I know that abortion is a very delicate subject, but I don't think it's as black and white as this blog makes it seem. I agree with the fact that there are a lot of women being careless with having the option of abortion and I don't think abortion should be used as a way out of taking responsibility for your actions. I completely agree that it's a little ridiculous that in Texas all a girl under 18 has to do is "tell" her parents. There really are better options such as adoption, which is a great alternative for anyone, especially someone under 18.
Having said that, I do disagree with the author about making ALL abortions illegal. I say this because there are circumstances where it should be a choice. What about women who are raped and get pregnant? Are they supposed to carry a child they didn't want in the first place and give it up for adoption in the end? Let's not forget the women who might potentially die from having a child or even the child itself might die in the end. Do these women not get a choice at all?
I see the point being made here, abortion is murder, and it shouldn't be optional for everyone just as way out. I just think there were other points that should have been taken into consideration before coming to the conclusion of banning all abortions.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Monday, August 10, 2009
Intention & Interpretation
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” As everyone knows (at least should know) this is our second amendment to the Constitution. Some say this means it is a universal individual right to bear arms. Others disagree arguing it does not guarantee the individual the right to bear arms, giving the right only to any militia.
I think sometimes one little word can change everything. For example if the Founders had put the word “and” in the statement, it wouldn’t really be much of a question these days what is was they meant. It would be clear that the militia and the individual have the right to bear arms. However, they didn’t put that word in there, so we are left to determine what is was they intended. I think maybe they meant for it to mean both the militia and the individual. If they meant the whole statement only for the militia, why did they use the word people and not militia in the second half of that sentence? The whole phrase would make just as much sense either way.
I don’t think the Founders intended for everyone to run around like the Wild West wielding pistols and shotguns. Instead, I believe they wanted every American citizen to have the right to protect themselves and their property when necessary. I think this should be common sense and we as a society have to learn how to apply what the Founders meant to today’s world. For example, a concealed handgun license is a great way to do this. It’s not intended for people to go around shooting everyone whenever they feel like it. It’s meant for self-defense and defending others, when necessary.
I think sometimes one little word can change everything. For example if the Founders had put the word “and” in the statement, it wouldn’t really be much of a question these days what is was they meant. It would be clear that the militia and the individual have the right to bear arms. However, they didn’t put that word in there, so we are left to determine what is was they intended. I think maybe they meant for it to mean both the militia and the individual. If they meant the whole statement only for the militia, why did they use the word people and not militia in the second half of that sentence? The whole phrase would make just as much sense either way.
I don’t think the Founders intended for everyone to run around like the Wild West wielding pistols and shotguns. Instead, I believe they wanted every American citizen to have the right to protect themselves and their property when necessary. I think this should be common sense and we as a society have to learn how to apply what the Founders meant to today’s world. For example, a concealed handgun license is a great way to do this. It’s not intended for people to go around shooting everyone whenever they feel like it. It’s meant for self-defense and defending others, when necessary.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Lower the Drinking Age????
In the blog, Change the Legal Drinking Age, legal drinking age is yet again brought up to be lowered from twenty-one to eighteen. To argue this, the point is brought up that by the time an American citizen turns eighteen they can do basically everything except drink, calling the government a hypocrite. I am on the fence with this one. I get that it’s a little silly that we have soldiers under the age of twenty-one that can go fight for our freedom, but they can’t come home and have a beer. I personally have a problem with eighteen being old enough to do much more than drive and feel the legal classification of being an adult should in fact be raised from eighteen to twenty or twenty-one. Having the drinking age at twenty-one does not make the government a hypocrite, it just means that they realize that eighteen is not a mature enough age to handle alcohol responsibly.
Another argument is that lowering the drinking age to eighteen will cause binge drinking and other underage drinking problems to decrease. According to the blog, “at the age of eighteen you would begin to learn how to be responsible about drinking instead of learning how to sneak alcohol into your dorm room and behind the police’s back.” Lowering the drinking age is not going to magically make eighteen year olds responsible. One reason binge drinking is a problem in colleges is that students have little to no parental or any other type of guidance to tell them no. This article from the Science Daily website states there is no study that shows lowering the legal drinking age would improve binge drinking or the overall health of the public. It seems that the main problem with binge drinking and other underage drinking issues is with colleges. I think if these students could show more responsibility and not drink and party all the time, maybe more people would be willing to consider fighting for lowering the drinking age.
Another argument is that lowering the drinking age to eighteen will cause binge drinking and other underage drinking problems to decrease. According to the blog, “at the age of eighteen you would begin to learn how to be responsible about drinking instead of learning how to sneak alcohol into your dorm room and behind the police’s back.” Lowering the drinking age is not going to magically make eighteen year olds responsible. One reason binge drinking is a problem in colleges is that students have little to no parental or any other type of guidance to tell them no. This article from the Science Daily website states there is no study that shows lowering the legal drinking age would improve binge drinking or the overall health of the public. It seems that the main problem with binge drinking and other underage drinking issues is with colleges. I think if these students could show more responsibility and not drink and party all the time, maybe more people would be willing to consider fighting for lowering the drinking age.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Government Involvement in Health Care -- BIG MISTAKE
Why do so many people think the government needs to have its hand in everything we do? For example, this health care issue is something that I agree needs to be dealt with, but this brilliant health care reform everyone thinks is so great is not the answer. A program where everyone gets all the health care they need hassle free and it will save so much money and it will just solve all of the health care problems! WOW, this sounds amazing! Almost too good to be true! Which of course means it is.
First of all, where is all the money going to come from that goes into this health care pot? Maybe the government has a money tree they are hiding somewhere! Ha! One idea is to tax those who earn over $250,000 a year, but that will eventually change and everyone will end up being taxed for this wonderful program. Everything I have read says the government doesn’t want to add to the already humongous debt this country is already in, so they intend to tax so we can all have this wonderful program. What about those of us who have good health care provided by our employers? We won’t have a choice. The plan now is to change it slightly where we would have to pay tax on it, but if the employer decides to change there will be no option but the government’s plan.
I don’t have the answer that is going to solve all the problems, but I think the great minds of this country can come up with something better. Maybe people should think about preventative care. Maybe we should stop eating fast food everyday. Maybe the whole country should get up off its lazy butt and walk around the block every once in a while. Maybe if everyone did all these things we wouldn’t have such high rates of diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. Maybe we should fix some of these things ourselves instead of creating a problem and then expecting the government to fix it for us. What about the children in our country? Childhood obesity is a major problem in this country, which of course will lead to further health problems and costly care down the road.
I hear people talking about how the Canadian health care system is so wonderful, but I guess they don’t have a problem waiting approximately 20 weeks to see their primary care physician or not have coverage of prescriptions. This country needs to think long and hard about this health care reform being the answer, there has got to be something better.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Universal Health Care...Not A Good Idea
In her blog, TAKE TWO ASPIRIN AND CALL ME WHEN YOUR CANCER IS STAGE 4, Ann Coulter argues that Democrats are trying to fix the health care system by having the government become more involved than it already is. Throughout the article, she discusses the fact that government involvement has been the demise of the system and more involvement will only cause more problems. Coulter wants people to understand that this universal health insurance plan that the Democrats are pushing so hard for will mean that "everyone in the plan will have to pay for everyone else's Viagra and anti-anxiety pills", which is just unfair.
Coulter makes a really valid point with her comment "we already have near-universal health coverage in the form of Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' hospitals, emergency rooms and tax-deductible employer-provided health care." The government created and mandates all of these things so that people who cannot afford private insurance can get coverage anyway. Instead of creating a new program, the government should fix the programs it has now. She goes on to argue that the same plan is not needed for everyone, which could not be more accurate.
She claims insurance should be to "insure against catastrophes", and not for regular everyday maintenance. Her argument that car insurance doesn't pay for gas so health insurance shouldn't pay for regular appointments is interesting. I don't think the two are really comparable because I would consider gas to a car as food to a body. She points out that we should pay for our regular appointments, which I disagree with since the whole point of health insurance is to help us with the costs of medical expenses.
She is right in the fact that the government needs to stay out of the problem. If they don't, then they are just going to want into something else. Which goes with her next point, which is if the government is going to be involved in health care and everything else, maybe they should have "universal food coverage."
I do disagree with her when she compares the cost of an appointment with a physician to a manicure. Where does she get a manicure that it would even be a comparable cost?
In addition to being a New York Times best selling author, Ann Coulter is a legal correspondent for Human Events and writes a syndicated column for Universal Press Syndicate. She also worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee after practicing law in private practice in New York.
Coulter makes a really valid point with her comment "we already have near-universal health coverage in the form of Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' hospitals, emergency rooms and tax-deductible employer-provided health care." The government created and mandates all of these things so that people who cannot afford private insurance can get coverage anyway. Instead of creating a new program, the government should fix the programs it has now. She goes on to argue that the same plan is not needed for everyone, which could not be more accurate.
She claims insurance should be to "insure against catastrophes", and not for regular everyday maintenance. Her argument that car insurance doesn't pay for gas so health insurance shouldn't pay for regular appointments is interesting. I don't think the two are really comparable because I would consider gas to a car as food to a body. She points out that we should pay for our regular appointments, which I disagree with since the whole point of health insurance is to help us with the costs of medical expenses.
She is right in the fact that the government needs to stay out of the problem. If they don't, then they are just going to want into something else. Which goes with her next point, which is if the government is going to be involved in health care and everything else, maybe they should have "universal food coverage."
I do disagree with her when she compares the cost of an appointment with a physician to a manicure. Where does she get a manicure that it would even be a comparable cost?
In addition to being a New York Times best selling author, Ann Coulter is a legal correspondent for Human Events and writes a syndicated column for Universal Press Syndicate. She also worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee after practicing law in private practice in New York.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Obama's Speeches
In his column on the Wall Street Journal website, Daniel Henninger asks the question, "What is the point and purpose of Barack Obama's speeches?”. In Obama and the Speech, Henninger talks about the “eloquence and sentiment” of the president as he gives his speeches and that public speech has become the main attraction of his presidency. He states that even though Obama's speeches are “good and strong, they do not seem to be connected to anything more than his own thoughts on any particular subject”.
Henninger is correct when he says that Obama could probably talk his way onto Mount Rushmore, as the president is a great public speaker. However, anyone can be a good public speaker. Barack Obama is the president of our great nation. Therefore when he gives a speech it should be powerful and provide leadership. When he is on television everyday giving speeches, how do the citizens know what is important to remember? The commercials we see are much the same. We see the same commercials over and over everyday. We know the songs and tunes to each commercial but do we pay attention to each one every time they come on? This is because people lose interest over information they see and hear about all the time, so they stop paying attention. If we are being inundated everyday with a speech from the president, we cannot possibly remember all of it or the importance of any of it.
Henninger's article offers an explanation from a group of students that states "the purpose of the rhetorician's art is to persuade". John Locke believed rhetoric to be an “instrument of error and deceit”. If we agree with what Locke believed, then I suppose Obama is doing nothing but lying and making empty promises, but that is another topic all its own.
I think Obama is using his speeches to be remembered as a great president, but he is trying too hard. Instead of working on something to be remembered by, he should be working on being a great president. He already knows how to be a great public speaker. Henninger's article brings up our past great presidents, and some of their great speeches. All of their great speeches came out of some great tragedy or some great victory. President Obama has not had a great tragedy or victory to have a great speech about. I am concerned that if something happens and he gets his chance to make a great speech that will be remembered, no one will be listening.
Daniel Henninger has been the deputy editor of the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page since 1989, and has won several literary awards. His general audience is most likely the business world, but I believe most of the American public would find this article very interesting as it offers another view of the president’s speeches instead of just discussing the teleprompter.
Henninger is correct when he says that Obama could probably talk his way onto Mount Rushmore, as the president is a great public speaker. However, anyone can be a good public speaker. Barack Obama is the president of our great nation. Therefore when he gives a speech it should be powerful and provide leadership. When he is on television everyday giving speeches, how do the citizens know what is important to remember? The commercials we see are much the same. We see the same commercials over and over everyday. We know the songs and tunes to each commercial but do we pay attention to each one every time they come on? This is because people lose interest over information they see and hear about all the time, so they stop paying attention. If we are being inundated everyday with a speech from the president, we cannot possibly remember all of it or the importance of any of it.
Henninger's article offers an explanation from a group of students that states "the purpose of the rhetorician's art is to persuade". John Locke believed rhetoric to be an “instrument of error and deceit”. If we agree with what Locke believed, then I suppose Obama is doing nothing but lying and making empty promises, but that is another topic all its own.
I think Obama is using his speeches to be remembered as a great president, but he is trying too hard. Instead of working on something to be remembered by, he should be working on being a great president. He already knows how to be a great public speaker. Henninger's article brings up our past great presidents, and some of their great speeches. All of their great speeches came out of some great tragedy or some great victory. President Obama has not had a great tragedy or victory to have a great speech about. I am concerned that if something happens and he gets his chance to make a great speech that will be remembered, no one will be listening.
Daniel Henninger has been the deputy editor of the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page since 1989, and has won several literary awards. His general audience is most likely the business world, but I believe most of the American public would find this article very interesting as it offers another view of the president’s speeches instead of just discussing the teleprompter.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
"In God We Trust"
This article on the Fox News website discusses a lawsuit being filed by the Freedom From Religion Foundation to block the engraving of “In God We Trust” and the Pledge of Allegiance from the Capitol Visitor Center in Washington. Critics complained Congress did not respect the nation’s religious heritage when the $621 million center was completed in December, so Congress directed the engraving, costing $100,000. The foundation argues that the engravings will be discriminating to those not practicing a religion. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa says, “This lawsuit is another attempt by liberal activists to rewrite history and deny that America’s Judeo-Christian heritage is an essential foundation stone of our great nation.”
Since 1956 “In God We Trust" has been our country’s motto, and has been on national currency since 1957. This article is interesting and informative to read because it is yet another attempt to end a tradition this country has had and believed in since the 1950’s.
Since 1956 “In God We Trust" has been our country’s motto, and has been on national currency since 1957. This article is interesting and informative to read because it is yet another attempt to end a tradition this country has had and believed in since the 1950’s.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)