Response to Tannery's "Grey Matter"

Original argument can be found here.
While I do agree that the average US citizen today fits the stereotype of being somewhat politically ignorant, I disagree with the argument made in the article "Upgrade your grey matter". The credit card industry is an elusive one, and consists of companies who thrive on the fact that careful wording and extremely fine print can fool almost any consumer, especially those who aren't on the offensive. I don't think the strategy here is to simply make American citizens smarter, and I can't imagine there being a practical solution to apply to the entire country that would solve the problems that credit card companies instigate. Are we supposed to take classes in high school that discuss the methods of credit card companies rather than keyboarding classes? I think rather than "dumbing down" the industry in a fashion that can be understood by the public, legislation can be passed, as is occurring under Obama right now, that spells out just exactly what these companies can and cannot do. By forcing these companies to abide by laws that protect American citizens from outrageous practices that only drive the public deeper and deeper into debt, our economy might feel some positive effects. I don't think what Obama is doing can be considered "dumbed down" at all, but rather should be seen as a proactive step taken in the direction that promotes growth and prosperity from the ground up.

Heterosexuals Aren't the Only Ones Who Need Health Care

Gay marriage is something people tend to tiptoe around, including Mr. Obama. While the legalization of marriage between two people of the same sex has gradually been accepted by a growing number of states, including Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Iowa, it remains to be made legal by federal law. While legislation is still on the move to allow the possibility of completely legal same-sex marriage in the future, those who have already formalized their relationships in a completely legal fashion still continue to struggle for their right to health insurance. As mentioned by Walecia Konrad in the New York Times, currently 2/3 of companies with over 500 employees do not offer domestic partner benefits. And even for those who are fortunate enough to be eligible for coverage, it comes at a high price. From difficult registration requirements to an increase in taxes, many gay couples opt out of the coverage altogether to avoid the costly process. The main problem here is that same-sex marriage is still not recognized by federal law. Obama has the chance to make the decision that everyone else has been too cowardly to make. While Obama personally does not support gay marriage due to his own religion, he still admits that acting against their rights is promoting inequality, something that he vows not to do. So be a real man, Obama! Tell America that it's okay to marry a dude if you're a dude, and if you want to be healthy just like everyone else, that's fine by us.

Afterthoughts on Intelligent Design and Evolution

After reading Bianca's article discussing how students should be taught the origins of life, there are a few things I want to add concerning the topic.
I completely agree that evolution should be taught in the classroom. Once certain things solidify in the mind, especially among the youth, they naturally form patterns of perception that continue to progress throughout a persons life. Religion is a great example of this kind of pattern. If evolution is taught to children at a young age, they might be able to put those ideas together with that of what their religion has taught them, and thus be able to form opinions and ideas about the origin of life for themselves. While I am a proponent of allowing evolution into the classroom, I can't say the same for the idea of teaching "intelligent design" or other forms of creationism as well. While evolution remains a theory, there is much more scientific proof behind the basic claims of its ideas than any type of creationist theory. I also disagree that evolution is simply an atheists explanation of the origin of life. Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of deities, and such religions as Buddhism can be considered atheistic. Therefor, I don't believe that teaching evolution is a violation of non-atheists rights.
I agree that the interpretation of the Constitution is an ongoing process, and it is also my belief that the Constitution guarantees the separation of church and state and should thus allow the teaching of evolution in schools, rather than that of "intelligent design".

Legalize the Green Stuff

The proposed question that proved to be the most numerous during President Obama's recent online chat session with the country was whether or not the US government would finally come around to legalize Cannabis. While Obama neglected to discuss the matter directly, the question still remains up in the air. The American economy has seen better days, and legalizing Cannabis could offer a little slack under increasing pressures. Not only would it serve as another source of tax income, but it would open hundreds of thousands of new jobs to employ American citizens, ranging from the growing and cultivating to processing and packaging to marketing... the list doesn't end there. Aside from the huge amount of money Cannabis could dump into the economy, it would also ease burdens currently being placed on our prison system and save countless dollars in the war against drugs. Regulation could be fairly simple if the government placed constraints on the purchasing of Cannabis similar to that of alcohol. And the danger of buying the product off the streets would be completely eliminated, and drug dealers everywhere would lose all of their business naturally through the ways of the market -- law enforcement wouldn't even have to track them down! The demand has been and will always be around in this country, and the only thing the US government has to do is harness some of that potential and turn it into gold. The process has already been done in places such as the Netherlands, why not in the land of the free?

Do we really need another presidential library?

The article "Rage Redux: Changing Channels" written by New York Times journalist Gail Collins focuses on the proposal for building the new George W. Bush presidential library. Somewhere around $300 million is needed to complete the complex, and in such a time of economic crisis I'm not sure this is exactly what the American people need to be forking out money for. Collins makes the same argument, reminding readers that since the institute will be built using tax free donations, the federal budget won't be seeing any profits from this project. The target audience for Collins' article, as stated in the title, mostly includes Americans who have recently felt any kind of anger towards our government for whatever reason. Including myself within that target range, I completely agree with the way Collins makes fun of this proposal. Is this really what America needs right now? What is the worldly importance of building a complex that displays way too many knick-knacks (and some books on the side) once owned by a president that many would rather soon forget about? And how important is it to build this center anyway? Just comparing the project to the Bush library at Texas A&M can give you an idea. It is extremely important for the public to know just what Mrs. Bush's wedding gown looked like, right? I would understand if the country wanted to erect a building with respect to a timeless, effective, good-hearted leader, but I just don't see how George W. Bush can be that figure at this point in history.

Drugs drugs drugs

I found a fantastic article written by a smart man who sees the light. Norm Stamper, a retired police chief, has made an excellent point in his article titled Ending the "War on Drugs": The Fierce Urgency of... When? He claims that our government has a history of diverting billions of US taxpayers' dollars to a system that punishes drug users and spends even more money keeping them locked up, using prohibition as our motto. Since prohibition has never been quite the success in the US, he proposes that we simply follow a plan of regulation instead, making certain things that were once illegal legal, and therefore taxing them to make money instead of wasting it. California would definitely benefit from this type of action as they would be making more money from the tax on marijuana than they do currently from taxes they earn on selling fruits and vegetables. Stamper also makes the excellent point against the old belief that terrorism and drugs are linked, claiming that if the US legalized some of these drugs, the terrorists would have to find a new source of finds (as if drugs were their main source of income in the first place? Hard to believe...) This argument, while it certainly would appeal to youth who have been negatively effected by the harsh penalties against drug possession, has far reaching effects throughout every age group and most social organizations. It's a win-win situation! Why can't the government see that not only will our prisons be less crowded with minor offenses, but they could bank from this proposal as well? Maybe with the new Obama registration the US can finally make some needed changes to the current situation of the so-called "War on Drugs".

When is science not the answer?

The development of science technology with regards to the changing climate should be the main issue in Washington right now. Even with all of the problems in our economy, money won’t matter much once we finally suffocate the world with carbon emissions. With that being said, this article deals with the challenge of how to go about making drastic changes to the way we live in our environment, and the US secretary of energy makes it pretty simple: all we have to do is make Nobel-level breakthroughs, no big deal. Aside from how drastic this sounds, it doesn’t seem like the steps to achieve it should be too difficult. Instead of looking for remote places to dump radioactive waste, lets come up with solutions to neutralize it. Lets improve solar energy, get the cap-and-trade system going, and make a genuine effort to start reversing some of the damage we have and are still creating while we still can.