Profile much?

I have to say I do not completely agree with Mr. Ricks post "Mental breakdown." Although I do agree that there should have been higher security to ensure these kinds of things don't happen, I don't think it would have been acceptable to profile this man because of his race. I do not believe that everyone in the military of middle eastern decent should be categorized as people who are capable of shooting their comrades, just like I do not believe all American citizens of middle eastern descent should be categorized as those who are capable of being terrorists. Although I am sure many backwards thinking Americans feel differently than I do.
I also do not think that Major Hasan is the only person enlisted in the military who is opposed to the war. I personally have many friends and family enlisted that do not agree with what is going on and are not happy, but are fulfilling their duty.
Depression and post traumatic stress are very common in soldiers after serving in times of war, so it also does not surprise me that the major had a problem killing his own people, who wouldn't? Not all Afghan citizens are evil terrorists. I am not excusing his atrocious behavior and believe he should be punished by the fullest extent of the law. Profiling I just think that if we start profiling everyone that doesn't look like us, we will open the awful barrel of hatred racist monkeys that was opened after September 11th.
These types of instances are impossible to predict and very hard to prevent. I'm sure no one at Fort Hood thought one of their own would go on a shooting rampage, how do you predict something like that without prior threats to cause harm? I completely agree that there should be heightened security on military bases, I just don't agree with Mr. Ricks on how these security measures should be carried out.

A person, or not a person: that is the question.

Stem cell research is a heated topic that has been brought into the spotlight by celebrities such as Michael J Fox. Recently President Obama has forged the way for further research by passing an executive order allowing scientific research with stem cells. Those for stem cell research say they could cure numerous diseases and disorders. Those opposed say that it is murder and immoral. Where do I stand on the issue? Well, since I personally could benefit from stem cells, and knowing that millions who suffer from crippling diseases such as Parkinson’s could also greatly benefit from this, it is hard for me to see how this is a bad thing.

Stem cells are cells with the ability to divide for indefinite periods in culture and give rise to specialized cells. They have the remarkable potential to develop into many different cell types in the body and in many tissues they serve as a sort of internal repair system, dividing essentially without limit to replenish other cells. When a stem cell divides, each new cell has the potential either to remain a stem cell or become another type of cell with a more specialized function, such as a muscle cell, a red blood cell, or a brain cell. They can regularly divide to repair and replace worn out or damaged tissues in organs.

The most controversial kind of stem cell is the embryonic stem cell. These are human embryos grown in a laboratory. They were created for in vitro fertilization and when they were no longer needed, instead of being thrown away they were donated for research with the informed consent of the donor. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman’s body, despite what the conservative opposition claims.

Stem cells are important for living organisms for many reasons. In some adult tissues, such as bone marrow, muscle, and brain, stem cells generate replacements for cells that are lost through normal wear and tear, injury, or disease. Stem cells offer new potentials for treating diseases such as diabetes and heart disease.

A potential application of stem cells is making cells and tissues for medical therapies. Today, donated organs and tissues are often used to replace those that are diseased or destroyed. Unfortunately, the number of people needing a transplant far exceeds the number of organs available for transplantation. Stem cells offer the possibility of a renewable source of replacement cells and tissues to treat many diseases, conditions, and disabilities including Parkinson’s disease, spinal cord injuries, burns, heart disease, diabetes, and arthritis. Adult stem cells are already being used to treat human diseases such leukemia, lymphoma, and various blood or autoimmune disorders.

Those opposed to stem cell research say it is immoral and murder. Well, the end that scientists hope to achieve is the relief of human suffering. How is that immoral? The main controversy has to do with the consumption of DONATED embryos. The whole issue here is whether or not a donated embryo which will never see the inside of a uterus should be considered a person. Those opposed to stem cell research say it is a crime to test embryos. I say it is a crime to let people suffering from various conditions and diseases who could greatly benefit from stem cells continue to suffer due to their non fact based beliefs.

"non gay hater"

In the blog Politics: A Perfect Destruction there is a post on gay marriage that I don't entirely agree with. Toohey made it clear that he "is not a gay hater" yet he doesn't think they should have the same legal rights as the rest of us. I do agree with the argument that if someone is recognized as married in one state they should be in the rest of the country. What I don't agree with is that we should just be quiet and obey/respect a document that is over 200 years old. (Need I remind you that if we followed those orders all the time African Americans would still be enslaved, women wouldn't be allowed to vote, and many other historical chains would still be placed on society.)
Those opposed to gay marriage claim that marriage needs to be protected, protected from whom? Giving same sex couples the legal right to marry doesn't take anything away from marriage or make marriage between a man and woman less legal. Again, this is not a religious issue, but it has become one to those who believe that homosexuality is a sin. People claim the bible says that it's wrong, therefore it is wrong. Well, in the bible Jesus says nothing about same-sex behavior, and only six of the Bible's one million verses refer to homosexuality as it's known today. Historically people's misinterpretation of the Bible has led to bloodshed. Some examples would be slavery; persecuting Jews and other non-Christian people of faith;witch hunts;supporting Hitler's Third Reich and the Holocaust;opposing medical science;condemning interracial marriage, so on and so forth. Another point is that there are several verses in the Bible that we do not follow, like if a bride is not a virgin she should be stoned; if a married person has sex with someone elses spouse, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death; need I go on?
I don't think you can say you love a community of people, but think it's ok for them to be denied their basic rights as American citizens. You don't have to agree with the lifestyle, but you should see that certain people are being discriminated against. Until those opposed can look past their personal prejudices there will be no justice for the gay and lesbian community.

Equal rights for ALL

How dare the gay and lesbian community demand to be treated like everyone else! Who do they think they are human beings? The gay rights debate has been a hot topic for decades now. With recent promises from President Obama on ending Don't Ask Don't Tell and other limitations in the gay community, some are saying the end is near. I say are you serious?! Its 2009 people! I am baffled that we live in a so called "progressive" society, yet certain people are still being discriminated against and many feel it is ok.

Marriage is not a bond under God. Rather, it is a legal contract recognized by the American courts. Since the judicial process should be separate from religious doctrine, why should a religious position have any bearing on a civil process? This debate is not about religion, it is about how a state recognizes a person. When you deny two people from having a legal marriage contract, you are not just denying marriage, but their basic rights as American citizens. These rights would include visiting their partner’s child in a hospital, inheriting children from their partner if he/she doesn't have a valid will, obtaining joint health, home, and auto insurance, joint rental agreements and joint medical decisions. These basic rights that all heterosexual couples have and don’t even think about are being denied to same sex partners. Denying marriage to same-sex couples removes from one group a fundamental, important human right -the right to marry the person that one loves and to whom one has made a commitment. That is unfair and unjust in a democracy.

Our country has a bad track record for denying people their basic rights due to fear. A fear of people who have different colored skin, people of different genders, people with disabilities, and now people who love differently. Thankfully there has been some progress. Five years ago same sex couples were allowed to marry in Massachusetts. Today, 16,500 same sex couples have married in Massachusetts. Connecticut, Vermont, and Iowa have also adopted full marriage equality. 18,000 couples were married in California before Proposition 8 brought marriage equality to a halt. There is a constitutional amendment in the works that would define marriage as between a man and women, therefore making it illegal to marry the same sex. This goes against our founding fathers ideals of equality for all citizens, free of religious persecution.

One main argument against same sex marriage is that being a homosexual is a choice. Well, a disabled person doesn’t choose to be disabled; an African American doesn’t choose to be African American. They are simply born that way. So my question is how can a “valid argument” can be that homosexuals choose to be gay. No one in their right mind would choose to suffer the denial of human rights and discrimination that the gay community receives from society. Equality for all should be a belief of everyone in our country regardless of their personal beliefs.

The Anti-Bush Nobel Peace Prize

“The Anti-Bush Nobel Peace Prize” is a blog post from The Smirking Chimp defending the recent Nobel Peace Prize recipient, President Obama. In the blog writer Cenk Uygur slaps the wrists of the republican haters claiming they’re still upset that George Bush is no longer in power. Uygur believes that Obama received the award not so much for what he has accomplished so far, but for simply not being George W. Bush. Yes, this is really his main argument.

Being that The Smirking Chimp is a very liberal site, the intended audience would also be those who call themselves liberals. I can’t imagine Rush Limbaugh is a religious follower. Cenk Uygurs credibility is only that he has been a member of The Smirking Chimp for over three years.

The post straddles the hypocritical line. Uygur stated, “the next time you talk about the President a little respect is on order.” This coming from a blogger who writes for a site which states it’s “in dishonor of the worst president in U.S. history” with a comical ape-like picture of George Bush, mouth gaping, with a return to sender stamp over his head. His accusations that the reason people are upset over Obama’s win is because they’re still sour George Bush is out I think are not true. Denis Mukwege, a gynecologist in the Congo who is putting vicious rape victims back together was one of nominees favored to win, and in my opinion should have won. Their argument is that Mukwege, or Afghan women’s rights activist Sima Samur have actually done things to save lives, when Obama hasn’t been in office long enough to make real changes.Yes, he has made big plans, but he simply hasn't been able to enact much due to not even being in office a year. Now I am sure there are those far right individuals who fit the crazy republican bush lover stereotype the author bashes, but those are the exceptions, not the norm.

I think the hardest thing for conservatives to comprehend is why the President won. Many do not know the actual reason for the prize. According to the founder of the prize, Alfred Nobel the Nobel should be awarded to "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." This is the reason he has won, for his "efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."

This blog is another prime example of how far partisanship has gone off the deep end. People these days are more focused on who’s liberal or conservative instead of stopping and listening to the real issues on both sides and finding a way together as a nation to solve them.

The Next Culture War

David Brooks, a columnist for The New York Times wrote an editorial titled The Next Culture War about how our economic values as a nation have deteriorated. We have gone from a producer to a consumer economy, and he gives an argument why this is bad news. He also gives a wonderful solution to how we should fix this massive growing tumor on America. Basically we should all stop spending. Gee, why haven't I thought of that?
Centuries ago, historians theorized that great nations always start out well. Citizens are excited about a fresh start and determined to make it work in the beginning, which leads to wealth and power. Wealth and power then leads to corruption and the basic crumbling of society shortly follows. Based on these theories, the United States was destined to fail. To the shock of the world however, we survived, in fact we flourished. Still, the early leaders of the free world like John Adams feared for what was to come. Apparently the American people had sound economic values at one point in time, but the economy which was once Calvinist like in its restraint and refrained from financial self indulgence, now has to up size their combo at Chick-Fila. Personal debt has risen to about 133 percent of the national income. Brook’s solution to the problem is to change the basic economic values American’s hold dear. He feels the U.S. must once again become the producer economy it once was, instead of the consumer economy it has become. The nation has to practice self-restraint in order for this to work. Everyone from AARP to Joe the plumber must cooperate. Regardless of the overall cost, these changes need to be met.
David Brooks has been a columnist for the New York Times since 2003 and is the senior editor at The Weekly Standard. I believe his credibility as an established columnist is in tact. I regretfully think his plea will fall on death ears. I do not believe that American’s are ready to change their monetary habits and Mr. Brook’s scary title alone will not be enough to force that change. Although I do agree that some serious changes need to happen if we are to dig ourselves out of this massive hole, and every American needs to reevaluate their spending habits, I do not think it is realistic to demand that everyone hand over their Lamborghinis and leer jets for the greater good. Nor do I think people will stop spending. This consumer economy is here to stay my friends. Free will is every Americans best friend; “I will do what I want, when I want, deal with it." His intended audience, the basic American consumer knows that they shouldn’t be spending more than they’re making, but they do it anyways because that is what our culture tells us to do, buy buy buy! So buy buy buy people until you’re broke! broke! broke!

Flunk the Far Right

Apparently the president can wage war on a country that did not attack us, authorize torture on detainees, and tap our phones without a court order, but he better not speak to our children about the importance of education, got it.


"Flunk the Far Right" is an article from "The Daily Beast" about President Obama’s back-to-school speech. The article talks about how ridiculous partisanship has become. These days every word that comes out of the president’s mouth apparently has some hidden, dastardly agenda behind it. He compares this controversy to past presidents and asks the question, would this be an issue if someone else were saying it? However, the author does not believe this is just a far right issue. If George W. Bush had made a similar speech, the left would have caused an uproar. The real problem is that these days we focus more on the Presidents so called "motivation" rather than what we should focus on, their policy.

You should read this article because it is proof that just because you call yourself a republican or a liberal, that doesn't mean you should agree or disagree with everything the president says or does. For example, the author, Mark McKinnon, is a republican and has worked for republican presidents like George Bush and John McCain. Also, it is funny, and in my opinion anything that mixes humor and politics is worth reading.

Flunk the Far Right