In Regards to the politickle touch "how safe are we?"

I agree that yes America is indeed unsafe but then again 9/11 happened back in 2001. There were approx. least 2,985 people died in the September 11th attacks, no one really thinks about all the fatalities that occur everyday over 6,000 teen drivers are killed in car accidents every year. Thats three 9/11's. The 5,000 18-wheeler accidents affiliated with fatalities. Thats two 9/11's. There are6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States in 2005. In cause of DRUNK drivers. 2.9 million people were injured and 42,636 people killed. About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States -- one death every 13 minutes.
I don't know about you, but i have more FEAR and foreboding when getting on i-35 everyday.
Or what about from January 1982 to March 2001, a period of 19.25 years, there were a total of 8,109,000,000 passenger enplanements. During that same time period, there were 2,301 fatalities (120 people killed on average each year), and 348 serious injuries. This amounts to a 0.00003% chance of being seriously injured or killed in a commercial aviation accident.
And what about the estimated 15,517 murders in 2000 in the U.S.
How many 9/11's are that? Hmmm... of course our country is unsafe! But I would be more paranoid about dying in a car accident or a plane crash then a terrorist attack!

http://tickleurmind.blogspot.com/

Florida Judge Ruling.

November. 25, 2008, A decision was made in Florida by Miama judge Cindy Lederman to rule against gay adoption ban. "That there is no rational, scientific or moral reason that sexual orientation should be a barrier to adopting children, finalizing the adoption of two siblings by their gay foster father." -Lederman. After a total of 58 hearings Lederman made it clear that she had no doubts about her decision. In a 53-page judgement, Lederman declared Martin Gill, 47, a gay man from North Miami is now legally the father of two children he has raised since 2004.

"Based on the evidence presented from experts from all over this country and abroad, it is clear that sexual orientation is not a predictor of a person's ability to parent," Lederman wrote in her order.
"Sexual orientation no more leads to psychiatric disorders, alcohol and substance abuse, relationship instability, a lower life expectancy or sexual disorders than race, gender, socioeconomic class or any other demographic characteristic."

In her ruling, leaderman said that gay adoption ban was in violation of the state's equal protections guarantees by singling homosexuals out. Lederman also went on to say that the state of Florida permits gay people to serve as foster parents. Why shouldn't gay people be allowed to foster children whom have been abused, neglected or abandoned.

The two children of Martin Gill, were in bad shape when the Florida Department of Children and Families took custody of them on Dec. 11, 2004. State case workers alleged that the boys, one a infant and a four year old, had been abandoned and were suffering from neglect. The older child had a bad case of ringworm, and the infant had an untreated ear infection.

When Gill and his partner of eight years refused temporary placement only because they had plans to move to Georgia, but decided not to in order to give the boys a good Christmas. Gill reportedly has fostered eight other children in the past, and only planned to have the boys for a few months. But as time pasted, Gill knew that boys would not be returning to their family. Therefore, Gill proposed to challenged the state in order to give these children a stable and good home.
"I felt that the only right thing to do was adopt these children. It wouldn't be right after they were thoroughly bonded with us to give them up to another family. That can be very detrimental to children," -Gill

This ruling is going to be the one of the single most important cases that will benefit in helping the other thousands of other children in need of homes (not only in Florida but in every state), To hopefully have this everlasting legal battle to a national level and taken to supreme court. In doing so, giving rise to a slow epidemic in increasing the equality of gay people.

--- Florida Judge Rules Against Gay Adoption Ban

A good idea.

On the blog site "A Smorgasbord of Politics" I finally found a posting I was interested in writing a commentary on.

She brings up the issue that I too brought up in my second blog posting but in a different way.
The younger teens simply wanted to vote for Obama simply just because of his race and others wanted to vote for Hilary simply on her gender.

Well, thats just ridculous in itself. Students are persuaded by Obama because of his "celebrity-like" persona. Which in most case is an effective strategey seeing how statics showed a historical increase in voting turnout, an astonishing 60% percent americans voted versus past years.
But yes I agree people are so image obbessed in this country but in the contrary Obama is change. He relates to young people and shares interest in ridding lobbyist and non-sense laws restricting certain citizens rights.

McCain had strong creditbility (even though he recycled his speeches time and time again).
But american knew that if McCain croaked would we really feel safe with that hockey mom in office? I mean SERIOULSY. And it was kind of sad to watch an TWO (sold out) theatres of people watching the VP debates (at the alamo drafthouse) laughing and mocking Palin as she consitantly went into rabbit trails and was incapable of answering a question. Working that night was a pretty good laugh for me too. Her and that alaska energy.

Have an anonymous election is an interesting idea, but maybe that should be new restrictions on campaigning. As in no "negative campaigning" or slander, and hey isn't that a law?? Slander refers to a malicious, false, and defamatory spoken statement or report.

In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a NEGATIVE image.

Oh well, I guess when you're running for president laws like that don't apply to you. By the way another film is coming out,
a 1977 interview when David Frost interviewed the then Republican President Richard Nixon, who declared, "When the president does it, its not illegal..."
checkout: Frost/Nixon directed by Ron Howard coming 12/5

MILK.

Recently while working I saw the preview about the upcoming movie "MILK" a Biographical film directed by Gus Van Sant. The movie illustrates the later life, political career, and the assassination of San Francisco city supervisor/gay rights activists Harvey Milk.

When you learn about Harvey Milk and his accomplishments in protecting Gay Rights it makes you wonder, similar to the fight for Women's equal rights I always wondered why a person's sexual orientation, race, or gender limited the rights when the constitution plainly expresses in the 14th amendment:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So, why does Congress make exceptions? Take for instance Same Sex Marriage. Recently, Connecticut joined California and Massachusetts in granting gay couples the right to get married. And now there is the issue that some states argue that they will not recognize a same sex marriage, that a same sex marriage will only be recognized in the state where the couple obtains the marriage license. Well, if that's the case then shouldn't it be the same for all marriages?
In Article IV, sec 1 Each State Honors all others "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

And yet again why is it that same sex couples are "different"? And just because same sex marriage violates PEOPLE's personal morals or religious beliefs. That makes it an exception?
Personally, I am not gay and yes I am a Christian. I believe, that if you love someone, what does it matter what race or gender they are? And where a lot of Christian's contradrict themselves is that God gave us free will, just like the founding fathers gave us the 14th amendment.
And even if I didn't agree with same sex marriage who gives me, or anyone for that matter the right to say same sex couples cannot marry? It does not concern any part of my life what so ever.
Congress and other states are in violation of the Constitution, point blank. whether people like it or not the government is suppose to abide by what the Constitution says, it's the law.

It's sad and ridiculous how our government still continues to make "exceptions" and mistakes, even after so many years of people like Harvey Milk dedicated their lives to preserving citizen's rights. And when I say citizens I'm including all race, gender, sexual orientation who legally reside in the United States.
Why are citizens still fighting til this day for their rights and equality just because of the choice on which they choose to live.

"Comeback McCain"

In a "left-leaning" blog I found a posting by "silent patriot", displaying a video in which Jon Stwert caught McCain recycling an old speech. Also, giving a direct link to Jon Perr's blog inwhich he provides more examples for proof of McCain's speech recycling habit.

It all started after speculation that McCain had no new economic proposals, as seen in a article by Jackie Calmes in the New York Post (Perr provided a direct link to the article). McCain's "comeback" was actually from his 2004 speech to the Republicain National Convention.
I thought that Perr's blog was interesting because he provided more then one source providing links for each, videos, and taking excerpts from McCain's speeches. Critizing his attempts to catch the public's admiration.
I personally think it's kind of funny, well i guess we can all say he's no William Jennings Bryan thats for sure! But then again William Jennings Bryan never won an election even with his dramatic speaking style and famous speeches.
Maybe McCain thought since in 2004 at the Republican National Convention that his conculsion ending his speech bringing the GOP to their feet:

"Our adversaries are weaker than us in arms and men, but weaker still in causes. They fight to express a hatred for all that is good in humanity.

We fight for love of freedom and justice, a love that is invincible.

Keep that faith. Keep your courage. Stick together. Stay strong.

Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight.

We're Americans.

We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."

That maybe it would have the same effect now as it did then, but come on. Once again Perr points out again McCain's recycling in his acceptance speech to the Republican National Convention at St. Paul.

"Fight with me. Fight with me. Fight for what's right for our country. Fight for the ideals and character of a free people.

Fight for our children's future. Fight for justice and opportunity for all.

Stand up to defend our country from its enemies. Stand up for each other, for beautiful, blessed, bountiful America.

Stand up, stand up, stand up, and fight.

Nothing is inevitable here. We're Americans, and we never give up.

We never quit.

We never hide from history. We make history."

So I don't know what this means for McCain's creditability, I just wonder how much longer he's going to keep repeating himself or at least come up with new material!

Crooks and Liars: Silent Patriot's Blog #14

Article V

In Joel Hirshcorn's Why Has Congress Failed Americans he argues that Americans should take a stand and against government and rebel. But not in a sense of violence, but to take action by using their right to a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution also referred as the The Article V Convention. The framers of the Constitution granted us a fourth temporary branch of government , to give us direct democracy.

Hirschcorn accuses Congress of being to cowardly to do whats right, to protect America's health, security, freedom, and safety. He then writes "Even the most distracted and cynical Americans now see Congress has done next to nothing to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities."
Hirschorn also goes on to literally bash the members of House and Senate, calling them names (that I might add, sums up Congress quite well) such as: "mental midgets, embarrassing blowhards, chronic liars, outright crooks, corporate lackeys, and elderly buffoons. "
He writes that to many of the members of Congress want to be sitting in the executive office, and could care less about defending democracy.

Hirschcrons discusses examples to support his argument that Congress has done nothing but continue to ruin our nation such as:

"the failure to protect the rule of law; the failure to control spending and reduce our debt; the failure to control our borders and protect our national sovereignty; the failure to stop the insane Iraq war; the failure to stop the many forms of corruption of Congress itself; the failure to restore public confidence in our elections; the failure to stop the excesses of globalization that is destroying our middle class; the failure to address rising economic inequality; the failure to fix our broken health care system; and so much more."

I agree on many levels with Hirschcorn even though it seems that he is just bashing Congress, it's all sadly true. He doesn't beat around the bush he just says it plain and clear. His "name calling" might seem a little harsh but from all these years one can only suspect that yeah, they are all political idiots because if their weren't then we wouldn't be in a war right now, we wouldn't have had Bush serve in the Executive office for so long, our economy wouldn't be in debt, and right now Americans wouldn't be in the position they are in now: questioning their confidence in Congress and loosing faith.

So, what should 86% of Americans do? All the Americans who lost faith in Congress.
Hirschcorn advises the public to stop re-electing members of Congress , that only (in his words) "a handful of incumbents " deserve to be re-elected. Then he goes on to say this: "Now is the time to elect independents and third party candidates to Congress. When one objectively sees the utterly low quality of both Democratic and Republican members of Congress it becomes clear that even a random selection of ordinary Americans would probably do better" that made me really think and question, that how dumb can Congress be?! That even "I" or my next door neighbor can do a better job?? So why is that those supposably super intelligent politicians be doing such a crap job.
It is time to realize and take action into our hands because frankly I think we ALL had enough of these old quacks running this country.

Americans have let this country fail them, so now I think it is time for us to use the Article V to our advantage and take back what once was ours.

http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/2249/81/

Democracy for Dummies

After reading the article Democracy for dummies by Joe Hirschhorn, it reminded of when my psych professor pleaded to my class that if we are not politically well informed to not vote at all. Or to "not vote stupid". And well, I think he's right.

The public is so easily influenced by propaganda, political lies, and the mass media's "interpretations". It's all psychological really, when the public watches reports such as Keith Olberman's rant about Senator McCain, people who watch "reports" such as this start to formulate new opinions about candidates and allow other peoples perceptions influence their decisions. People's minds deluded so deluded by the mass media.

While reading this article I found it astonishing that the public still thought Iraq was in the blame for 9/11 even after the 9/11 commission report said that Iraq was not to blame. Still, 50 percent of us still believe otherwise.
How many of us really read newspapers, watch the news, or even read about current events on the Internet? Do all people really know about candidates they vote for is from their 30-second commercials? Does the public really know or comprehend how misleading those campaign commericals can be?
When you look at us 18-25 year old voters, who had an an increased interest in the presidential campaign. Yeah, sure "interested" is the key word here, but do half of the "young voters" even know what their voting for or why? Are young people up to date with the nation's economic situation or other current issues.

Honestly, this past year I didn't want to pick a candidate. Because all the dumb kids in my high school only wanted to vote for Obama because of the color of his skin and others for Hilary because she would be the first female in the executive office. Sadly, some of those dumb kids were registered to vote, and that is why my psych professor said what he said. I refused to pick a candidate just based on those reasons. I rather know everything there is to know about a candidate before I make a final decision.

In my opinion, this article is a very good read. It opens your eyes and makes you realize how politically stupid America is, Sad but true. Hirschhorn makes a good point and argument. He lists different examples that really help to understand where exactly he's coming from.

So, when the public says their either "left-leaning" or "right-leaning, well lets put it this way:
Just because you own a piano, doesn't make you pianist.

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/democracy-for-dummies.html

"Political Ideology"

So as i embark upon a new experience of blogging about politics, in which is something i have never talked about openly by the way. I admit i felt a little intimidated because it isn't really my cup of tea. I prefer hibiscus instead of chamomile, and politics is my chamomile.

When I took the survey on finding out my political ideology, my results were that I was a "liberal". Maybe I do agree on some levels but I prefer the term, Independent. They are just some things I don't agree with democrats. And plus, I hate labels anyways. I have my own outlandish ideas about this country’s government with many speculations. I chose to take this class to help me better examine government, to encourage me (or force me) to research on government issues, to know the definitions of democracy, autocracy, aristocracy, and plutocracy, to learn more about the “sacred documents”. Something that I do hope to get out of this class is to gain more knowledge and to hopefully grasp a better understanding of it. I believe that to be well educated about all the aspects of the subject will help me in the long run. In high school I refused to show any kind of interest in it at all nor did I ever show an interest in voting. Of course it seemed boring to me and a waste of time.

It wasn't until the end of the second semester of my junior year at Lanier High School when I started paying more attention in my AP US history class, learning about how women rights activist fought so hard for equality and many other great accomplishments in history. Then my teacher Mrs. Bisset showed me a book: "The Things They Carried" by Tim O’Brien. Probably one of the best books I have ever read.

It's a collection of stories by Tim O’Brien, about a platoon of American soldiers in the Vietnam War. While it was based on some of O'Brien's own experiences, the title refers that the book is obviously fiction. One of the stories, "Sweetheart of the Song Tra Bong" (one my favorites) was made into a film in 1998. Entitled "A Soldier’s Sweetheart". The author makes a distinction in "Story Truth" verses "Happening Truth". Though he creates stories that are false yet truthfully portrays the war. Instead of just going on and on about facts and actual events, by inventing stories he creates emotion. His own way of telling the stories of the thousand of soldiers that were silenced. Its mind blowing reading the stories, I immediately became fascinated with the Vietnam War. I began comprehending the damages of war, not only disfiguring soldier’s bodies but how it tarnishes and destroys them psychologically.

The story "Sweetheart of the Song Tra Bong" is a prime example how war can change people in a scary way. How you can lose yourself, and become something else, something even terrifying. A very good read, I think everyone should go out and buy it.

And in cause of this war, I began thinking about the thousands of families whose fathers and sons did not come home, that in fact the cause of any war is based on fear. How LBJ feared that if one nation would fall to communism, so would another. Which brings forth the “domino theory”. Because of fear, the government can easily influence the American public into agreeing to war as a course of action. Fear and paranoia inhabits the people of America, it controls us. It's the way the media help put this nation in a black hole of fear. And as time passes, deeper and deeper the rabbit hole gets.