Why are there so many "chickenhawks" in office?

I don't get why majority of people in Congress who are pushing this war are the ones who didn't serve in the military when they were of age. However, the majority of those who oppose the war are veterans. Isn't America going to wake up and see that if their Congressperson had served, than they might be more recalcitrant about sending our kids off to be cannon fodder? While the Bush administration and the Republicans really got the gold for chickenhawk-ism, the other side of the aisle is sure doing its job. Few, if any members of Obama's cabinet and his advisers (aside from those within DOD itself) were never out on the front lines themselves. If the Obama administration had more civilian cabinet members who had served, they would realize that a country has to pick its battles. We simply cannot go waging wars unless it is absolutely vital to our self-defense. It is unfair to the soldiers who had the courage to sign up, to send them out to war without having ever put yourself in their shoes. There is even a repository of notable Democrats, Republicans, and Independents who served and didn't serve. You'll be astonished at how many "neo-conservatives" had their patriotism displayed through bumper stickers instead of enlistment contracts.

A good compromise leaves everyone happy, a bad one; everyone mad

Well, thanks a ton, Lieberman and Friends. You've done a fine job taking away health insurance for millions of Americans AND giving the insurance companies some extra customers in the process. It's bad enough that we have Americans without insurance, but to make them criminals for not making enough money and forcing them to starve themselves so that they don't get sent to prison is insane. Your state opts out of the public option and you can't afford health insurance? Congratulations! You'll get to pay an addition 2.5% of your income in taxes! Now, if we had something sensible, such as SINGLE-PAYER, this would make sense. But, under the current law, if your state opts out on the public option, and you're too poor for insurance, you just got a a tax hike. Not to mention that you would effectively have to pay for a public option which you might not be able to afford, but that would probably be more affordable than private health insurance. So, Joe Lieberman, if you won't vote for anything with government-run health insurance, why do you allow YOURSELF to get government-run health insurance? Why not put your money where your mouth is any pay for private health insurance, considering the government is as scary as you portray it to be? Or maybe, you just want money from the insurance companies, considering you get more money from them than 75% of Senators. Corporations run the government by bribing lawmakers to get laws passed. I feel so much safer knowing we are effectively run by an unelected plutocracy. Which is, thanks to our unmeritocratic system of "success" in life, effectively inherited. Almost like a monarchy. The very thing our country revolted against...

Tea Party fanatics racist, paranoid

Socialist. Fascist. Communist. These are just a few of the things President Obama has been called by Tea Party attendees (popularly referred to as "Teabaggers"). While the left certainly criticized Bush, they made a clown out of him instead of dehumanizing him. I do believe that people who just criticize Obama are being patriotic by dissenting, but people who just make up LIES are just stupid. The most popular conspiracy theory is that Obama was secretly born in Kenya. Even the wacko WorldNetDaily has pronounced his birth certificate legitimate. According to a recent study, a whopping 35% of Republicans believe in this nonsense. In that same study, it was revealed that 8% of New Jerseyans believe that Obama is the Antichrist. The Antichrist. According to a recent chain mail, the Bible states that the Antichrist would be a man in his 40's of MUSLIM descent. Let's get out of Fantasyland and return to real life, here. The BIBLE couldn't say that a person was of MUSLIM descent, as ISLAM DID NOT EXIST UNTIL WELL OVER 600 YEARS AFTER the Bible was written. While there was a fringe group saying that Clinton killed Vince Foster, there has never been this large of a following (nor as many extreme theories). As former President Jimmy Carter said, "There seems to be a large Republican following who just cannot believe that they lost to someone who happens to be African-American". However, the Tea Party attendees insist they are not racist at all. If that's the case, then why are you guys so paranoid about Obama?

Private schools give a name, not an education

Why on Earth would a parent in their right minds send their kid to secondary private school in Northern Delaware without even TRYING to get into a selective school unless it was for religious reasons? Why would you plop down $20,000 when you could just get a free education here at a school such as Cab or Newark Charter? Is is really that you get a better education there, or is it just for the prestigous name of "Tower Hill" or "Wilmington Friends"? The first disadvantage is that the child has many, many more rights at a public school (in fact they are protected by the constitution), and it is much harder to kicked out at a private school. Also, public schools are much more diverse (and I speak as an attendee at both), not only racially, but (obviously) socioeconomically. As one of the few middle-class kids at a private school, I felt quite out-of-place in a private elementary school when I was part of a financial aid program to allow low and middle-income families to attend the school. I was often picked on (especially in 4th and 5th grade) because I didn't have the fancy stuff that they had. I had always wondered (not in a racist way) why there were so few minority students at my school when there were more minorities than white people at my preschool and in my neighborhood (which was about 50-50) and why no one in my neighborhood was a snob. In fact, I once asked my mom to send me to my neighborhood school, which my mom explained to me was extremely bad and dangerous. This is understandable if the ELEMENTARY school is dangerous, but once there's secondary school, you should try to get your kid into a good public school before plopping down exorbitant amounts of money to send your kid to private school.

75% of Americans unfit for military service...uh huh. Right.

Why is the military, of all organizations, so strict about its standards. I mean, in the Army, which is the most lenient of all the services, won't allow the bottom 31th percentile (in terms of intelligence) aren't allowed to join. Anyone who is overweight isn't allowed either. Another caveat is that you have to have a high school diploma (in almost all cases, not even a GED) to join. What is up with that? Do they not teach you how to pull a freaking trigger until 12th grade? In addition, anyone who has a criminal record beyond one misdemeanor or 6 major traffic tickets or virtually any drug use is disqualified. Also, the standards have ridiculously high medical standards. Anyone who has or has had ADD, asthma (past the 13th birthday), depression, a severe food allergy, sleepwalking, eating disorders, just to name a few of the most ridiculous disqualifications from enlistment. This is not only turning down tons of brave men and women willing to serve our country, but it turns away opportunities for many urban youth who have often have little opportunity. Studies have shown that urban youth, particularly those in poor or working-class neighborhoods, are disproportionally affected by obesity, in addition to conditions which affect the respiratory system, such as asthma and hayfever (which is disqualifying if not controlled by medication) due to pollutants in the air, which do not allow the immune system to develop. Also, people of lower socioeconomic status are more likely to be disqualified in all areas (with the possible exception of poor rural folk who are less susceptible to certain diseases and obesity). This puts the military at a crossroads. Upper-middle-class kids, who have little reason to join (due to their many opportunities), tend to be the kids who meet the military's medical standards, whereas poor and working-class kids, who often want to join due to a lack of opportunity, are often disqualified. This only leaves the middle-class kids, the number of whom are shrinking fast, who often have just enough opportunities to be unwilling to join, although this is often not the case. If the military's only recruitable and willing kids are the middle class, there will likely be less "suggestions" from those who are "well-educated" (due to their privileged background, and there will be less diversity, socioeconomic and racial, due to a lack of poor and working-class kids (except for those who come from rural areas). Note to military: if you ever want to meet recruiting goals after we're out of this recession, loosen your standards.

South Korean taxi drivers...allowed to watch TV while driving?

Apparently, South Korean drivers are allowed to watch TV in their cabs while driving. The traffic in Seoul is so torturous, that cabbies have installed TVs in their cabs to beat the boredom. TV use was implicated in over 200 accidents last year. Three people were killed and 351 injured in said accidents. Despite this, a STUPID judge overturned a $507 fine. Why on earth should a cabbie be allowed to put OTHER PEOPLES' LIVES on the line because he's bored from traffic? If any cabbie is so impulsive and impatient, even in the worst traffic known to man, then he deserves to be unemployed. I wish for all people to have a good-paying job, but I would rather have an unemployed person than a dead person.

Why is the public option only for uninsured?

Why? I don't get this. If you are "lucky" enough to have health insurance (even if it is the most minimal policy with the most deceitful company), then you don't get the same choice of having insurance which has an incentive to help you instead of having an incentive to make a profit? The fact that someone is insured doesn't mean that they don't a) have a cheating company which nickel-and-dimes you so that you pay for virtually everything, b) are struggling to pay the co-pays and/or premiums and/or the bills which result from problem A, or c) both. Another thing is the opt-out for states. This is simply one of the worst and self-defeating ideas. While wealth of a person tends to positively correlate with a Republican vote (and hence opposition to the public option, the median income of a state tends to NEGATIVELY correlate with Republican votes. This means that there will be more uninsured and underinsured people in poorer states, states which are more likely to opt-out. This is a classic example of the tyranny of the majority, and why the rights of the minority are more important than the wants of the majority. The fact that a majority of people in a state legistature do not want a public option does not mean that their uninsured masses do not deserve the basic inalienable right to health care. It is ludicrous to think that blue-staters deserve health insurance, while red-staters don't. It is merely a political move to appease opposition to the public option and it hurts America's families.

Public option gives Americans choice of insurance in the business of helping people, or in the business of making money

Why are so many people opposed to the public option, popularly termed by its detractors as "Obamacare"? It would give Amercians, for the first time in history, an oppurtunity to get quality care from an institution which does not look for loopholes and time-sinks to make as much money as possible. One complaint of Republicans is that it would drive private insurance out of business. If the public option is so evil, why would people choose it in the first place? Also, Republican Congresspeople say that government cannot run health care well. If that is the case, why do they permit government to run THEIR OWN health care? If government is so bad, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and pay for private insurance? Here's why:Government can run health care well and you know it. You just want Obama to fail. How can a human being be so callous and selfish to put the very LIVES of millions of Americans behind their own political power?
If you want proof of the heartlessness and deceitful ways of corporate health insurance, just talk to my family. I once had an ear infection and the doctor forgot to write in what the treatment was for, so they billed us two years later (well beyond the 120-day limit to file an appeal), and we had to pay $500.00. In one instance, they have flat-out refused to pay for stitches I needed, and my dad got them to cough up $200.00 of the $1100.000, but he is still fighting with them. Also, dad fights with them about his medication all the time. The scariest part of this is that this is supposed to be the best coverage the state offers (my dad is a state worker). In this recession, how can we possibly be expected to pay over a thousand dollars for something totally unexpected? Especially with my parents both getting pay cuts, money has become pretty tight. Another frightening thought is that this has created a pretty big hardship for us, a middle-class family. Just think of what this could mean to those less fortunate than us.

Atheist sites at this school=blocked. Why?

Why the HECK (pardon my strong language) are "alternative spirituality" sites which have information about and/or promote atheism, Wicca, agnosticism, Satanism, and "magic and paranormal" blocked? This is a rather blatant violation of the Establishment Clause, as it prefers one religion over another and it prefers religion to irreligion. While I can understand why one wouldn't want websites about Satanic Ritual Abuse (SRA), I can't see why sites about atheism are blocked! I attempted to get on that site for a genuine research paper, but it was censored. So, this school is actually reducing the quality of their student's schoolwork by doing this. Are they afraid that students will convert to such beliefs? Well, if they keep this up than they should be. Oliver Wendell Holmes discussed the "marketplace of ideas" saying that if an idea is allowed to be discussed, than the people will judge it as a good idea or a bad idea. However, if a bad idea is censored, the people who have it will say "Well, if this is such a bad idea, why is the government afraid that we will take over?". If the school is really so concerned about students converting to atheism and think that it's such a bad idea, they should allow for open research of it from a pro-atheist standpoint as well, or else students will wonder why the school is so afraid of it. In fact, many of our founding fathers and early presidents were irreligious, although few were atheists. Abraham Lincoln himself did not profess any religion. To teach our Founding Fathers as heroes (which they were), but to discriminate against the irreligious and say that "Our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs." is tantamount to saying that our nation was founded on Muslim values. Either block all religion websites or (preferably) none. It is unconstitutional to have it both ways.

Exact text

Alternative Spirituality/Belief
Sites that promote and provide information on alternative spiritual and non-religious ideologies such as atheism, agnosticism, witchcraft, and Satanism. Occult practices, voodoo rituals or any other form of mysticism are represented here. Includes sites that endorse or offer methods, means of instruction, or other resources to affect or influence real events through the use of spells, incantations, curses and magic powers. This category includes sites that discuss or deal with paranormal or unexplained events.

Examples: atheists.org, ufocasebook.com, paranormalnetwork.net, ancientblackmagic.com, spellsandmagic.com, churchofsatan.com, paranormalnews.com, morespells.com, nuforc.org, neworleansghosts.com

"Under God"

Is the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional when recited in a teacher-led pledge, even if recitation of the pledge is not mandatory? I think so. Teacher-led school prayer, even at a football game, is considered to be unconstitutional. So shouldn't direct acknowledgement of God be considered unconstitutional as well? The original version of the Pledge of Allegiance did not even have the phrase "under God" in it. This was added in the 1950's to taunt the Soviet Union, which was atheist. So, why do we still have the phrase, even after the Cold War has been over? It serves almost no purpose other than to taunt those who do not believe in a higher power. David Souter stated that "Government shall not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion." Isn't saying that we are a nation which is under God as an enactor of the state a blatant preference of religion to irreligion? Why should the government say that we are under God when we are an expressly secular country? Can you imagine the public outcry if there were a "one nation against God" phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance? How is that not equivalent to saying that we are a nation which is under God?

Works Cited

Delaware Department of Labor. Delaware Career Compass. Wilmington: Delaware Career Resource Network, 2009

Environmental Engineers. Web. 30 Sept. 2009. .

War in Afghanistan

Do you think that the war in Afghanistan is a good idea? You probably haven't put yourself in the soldier's or soldier's families' shoes. At first, I will admit, I supported the war in Afghanistan, but once my Uncle Brian was deployed there, I began to question my views. Yes, it would create a safe haven for al-Qaida and other Islamofascist terrorist groups if we pulled out: with no exit strategy. One must think if it is worth it to risk thousands of American lives for the mere sake of putting off the Taliban temporarily. The best move right now would be to sign a peace treaty with the Taliban which states that we will withdraw under the conditions that they a)kick all terrorist groups out and b)In the event that they take over Pakistan, that they not start a nuclear war. This would allow for American lives to be out of harm's way while still keeping national security intact.

If you still support the war, imagine if you or a family member were bravely serving our country. If you are old enough and able-bodied, why aren't you on the frontlines. One will notice that even most people in the military don't join for "serving your country". If it wasn't for the G.I. bill, very, very few people would join the military. In fact, look at the statistics, 94% of military recruits come from either low-income or middle-income families. If politicians aren't willing to put their and their buddies' spoiled rich kids on the frontlines, they are hypocrites.

Should adolescents be treated as adults under the law?

The idea that adolescents should be treated as adults under the law is inane. The adolescent brain is not yet fully developed. The prefrontal cortex, which is the part of the brain which deals with judgment and danger, does not fully develop until one is eighteen. As a result, it would be unfair to treat teenagers under the law as adults when they do not have the same opportunity to be a good judge. It would be akin to treating insane people as sane under the law, even when they cannot understand the difference between right and wrong. Overall, it would not be a good idea.

Another caveat is that it would make teenagers second-class citizens. They would have no right to vote, no right to serve on a jury, no right to open a checking account, and no right to do virtually anything without parental consent (pick the school they want, go to another country, etc.). Despite this, they could still be prosecuted under the law beyond the absolutely necessary degree under laws in which they have no say in making. Put together, and this could be a potential violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In addition to that, if teenagers were to be given the death penalty, it would be a blatant violation of the 8th Amendment and human rights. If we ever executed someone who was under eighteen or even for crimes which were committed when they were under eighteen, the United States would be denounced worldwide as an authoritarian, cruel human rights violator. That would make our long-time allies especially eager to help us out, right? Not only would it violate the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (which, aside from Somalia, which literally had no government at the time, the U.S. is the ONLY country in the world which did not sign it), but it would put us along with the only five countries would use the death penalty: Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen. Remember when Iranian teenagers were put to death for sodomy which they allegedly committed when they were thirteen and how there were even a few sanctions imposed on them. You think because we're the superpower, that means that can't happen to us? Think again. Also, can you see on Taliban recruitment posters "America executes Muslim teenagers who support our cause". Wouldn't that help us win this "War on Terror"?
Adolescents are not given the same rights as adults. It would be inherently unjust to give them the same responsibility as adults. With freedom comes responsibility, but with responsibility comes freedom.

School Prayer:Pushing Religious Propaganda in Our Public Schools

School prayer, in my opinion, is an egregious violation of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. It espouses the message that we are a Christian nation, and that non-religious people and people of other faiths do not deserve to be represented. The prayers, as well of our "moment of silence", which is codeword for "let's all pray now", just puts Christianity above other faiths. School prayer defies the basic principles of separation of church and state, because it favors one religion over another. David Souter, in a This would also make the statement "Cab Calloway School of the Arts does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, or disability in its programs, activities, or employment practices as required by Title VI, Title IX, and Section 504” untrue.
Another part of school prayer is the “moment of silence”. It is a “moment of prayer” (poorly) masquerading as a “moment of silence”. While I am silent during the moment of silence, I believe that it serves no other purpose than prayer. In Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994), David Souter wrote with the majority that “Government should not prefer one religion over another, or religion to irreligion.” The moment of silence, has, as far as I can see, clearly does the latter, and it has no “secular purpose”. In Wallace v. Jaffree (1985), the Supreme Court found an Alabama law which provided for a “moment of silence” to be unconstitutional, although it did not find the moment itself to be unconstitutional.
School prayer violates two of the three criteria in the “Lemon Test”, which was a test to see whether or not a law violates the Establishment Clause by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). A law must pass all three requirements to be considered constitutional. While school prayer does not create excessive government entanglement with religion, it has no secular purpose and it has the primary affect of advancing religion. Also, as far as I can see, there is no reason to have a “moment of silence” or to have organized prayer. There is absolutely no reason for it other than to rub it in the faces of non-religious people. In conclusion, school prayer is a bad idea because it violates the spirit of the Constitution.