Comment on " Foreign U.S. Work in The Middle East"

I fully understand your conflict in regards to US presence in foreign countries. I too have struggled with the notion of our government trying to tell others how they should run their own countries. I mean it’s not like we are doing such a great job with ours.
I have often had to remind myself of just how free I am here in America. The idea of democracy that government and non-profit agencies are trying to teach in other countries is necessary. These countries are full of corrupt regimes and governments. The people who live under them can spend their whole lives in fear and submission. Don't they have a right to know there is another way? I don't think our country should run around and say, ‘hey do it our way because it’s the best”. I do however believe that we should offer the knowledge to those who wish to listen. This is especially true in countries that have been destabilized by war. Having a presence in those countries of governments that are chosen by the people is important. Letting them know that this can be done without coercion or force is also important. Beyond giving them the knowledge, I think we should stay out of their governments.

Arizona "Birther Bill"

So this week Arizona’s House of Representatives passed a “Birther Bill”, which if signed into law, will require presidential candidates to provide proof of U.S. birth to the Arizona state secretary. If the proof is sufficient only then could the candidate be placed on the state ballot. It is argued that this may be an unconstitutional act due to the full faith and fair credit clause.  

Is this just another crack at President Obama? I thought the “Birthers” had been silenced. Obviously if this law is passed, Obama would have to provide “sufficient” proof he was born in Hawaii for the 2012 elections. The reason that Obama’s U.S. status was ever even an issue is because of the time he spent as a child in a Middle Eastern country. It seemed to me to be a fear driven movement rather than a legitimate argument. Is it reasonable or responsible for our states to pass laws such as this one? How do we know when we have crossed the line of legitimate concern into breaking the laws of our constitution? Why must our laws become about proving a point instead of the common good.

And if this bill does get signed into law what’s next a change in our constitution. If we can’t have faith in our neighboring states to provide us with accurate information, the whole of our country could break down.

Comment on "Hurray for High Prices?"

I really appreciate your post "Hurray for High Prices"

I would argue that the line of thinking of republicans about Obama's motives, are not completely off base.  Though, I don’t think he is ignoring the issue in the immediate, rather he is trying to do more than put a band aid on it. Renewable and clean energies should be considered the new frontier. A race should be on to advance or claim in the property, much as the whole of Europe raced to claim the America’s. We need that kind of grand thinking about alternative fuels and geothermal, wind, and solar energies.  I think a majority of Republicans stand on the side of science that disagrees with the impact on our environment from our addiction to fossil fuels.  This further aides their need to have government stay out of people’s rights to run whatever kind of business they want.

The true turning in events for this will be as you said, when people decide they want a renewable future. That is really what it’s all about. I don’t think enough people put thought into where there dollars go. Money holds the key to reform. People need to invest in clean renewable energy by buying renewable products and supporting companies that use renewable resources.  This is one of the things I love about social networks. When you find out a company is doing something good or bad when it comes to the environment, you can let all of your friends know and they can let all of theirs and so on. This information can then go straight to register.

Political radicalization

A few weeks ago in a Homeland Security Committee meeting chairperson Peter King called out the Muslim religion as a threat to American’s safety. While he didn’t say that all Muslim’s are a threat, he voiced concern over "Muslim radicalization". This meeting started a backlash from Muslim’s and first amendment right supporters.  Since 9/11, a dark shadow has been cast over the Muslim community. According to Tom Perez, assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, even though Muslim-Americans make up only 1% of the population they have more than 14 percent of religious discrimination cases and 25 percent of workplace discrimination cases.  Isn’t it irresponsible to equate the Muslim religion with acts of terror? There have been plenty of terrorist acts carried out on U.S. soil by people of other religious connection.  So, it really has nothing to do with religion at all. Using the word Muslim in these hearings feels like a violation of these people’s rights to me. Politicians are looked up to and counted on to act responsibly and thoughtfully in their posts. This man’s words can cause those who already have fear to cast a more doubtful eye on their Muslim neighbors.  During the hearing Rep. Keith Ellison told the story of a paramedic who died trying to save lives at the Towers on 9/11. Stories circulated after that he was somehow tied to the terrorist who carried out the attacks because he was Muslim.  Fear and suspicion because of his religion were the root cause of doubt being shined on his noble death. What a shame. Still Peter King vows to forgo what he calls "political correctness", in the name of security.  Would he feel the same way if these attacks had been carried out by a western religion? Say by Christians?

Oh ANN!

Ann Coulter never ceases to amaze me. She has an ability to say the most irresponsible things. This time it comes in her blog "A GLOWING REPORT ON RADIATION" (http://www.anncoulter.com/). Ann writes her blogs for the very far right, conservative Republicans. In this particular article she is talking about the science behind exposure to radiation and how it can be beneficial to people.She states there is a study in Canada that shows tuberculosis patients exposed to multiple chest X-rays have lower lung cancer rates. She also writes about a 1991 study that shows shipyard workers exposed to higher levels of radiation had a 24% lower death rate and a 25% lower cancer rate. She says that a growing number of scientist think that radiation can be beneficial at much higher doses than those that the Japanese are being exposed to. She thinks that the media is responsible for the bad hype on radiation. The reason all of this is significant to America is that we have some Nuclear reactors for both energy and research but we are not a people who are for putting nuclear plants in every city to use as an alternative to coal power. 
Ann is not a scientist. It is irresponsible for her to sway a population about things that she cannot be certain about. What about the deformities caused by the nuclear bombs used in Japan during World War 2. She brings up the accident at Chernobyl and how the only people who died were in the actual explosion. There are reports of radiation sickness that killed fire fighters who were on scene as well as birth defects in some of the children of local residents. Radioactive chemicals are DNA mutating. Even if levels higher than are deemed safe do not cause cancer in those exposed, what about the potential for birth defects in their young? What about the animals and plants exposed to this radiation? I don't think it is a good idea to argue science unless you are in the business of science. Ask any Chemist about radiation and see if they agree with ANN.

Right of Glock

I find Gail Collins article “School of Glock” to be very interesting. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/opinion/10collins.html?_r=1&ref=opinion)

With the numerous school shootings over the last couple of decades guns are a hot topic.

This is the first time I have heard about a link between gun rights and health reform.  Obviously Gail is writing to a pro-gun control and health reform audience.

She mentions a bill up for consideration in Florida. It would fine a doctor up to 5 million dollars for simply asking if the patient owns a gun. The bill is supposedly about not allowing insurance companies to raise premiums in a mandated health care system for states. Gail points out that there is already protection in the health reform for this very issue. I tend to agree with her that the Republican Party is perpetuating an irrational fear about health care.

I don’t know that I completely agree with her point of view on guns. She implies that the Republican Party has formed their gun rights stance around the idea that the country would have less problems if there were more guns. Although I am not Republican, I come from a family that is. Many are members of the National Rifle Association. They fundamentally believe that it is their right to bear arms. However, most of them do not feel guns could solve our nation’s problems. They feel the government having more control over how they carry and what kind of gun they carry would be to our nations detriment. It would be the muffling of a long standing tradition and right of Americans.

I have been around guns all of my life and even though I at this time do not carry one, if I did, I would know how to use it. So would many young Texans and Americans that I know. I wonder how much time she has spent in the country where family’s hunt for their food. I wonder if she has spent any time around guns.  I don’t think guns will fix all of our problems but the notion that our nation is safer with fewer guns makes no sense to this Texas raised gal.

We might not like what they have to say, but they have a right to say it.

Today on CNN Bill Mears lets us know about the supreme court ruling on whether or not a lawsuit filed against a Kansas church was a violation of their first amendment rights. The court says yes. The big issue is that this church has been protesting at military funerals. They claim that the military deaths are God punishing the U.S. for homosexuality. The family of one of the soldiers whose funeral was protested  filed  a law suit against the church for invasion of privacy and emotional distress. They won their suit. However the church appealed and after several trips to the court room have now been fully cleared of any fines for their protesting. http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/03/02/scotus.westboro.church/index.html
I absolutely disagree with this church's message. I also think that their choice to protest at a funeral shows a serious lack of class and no concern for the feelings of those mourning . But, the big picture has to be seen. No one has a right to tell us we can not speak or protest. We are not always going to like what we hear and there are always going to be people that abuse the right.  The court voting against this church's first amendment right could have paved the way to suppression of that right to all.