A Response.

In Renata Green's blog about obesity, she opened it up with a bit of a story from her past. I really appreciated this as it gave a few laughs, some likelihoods to my own childhood, and an insight on a better way of eating. This opening gave a light-hearted attention grabber to her post, which is a very good technique to use.

She then moves on to the situation (and purpose) of the post. Obesity is being fought by a new bill (The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act) recently passed by the House of Representatives. The bill only needs President Obama's signature to be passed into the state of a law. All this information was easily understood and taken in from my perspective. She made it simple, stated what it was and how it happened. Keeping points clear and simple for readers is a very important thing to do while blogging.

Moving onto what the bill is going to do, she (again) made everything very clear and crisp. Explaining how the law will help fix how school lunches are run, vending machines in school areas, free lunches for poverty striken kids, and providing funding for creation of school run gardens as well as purchasing of locally grown produce.

This bill (to be a law) seems great and I am happy it's going to be (more than likely) passed soon. I would however like to stress the fact that it is mainly a parents responsibility for what their child eats. Just like Green stated in her opening, her parents did all they could to keep her away from "normal" (aka Junk) food.

So... WHY is this still in effect again?

I'm assuming many of you have recently heard a lot about the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and how it's being repealed soon. If you haven't heard about it, it's basically a twelve year old policy that stops gays, lesbians and bisexuals from being open about their sexual orientation or speaking of homosexual relationships and actions while serving in the military.

Now that I've started this you might be thinking, "Oh jeez, here goes another person with another standard rant about how this is unconstitutional and how the government needs to hurry and repeal it, and blah blah blah." Except you would be wrong! (If you weren't thinking that, kudos to you)

My stance on this . . .

Yup, that's right. The United States government is going the wrong way. We're supposed to be stopping discrimination not letting it stay in place for as long as possible. The real problem I'm having with this situation is not that it's taking so long to repeal, but the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court chose not to remove a stay on the decision of an appellate court. A decision that could(and most likely would) repeal the policy. When news of this first reached me, my reaction was quite . . . annoyed.

The Supreme Court is supposed to help solve the problems and get things taken care of. When they allowed this lower court to continue to stay their decision, they allowed a discriminative policy to stay in place for a longer amount of time. A policy that requires replacements to be made, therefore costing quite a bit of money.

It's not only about how wrong it is, it's the fact that it's costing the United States more money. We're already in debt; why waste more money dismissing PERFECTLY able-bodied soldiers because they happen to be homosexual? It's a waste of US services, money, and time(as well as being idiotic).

A Response...

I have to disagree with you on some points. Your views are not completely backed up.

The executive branch has nothing to do with passing laws other than saying yes or veto'ing. The heavy filibustering only stops the legislative from voting on it so it may be passed to the president. So, although this is does occur, it does not have much to do with the executive branch.

Next is the electoral college. Though this system is old, it allows filtration of votes from the public. Many people do not know the details of what they are voting for, and therefore, are basing their choice on other aspects that might not relate at all to the candidates proposals and promises. I also have never heard that the electoral college is manipulated by the Supreme or State Court(s), so I am unsure on the reliability of that statement.

As for Health Care, to my knowledge the reform has been passed and is being enacted over time.

Social security is running low, I agree with you on that. But you'll have to wait and see what happens to know if it's going to run out completely or not.

The debt of the United States is a problem for everyone. Many people are looking for ways to get out of it, and I'm sure eventually we will get the debt to go away.

Plenty of countries are dependent on oil, which is a problem world wide, not just the United States. Eventually the oil will run out, and when that happens, people will use the technology(which we should be producing NOW, but aren't sadly) needed.

Bacon Anyone?

Recently in class, we discussed re-election strategies used by congressmen to gain a surplus of votes from the community. Out of these strategies, one absolutely disgusted me. Now, disgusted is a strong word. You may be asking, what could a congress member do to completely disgust someone? Well... How about Pork Barrel Projects?

These, in my complete honest opinion, are utterly ridiculous. These congress members are so petty that they have to figure out a way to take money from our nations budget and spend it on something nearly 100% useless... All for votes. This means, quite a bit of our tax payers money is going into something not very constructive or helpful at all. If that wasn't bad enough, it's usually something local, not even nation wide.

Now this would be completely fine... IF WE DIDN'T HAVE SO MANY PROBLEMS THAT NEEDED TO BE FIXED. I mean come on! Let me give you an example. In August of 2005, Katrina became the costliest hurricane in United States history. Somewhere around 90.1 billion dollars(2010 USD). In 2006, instead of trying to find money to spend for helping Katrina victims and rebuilding the areas, they spend 29 billion dollars on 9,963 projects in the 11 appropriations bills that constitute the discretionary portion of the federal budget. (info gathered here) 


This is what one billion dollars looks like...

Now multiply it by twenty-nine.

Get my point?

Oil spills, homeless problems, social security deficit, hurricane relief... The list goes on and on. So, my argument is simply that Our national government should not allow pork spending. PERIOD. Pork barrel spending is a ludicrous waste of our nations money. Instead of fixing problems with our nation, congress members literally put in a lot of effort to do these projects. All for their own re-election to office. I think the government should look into what congress members are attempting to do with our nations money and chop any pork they see in half. Stop it in it's tracks, and use the money for something that this nation actually needs.



- Blake

Bullying Gone Unchecked

Today I read an editorial about bullying, their victims, and what should be done about it. I believe the author of this editorial has made a very good point. The editorial mentions the reality of how common bullying situations tend to be and recent suicide stories stemmed from different types of bullying to provide evidence. The authors intended audience is most likely adults working in public schooling systems. (S)he talks about how bullying(when revealed) goes unsolved because of the schools misguided handling on it.  The author believes the school system officials should "deliver the necessary strong statements of outrage, followed by meaningful action."


I, personally, completely agree with the author. I have witnessed bullying go on throughout schools unchecked and unpunished. Bullies do, generally, have an extreme effect on their victims. This effect hurts by injecting stress, shame, and discontent into the victims lives. It is completely wrong and actions need to be taken against school bullies. At the end of the editorial, the author gives a few suggestions as to what could be done. Things like taking the bully off a sports team, rejecting access to school dances, or not allowing participation in class are very realistic punishments that could(and should) be carried out. Bullies should not go unpunished.


Although I'm unsure on the author's credibility in this particular subject, the editorial makes great points and I believe (s)he has good logic. Bullying is indeed, a major problem in today's society; it needs to be addressed, handled, and eventually ended.

Charge to make cheaper?

      Today while reading an editorial in the L.A. Times, it got me to thinking about the authors point. I found that, even though the authors' audience was California's legislature and community college board members , his point did make me think about the cost of going to college. The author does not seem to state that (s)he has any credibility in this subject at all. There's no evidence of hers/his knowledge on this subject, other than the gathered information in the editorial.
 
      The author feels that if California's CC's raise the cost of units, even by just a dollar, it would increase the schools budget by a little over double. (S)he then goes on to say, a ten dollar increase would be the best option because it would(for a full-time student) only be an increase of 300 dollars a year and would "save them money".  The authors logic of this is misplaced though. (S)he feels that the schools tuition money goes to the CC that the student is enrolled in; and in turn, will increase the schools budget.  This is false. Tuition actually goes straight to the State's General Fund. It is in no way, directly related to the CC's stimulus. I found this out by reading a comment made by Anne Elliot.  


      Another thing the author has not thought of would be the cost of things outside of tuition that are increasing as well. Things like food, books, gas, and child care are becoming more expensive. If you add these increases along with an increase in college fees, it could become too expensive for a student to handle. Which will result in the student to drop classes or even quit school. 


      In the end, I completely disagree with the authors idea. California's CC's are already the cheapest(dollar per unit wise) in the nation. They are affordable enough as they are.

Discrimination can't be stopped.

An article caught my eye while searching through the suggested sources list today. Apparently, Virginia Phillips (a district judge) ruled the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy unconstitutional. This policy was ruled that it violates their constitutional rights and has a direct effect on the military. Despite this ruling though, the policy has continued to be used.

Consistently throughout the past few years, the policy has been  to discharge military members without justification. This has been going on unchecked despite a 2008 court ruling that stated military could only use the policy if the soldier(s) sexual orientation actually effected military readiness. This has seldom been the case. A survey shows that 14,000 soldiers have been discharged because of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

The military also refuses to reinstate any gay soldiers discharged under the policy. It seems that the discrimination against gays cannot be stopped. Not even when a judge rules the "law" wrong and unconstitutional. The excuse given?

"This ruling has no impact on the current law. The current law is still in effect," spokeswoman Cynthia Smith.

Cynthia Smith says there will be no change without a congressional decision. The Justice Department and the Defense Department are working on reviewing the decission. The Justice Department thinks congress, not the judicial system should decide on the matter.

Now, I don't know if this is just me... But.

WHAT???

If I'm correct about our system of government, the Judicial system and not the Congress/Legislature is what interprets the law. Seeing that this is the case. I do hope that it is ultimately up to the Judicial system and that the Judiciary makes the right decision.

Although, if it is ultimately the decision of Congress. The House has already decided to repeal the law. The only thing left is the Senate's decision. Though the complete Senate has yet to take up the issue.

Thanks for reading, I really do advise you all to read this article. I found it surprising and interesting that such discrimination could be continuously existing even after judicial actions are taken.


Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/13/pentagon-plans-change-dont-ask-dont-tell-policy-court-ruling/


- Blake