cuts Hit Taxpayers at Every Level