Jon Sheldon's commentary on the article Newt Gingrich Funnels $125 K Through Hate Group to Punish Iowa Justices really caught my attention because I strongly believe in gay rights, and this commentary really intriqued me. One of my best friends is gay; I see her struggles daily, and would never want her to be denied happiness because of her sexuality. It led me to not only read the article, but to also research Newt Gingrich and the American Family Association. On the surface, the American Family Association advertises themselves as a non-profit organization dedicated to "inform, equip, and activate individuals to strengthen the moral foundations of the American culture." However, after clicking on the "Activism" link and scrolling through the topics, I was disgusted to find that most of them were not only against gay marriage and any union of the same sex what-so-ever, but , in my personal opinion, hateful of homosexuals. The issues on the AFA website regarding homosexuals ranged from gays in the military to Home Depot supporting same sex marriage. They encourage their followers to boycott Home Depot for teaming up with GLAAD (The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) and the Human Rights Committee to raise gay awareness. The AFA also speaks out against funding for clinics, such as Planned Parenthood, and encourages others to vote to pass a bill that would cut government funding to them.
The Southern Poverty Law Center, another non-profit organization based out of Montgomery, Alabama, who are "dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry" named the American Family Association a hate group. Now, just because the Southern Poverty Law Center says the AFA is a hate group does that make it so? No. However, the mission statements of organizations like GLAAD, the Human Rights Committee (HRC), the Southern Poverty Law Center, Planned Parenthood, and even Home Depot (all organizations in which the ARA attacks) do not veil their intentions with "God" and their plans to "restrain evil by exposing the works of darkness." These organizations genuinely believe in equal rights and acceptance; in making our country a better place through understanding and helping one another. This is clearly apparent in their mission statements alone; they do need to put a spin on their words or use God as a scare tactic. During my digging of the American Family Association's website I came across a link that says, "Does the AFA hate homosexuals?" Their response to this Frequently Asked Question was, "Absolutely Not! The same Holy Bible that calls us to reject sin, calls us to love our neighbor. It is that love that motivates us to expose the misrepresentation of the radical homosexual agenda and stop its spread though our culture. AFA has sponsored several events reaching out to homosexuals and letting them know there is love and healing at the Cross of Christ." Ha. Ha. Ha. That's a round-about way of saying, "No, we don't hate you, but Christ does. So you better let him "heal" you, and if not, well, you and your homosexual "agenda" can rot in hell." The AFA website has got to be one of the most comical things I have ever seen. Did I mention ignorant?
Now, with that little rant out of the way...
Jon's commentary would probably not be intended for extreme conservatives against gay marriage, nor those supportive of efforts made by policians to criminalize the actions of gays, since he disagrees with Gingrich's efforts to fire the Supreme Court justices in favor of legalizing gay marriage. As far as the author of the blog Jon commented on, Charles Johnson's notoriety seems to come mainly from his work as a blogger. He was a musician for a long time, founded a few small companies, and wrote the software for "Little Green Footballs." His credibility is: we can definitely credit him with an opinion, considering the number of blogs he has written.
I strongly argee with Jon on his views of the ridiculous efforts by Newt Gingrich to cause the justices to lose their appointment for office. I am always willing to listen and understand people's beliefs, and do not believe in attacking anyone for such. However, Jon states he opposes the expressed views of the American Family Association regarding homosexuals, finds it hard to fathom the hatred one must have to go through all that trouble to cause someone to lose their job simply because of their beliefs, and that it is our job as Americans to "be respectful and open to other people's opinions and beliefs, not to discount them and hurt them." Yet, he is against gay marriage. Jon's arguments are mainly focused on his beliefs regarding the three justices who lost their place in office for their beliefs. So, I guess my question to Jon would be, "What about the gay people for whom the justices lost their jobs?" Do homosexuals not deserve the right to marry who they choose? Gay marriage will be an issue for years to come, and we have made much progress as a nation in accepting the homosexual community. However, why not let them just get married if they want? After all, giving gays the right to marriage "doesn't mean they are going to do something bad or hurtful just because someone has another opinion." I guess my point is: what's the harm? I think of it as an "in their shoes" kind of way; I think about how I would feel if I was not allowed to marry the person I wanted to because someone thought it was wrong. If I were to marry my boyfriend tomorrow, it would not bother the gay couple that lives the apartment over from me. So, why should "Tom" and "Bob's" union bother me? Guess what? It doesn't. Everyone deserves happiness. Jon also commented on how he could not fathom someone hating another person for their opinions so much as to have them removed from their job. It happens every day. Think about the people who are judged for actually being gay! Is that not the same as being judged for having a different opinion from someone else?
In closing, I learned a few things from reading this blog: A) Apparently, I have a lot to say about the rights of gays, B) I found the topic for my next blog and will have no trouble writing it, and C) I learned there have been rumors of Newt Gingrich running for the presidential office in 2012. If that's the case God help everyone, not just the big, scary gays.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Stage Four: Critique of a Political Blog
Obama Opens the Oval Office to Good Government Groups
On March 28, 2011, Executive Director of POGO (Project on Government Oversight), Danielle Brian, met with President Obama in the oval office to discuss the President's commitment to open government and support of protections for whistle blowers. POGO is "an independent nonprofit organization that investigates and exposes corruption and other misconduct in order to achieve a more effective, accountable, open, and ethical federal government."
The issue Danielle discussed with the President was that although he has shown strong support for the protection of whistle blowers, or employees who expose unlawful activities within the federal government and its contractors, the aggressive persecution of national security whistle blowers is undermining his efforts and the legacy reflecting these efforts. POGO is an avid supporter of protection for whistle blowers and the de-classification of government materials. The President stated that he will not protect the people who expose sensitive government information regarding war tactics which could have a major negative impact, but he will protect the rights of an employee of a federal contractor exposing illegal pay for work they did not actually do. Brian argued the current prosecutions are not for those contractors, but in fact for the whistle blowers. Namely, the persecution of former NSA employee, Thomas Drake.
For more information: Former NSA Executive Thomas Drake May Pay High Price for Media Leak
Drake, discontented with the efforts of the National Security Agency to increase security directly related to compromising the privacy of Americans, financial waste, and poor management, first tried going to those above him to expose the problems, then finally turned to the media to expose the shortfalls of the NSA. He was charged with espionage and is facing up to thirty five years in federal prison. Brian points out Drake's whistleblowing was not an attempt at advancing a political agenda, like so many media leaks are, but a valid attempt to expose the wrong doings of the NSA. The faith in the commitment by the President to protect these whistle blowers was greatly jeopardized as a result of this persecution.
After Brian raised her concerns regarding the issue, she goes on to say the President did acknowledge the flaws in these protections, and stated that he seemed genuine in his desires to discover ways to better handle these situations and come up with new ideas on how to do so. She said that Obama also agreed that too much information in our government is classified, and promised to continue efforts in having a more open government. The President agreed with her regarding the imperfections and also to work together to try and find a viable solution.
POGO does not mess around when it comes to their views and desires regarding government. They acknowledge and attack issues from housing to national security, and have really made a name for themselves as advocates for a more open, less corrupt government in the United States. It was started in 1981, and as acting Executive Director for POGO since 1993 Danielle Brian's credibility is hardly questionable. She frequently speaks before Congress, was inducted into the Freedom of Information Act Hall of Fame, and was ranked among the top 100 influential people in business ethics in Ethisphere magazine. Her evidence to support her thoughts on open government and persecution of whistle blowers is substantial, especially after I read some of the articles she wrote on POGO's website, and I can definitely see her logic stating the President cannot protect one whistle blower while persecuting the next.
I have to say that I agree not only with Danielle Brian's theories, but also with those of POGO. Do I think everything that goes on within our government should be declassified? Absolutely not. Do I think we are "Top Secret" happy? Absolutely. I commend her actions in exposing injustices and striving for a government where the people can actually get involved. I never even really understood what a whistleblower was until I researched this blog, and honeslty feel like it taught me something.
At the beginning of the blog, Brian states when she met with the President in the Oval Office it was after a two week postponement, and stated her obvious distain that the same day they were originally supposed to meet ESPN aired an interview with the President discussing his March Madness picks. She later found out it was recorded the night before. I guess that's a lesson for us all: Everything is not as it seems.
On March 28, 2011, Executive Director of POGO (Project on Government Oversight), Danielle Brian, met with President Obama in the oval office to discuss the President's commitment to open government and support of protections for whistle blowers. POGO is "an independent nonprofit organization that investigates and exposes corruption and other misconduct in order to achieve a more effective, accountable, open, and ethical federal government."
The issue Danielle discussed with the President was that although he has shown strong support for the protection of whistle blowers, or employees who expose unlawful activities within the federal government and its contractors, the aggressive persecution of national security whistle blowers is undermining his efforts and the legacy reflecting these efforts. POGO is an avid supporter of protection for whistle blowers and the de-classification of government materials. The President stated that he will not protect the people who expose sensitive government information regarding war tactics which could have a major negative impact, but he will protect the rights of an employee of a federal contractor exposing illegal pay for work they did not actually do. Brian argued the current prosecutions are not for those contractors, but in fact for the whistle blowers. Namely, the persecution of former NSA employee, Thomas Drake.
For more information: Former NSA Executive Thomas Drake May Pay High Price for Media Leak
Drake, discontented with the efforts of the National Security Agency to increase security directly related to compromising the privacy of Americans, financial waste, and poor management, first tried going to those above him to expose the problems, then finally turned to the media to expose the shortfalls of the NSA. He was charged with espionage and is facing up to thirty five years in federal prison. Brian points out Drake's whistleblowing was not an attempt at advancing a political agenda, like so many media leaks are, but a valid attempt to expose the wrong doings of the NSA. The faith in the commitment by the President to protect these whistle blowers was greatly jeopardized as a result of this persecution.
After Brian raised her concerns regarding the issue, she goes on to say the President did acknowledge the flaws in these protections, and stated that he seemed genuine in his desires to discover ways to better handle these situations and come up with new ideas on how to do so. She said that Obama also agreed that too much information in our government is classified, and promised to continue efforts in having a more open government. The President agreed with her regarding the imperfections and also to work together to try and find a viable solution.
POGO does not mess around when it comes to their views and desires regarding government. They acknowledge and attack issues from housing to national security, and have really made a name for themselves as advocates for a more open, less corrupt government in the United States. It was started in 1981, and as acting Executive Director for POGO since 1993 Danielle Brian's credibility is hardly questionable. She frequently speaks before Congress, was inducted into the Freedom of Information Act Hall of Fame, and was ranked among the top 100 influential people in business ethics in Ethisphere magazine. Her evidence to support her thoughts on open government and persecution of whistle blowers is substantial, especially after I read some of the articles she wrote on POGO's website, and I can definitely see her logic stating the President cannot protect one whistle blower while persecuting the next.
I have to say that I agree not only with Danielle Brian's theories, but also with those of POGO. Do I think everything that goes on within our government should be declassified? Absolutely not. Do I think we are "Top Secret" happy? Absolutely. I commend her actions in exposing injustices and striving for a government where the people can actually get involved. I never even really understood what a whistleblower was until I researched this blog, and honeslty feel like it taught me something.
At the beginning of the blog, Brian states when she met with the President in the Oval Office it was after a two week postponement, and stated her obvious distain that the same day they were originally supposed to meet ESPN aired an interview with the President discussing his March Madness picks. She later found out it was recorded the night before. I guess that's a lesson for us all: Everything is not as it seems.
Stage Five: One Billion Dollars Towards Humanitarianism in Libya... Say WHHHHAT?!
A few weeks ago the U.S, along with its NATO partners, went into Libya to take over the no fly zone; Reacting with humanitarianism in mind. The people of Libya are, after all, being killed in their streets, and what supporters Libya's president, Moammar Gadhafi, does have are being used as human shields in the same streets. The U.S. has gone in under the pretenses of helping these citizens and to aid with rescue missions. Although, the future for Gadhafi reign looks grim, and Obama is adamant about not putting American troops on Libyan soil, the cost of this mission is still taking its toll at home.
Every missile we fire is priced at roughly $1 million, and as of last Tuesday the U.S had fired 162 of them onto Libyan sites. According to the article "US Role in Libya Costs Hundreds of Millions So Far" published on msnbc.com, the cost of operating a jet for one hour is an astonishing ten thousand dollars. The total flying time for one jet is twenty-five hours. These figures do not include the seventy five million dollar blow from the F-15 fighter jet that crashed last week. You do the math. These figures are anything short of encouraging.
It is hard not to have sympathy for the citizens of Libya, who are faced with this nightmare everyday. However, while we're talking about humanitarianism, my sympathy also lies with the people all around the world; Not just those in third world countries with whom we are familiar as a result of media exposure because of our political relationship with them. What about the ones without a voice? The ones without any clean water, food, or shelter?
America's out of control spending has placed us with a national deficit to be proud of: an estimated $1.27 trillion dollars in 2011... and its March. I am on the fence as to my opinions of our role in Libya, but I do know this: we are spending a hell of a lot of money to go over there and get a little pat on the back from our friends in other countries for being such raging humanitarians. I find it funny that there is always enough money for war and violence, but there is never enough money to make a massive, conscious effort to help feed, hydrate, and clothe the people of the world. I do not know how much it costs to feed people in less adequate conditions than that of my own, but I do know what we are spending to go to Libya could probably go a long way in doing just that.
The money we are spending will, no doubt, have to one day be replenished, and the unfortunate thing for us and our children is we are going to be the ones who will have to start making the efforts to do so. We are already reaping in the benefits of social security, right? I do not claim to be a saint; to have gone on mission trips or to have seen the struggle of these people first hand, but I am aware of their struggles. I am aware they exist even in our own country. We could even spend a little bit of that money to make others aware. Gasp! Imagine the idea! We claim to go into other countries for the "people" of the country, to help give them a chance at a better life, but we will not hesitate to drop a missile on those who oppose us. We kill people when that happens... I thought we were helping people? Or did I lose something in translation?
Point is: maybe our priorities for our humanitarian efforts need to be tweaked a little. We've all heard of "No Child Left Behind" maybe the government could start a humanitarian effort called "No Human Being Left Behind." Then again, with all the budget cuts going on in public education we can clearly see the dedication to the No Child Left Behind Act, but that's another post.
Every missile we fire is priced at roughly $1 million, and as of last Tuesday the U.S had fired 162 of them onto Libyan sites. According to the article "US Role in Libya Costs Hundreds of Millions So Far" published on msnbc.com, the cost of operating a jet for one hour is an astonishing ten thousand dollars. The total flying time for one jet is twenty-five hours. These figures do not include the seventy five million dollar blow from the F-15 fighter jet that crashed last week. You do the math. These figures are anything short of encouraging.
It is hard not to have sympathy for the citizens of Libya, who are faced with this nightmare everyday. However, while we're talking about humanitarianism, my sympathy also lies with the people all around the world; Not just those in third world countries with whom we are familiar as a result of media exposure because of our political relationship with them. What about the ones without a voice? The ones without any clean water, food, or shelter?
America's out of control spending has placed us with a national deficit to be proud of: an estimated $1.27 trillion dollars in 2011... and its March. I am on the fence as to my opinions of our role in Libya, but I do know this: we are spending a hell of a lot of money to go over there and get a little pat on the back from our friends in other countries for being such raging humanitarians. I find it funny that there is always enough money for war and violence, but there is never enough money to make a massive, conscious effort to help feed, hydrate, and clothe the people of the world. I do not know how much it costs to feed people in less adequate conditions than that of my own, but I do know what we are spending to go to Libya could probably go a long way in doing just that.
The money we are spending will, no doubt, have to one day be replenished, and the unfortunate thing for us and our children is we are going to be the ones who will have to start making the efforts to do so. We are already reaping in the benefits of social security, right? I do not claim to be a saint; to have gone on mission trips or to have seen the struggle of these people first hand, but I am aware of their struggles. I am aware they exist even in our own country. We could even spend a little bit of that money to make others aware. Gasp! Imagine the idea! We claim to go into other countries for the "people" of the country, to help give them a chance at a better life, but we will not hesitate to drop a missile on those who oppose us. We kill people when that happens... I thought we were helping people? Or did I lose something in translation?
Point is: maybe our priorities for our humanitarian efforts need to be tweaked a little. We've all heard of "No Child Left Behind" maybe the government could start a humanitarian effort called "No Human Being Left Behind." Then again, with all the budget cuts going on in public education we can clearly see the dedication to the No Child Left Behind Act, but that's another post.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Article Introduction
http://www.dallasnews.com/business/headlines/20110304-u.s.-unemployment-rate-falls-to-8.9-percent-in-february.ece
Jobs! We all are going to need one as soon as we graduate, right?! I chose this article which discusses the current unemployment rate, which dropped to 8.9 percent last month. As this percentage is a two year low, according to the article, I can only hope this number continues to drop and there are plenty of job opportunities available by the time I graduate.
The article states that private businesses hired 220,000 employees last month, and the new rate is keeping Americans in hopes that businesses will begin to aggressively hire and strengthen the economy. The net number of jobs the economy added in February was 192,000, a sharp increase from the 63,000 jobs added in January. This is exciting to me because it means that many Americans are going back to work, and coming from a family that has had someone laid off I know this will increase not only morale in the home, but in the economy, as well.
Although these numbers are promising, the article also states that with rising gas prices businesses may begin to hire less, and on the other end of the spectrum people who were not looking for jobs may begin to now look for jobs, encouraged by the drop in the unemployment rate. Since people who are not searching for jobs are not counted in the rate, when they begin to look and cannot find a job the unemployment rate will rise again. Whatever the outcome, this month these numbers are promising!
Jobs! We all are going to need one as soon as we graduate, right?! I chose this article which discusses the current unemployment rate, which dropped to 8.9 percent last month. As this percentage is a two year low, according to the article, I can only hope this number continues to drop and there are plenty of job opportunities available by the time I graduate.
The article states that private businesses hired 220,000 employees last month, and the new rate is keeping Americans in hopes that businesses will begin to aggressively hire and strengthen the economy. The net number of jobs the economy added in February was 192,000, a sharp increase from the 63,000 jobs added in January. This is exciting to me because it means that many Americans are going back to work, and coming from a family that has had someone laid off I know this will increase not only morale in the home, but in the economy, as well.
Although these numbers are promising, the article also states that with rising gas prices businesses may begin to hire less, and on the other end of the spectrum people who were not looking for jobs may begin to now look for jobs, encouraged by the drop in the unemployment rate. Since people who are not searching for jobs are not counted in the rate, when they begin to look and cannot find a job the unemployment rate will rise again. Whatever the outcome, this month these numbers are promising!
Editorial Critique
http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20110304-editorial-rising-oil-prices-will-keep-stalling-the-economic-recovery.ece
The issue of rising gas prices affects Americans with each added cent, and over the past weeks it has begun to take a huge toll on many American's pocketbooks. The lurking dread we all feel when pulling up to the pump gets worse by the day, and with oil at one hundred dollars a barrel "cheap" gas seems to be a thing of the past. The author of the editorial "Rising Oil Prices Will Keep Stalling the Economic Recovery" discusses many issues with which I feel many Americans and Texans will agree.
The article did not display the author of the editorial, however, I found it easy to understand: Written more in "layman's" terms rather than Greek, which is what most political articles may as well be when it comes to my understanding of them. This indicated to me the editorial was probably not written by a political journalist, who generally go into great detail when discussing economic issues. After reading some of the comments posted by people who also read the article, it seemed that the author did not touch on many key points regarding the economy and oil crisis. The intended audience of this editorial was more than likely middle class with a moderate education of politics and general understanding of the current economy and worldly issues. Since the author is unnamed, his or her credibility cannot easily be verified.
The author's main argument stemmed from recent events in Libya and Egypt in relation to the economic recovery in the U.S. He/she states the economic recovery in the U.S. has been slow and modest, and regardless of statements given by Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, stating the revolts in Libya and Egypt will not affect America's economic growth, American's are still in for economic pain. The author argues that our daily routines have become more painful each day as oil prices are raised, and since we are spending more money at the pump we have less money to spend elsewhere. A few examples given were the crisis airlines such as Southwest and American, who depend on energy prices, will face if oil continues to rise, and since consumers will have less to spend, businesses will not hire new employees, and small businesses will have a harder time obtaining loans. These are all factors that affect our economy, and when viewed that way it seems impossible to believe the rising cost of oil will not affect the economy negatively. The author also believes our government should stop blaming our economic downfalls on political upheaval in other countries and focus on the United States budget crisis and heavy reliance on fossil fuels. The author believes if the government focused on issues closer to home, international issues would not have such a negative affect on the American economy, and until this changes oil prices will continue to rise.
I am in no position to get down to the facts about why gas prices and our economy are in the position they are in today. However, I have my personal opinions, and agree with the author's arguments. Personally, the rising gas prices affect me negatively in many ways. I drive fifteen miles to and from work everyday, and have family and friends all over Texas that I enjoy going to visit. Since the cost of gas has risen, I have less money to spend on groceries, less money to travel, and less money to spend on clothes or whatever else I would purchase with my extra money. I also agree with the author and his thoughts on American's need to be more self reliant, which would result in the U.S being less susceptible to crisis as a direct result of other countries political turmoil.
The issue of rising gas prices affects Americans with each added cent, and over the past weeks it has begun to take a huge toll on many American's pocketbooks. The lurking dread we all feel when pulling up to the pump gets worse by the day, and with oil at one hundred dollars a barrel "cheap" gas seems to be a thing of the past. The author of the editorial "Rising Oil Prices Will Keep Stalling the Economic Recovery" discusses many issues with which I feel many Americans and Texans will agree.
The article did not display the author of the editorial, however, I found it easy to understand: Written more in "layman's" terms rather than Greek, which is what most political articles may as well be when it comes to my understanding of them. This indicated to me the editorial was probably not written by a political journalist, who generally go into great detail when discussing economic issues. After reading some of the comments posted by people who also read the article, it seemed that the author did not touch on many key points regarding the economy and oil crisis. The intended audience of this editorial was more than likely middle class with a moderate education of politics and general understanding of the current economy and worldly issues. Since the author is unnamed, his or her credibility cannot easily be verified.
The author's main argument stemmed from recent events in Libya and Egypt in relation to the economic recovery in the U.S. He/she states the economic recovery in the U.S. has been slow and modest, and regardless of statements given by Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, stating the revolts in Libya and Egypt will not affect America's economic growth, American's are still in for economic pain. The author argues that our daily routines have become more painful each day as oil prices are raised, and since we are spending more money at the pump we have less money to spend elsewhere. A few examples given were the crisis airlines such as Southwest and American, who depend on energy prices, will face if oil continues to rise, and since consumers will have less to spend, businesses will not hire new employees, and small businesses will have a harder time obtaining loans. These are all factors that affect our economy, and when viewed that way it seems impossible to believe the rising cost of oil will not affect the economy negatively. The author also believes our government should stop blaming our economic downfalls on political upheaval in other countries and focus on the United States budget crisis and heavy reliance on fossil fuels. The author believes if the government focused on issues closer to home, international issues would not have such a negative affect on the American economy, and until this changes oil prices will continue to rise.
I am in no position to get down to the facts about why gas prices and our economy are in the position they are in today. However, I have my personal opinions, and agree with the author's arguments. Personally, the rising gas prices affect me negatively in many ways. I drive fifteen miles to and from work everyday, and have family and friends all over Texas that I enjoy going to visit. Since the cost of gas has risen, I have less money to spend on groceries, less money to travel, and less money to spend on clothes or whatever else I would purchase with my extra money. I also agree with the author and his thoughts on American's need to be more self reliant, which would result in the U.S being less susceptible to crisis as a direct result of other countries political turmoil.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)