Barak Obama WINS

I'm so happy that I'm in tears!

Barak Obama has been elected as the 44th president of the United States of America. I participated in the historical event of electing the first African-American President of the US!

YES WE CAN!
YES WE DID!

Where would I go?

I was filling out an application for a potential internship in NYC and I had this question posed to me:

If you could take THREE industry-related field trips, anywhere in the world, where would you go? What and/or whom would you visit and why?

I had to think about my answer for a couple of minutes... New York? Los Angeles? CNN is here in Atlanta? Where would I go? After a while of thinking, I made my decision:

Tokyo, Japan, Beijing, China, and Mumbai, India. The particular portion of the communications industry that I want to go into relies heavily on technology. Those three places I feel are going to be the places with the next major equipment changes in the field. I would visit the Research and Development divisions of the leading audio/visual manufacturing companies to learn about what is coming up next and how I can implement it in the future.

The Red Cross Called

I got this email today....

from: ((my dad))
to: ((me))
date: Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 2:13 PM
subject: Red Cross called

Mary at Red Cross said it was time for you to donate again and that they are in desperate need.

My response:

Of course they are.... the major stock market players are all having heart attacks....and their ulcers are causing internal bleeding....

What's so wrong with monkeys?

I've been doing a lot of reading about evolution lately and I've learned a ton about it in many of my classes including Philosophy and Media, Society and Technology classes. The other day, I was talking to a family member of mine (on a distant 'redneck' branch) about evolution, and their response was simply: "I did not "evolve" from a d*mn monkey."

What is so wrong with monkeys? I mean really? The current science that I've seen recently says that we probably evolved from something similar to Apes or Orangutans. I took Sandi to Zoo Atlanta two weekends ago, and to be honest, they seemed pretty dang awesome to me. They could communicate, and knew what they could and could not eat. They took care of their young, and different groups weren't attacking each other over oil for their over-priced, over-sized and over-everything SUVS.... way more than I can say for us humans....

Another thing, why do my family members have to be so intolerant. I'm not gay, but I support gay marriage. GLBT relationships to me are no different than heterosexual relationships. Why then do some people always have to point out when someone is "playing for the other team"? GLBT people are not diseased or anything, and they're usually pretty cool. Why do you have to point them out as if I should cross the street to not be near them... I guess some people just don't understand that true love transcends all... age, race, religion, social status, GENDER....

Lewinski wasn’t the only person who Clinton screwed

If you are a college student with a political science major, he may have screwed you, too

The media had a field day with their coverage of the Monica Lewinski sexual relationship with former President Bill Clinton. Anyone of college age should know the 42nd president’s relations with his intern. What happened behind closed doors may never fully be known, but the one thing that should be known is what former President Clinton and many other politicians are doing to college students across the nation. They’re making the already-tough-to-break-into politics job market even harder to get into for college graduates.

I would bet money on deals that happened between Lewinski and certain political parties so that she will have no financial worries in the future. What I’m worried about is the students who are looking for internships in the political arena to get some “real-world-experience” before they graduate. These students are only trying to boost their resumes in hopes of getting at minimum a decent job. Unfortunately, who is going to hire a White House intern from when Clinton was president. What potential employer isn’t going to think “well, I wonder if this one had ‘relations’ with the president, too” when he or she sees that on someone’s resume?

To the media, Clinton’s affair was just personal. Many left-wing media outlets followed up every story about Monica with one about how well the economy was doing because of the president. Because it was thought to be only personal, it was cast aside in the judgment of many people because it just didn’t affect many people.

In some dark corner of my heart, I feel genuinely bad for Lewinski for going through that. I feel worse for any other intern or page whom went through similar situations. Up until this point, who has even thought about all of the other interns who are back at square-one all because they were trying to get ahead. As it turns out, these “personal affairs” may actually be hurting college graduates.

Most of the people who were interns during the last presidency have already made it through the system and are now either successful despite set-backs or flipping burgers at the local fast food joint. The problem now is the current ring of politicians who just cannot keep their hands to themselves.

In 2006, former senator Mark Foley resigned from congress after being caught sending explicit text messages to former pages. In 2001 “congressman” Gary Condit was found to have had an affair with intern Chandra Levy. This illustrates just two of the more well-known affairs. If one wanted to see the full impact, one would have to include nearly every politician who has had a sexual affair with anyone. What employer would take a job candidate seriously if they knew the candidate had worked under Eliot Spitzer as an intern?

Freedom to be Searched

Recently a high school in Colorado has been put under investigation because the principal would search through students’ cellphone text messages. The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU, says that this is an invasion of privacy. My question is: how has the school invaded these students’ privacy?

I believe the school has every right to search cellphones and even PDAs and computers. Let’s say a couple of upper classmen are planning to pull a prank on a couple of freshmen that could be potentially harmful. If theses students were sending text messages about it, and a principal were to see these text messages, the school administration would be able to put a stop to it.

Or, just take a look at any of the recent school shootings. Just think had someone looked at a couple of the emails that were written by the gunman at Virginia Tech, don’t you think that someone would have been able to prevent this tragedy from happening. And certainly the two gunmen at Columbine High School communicated somehow beforehand about their plans. If the principal had seen a text message or something, wouldn’t that principal have done something about it?

From my perspective, if a student does not want something to be searched, then that student shouldn’t bring that to school with them. Basically, if you know that a principal will take up your phone or laptop and then read your text messages, just don’t bring your phone or laptop to school. I mean, certainly this principal had a reason to have the student’s phone in the first place.

I'm For Socialized Medicine

Socialized medicine in America? Why not! The only bad part about the government paying for all of your medical bills is that taxes will go up to cover the additional expenses. Taxes are going to do that anyways, no matter which party controls the government.
Changing America’s health care to socialized medicine will even go as far as helping to solve a few of the problems that we are currently facing in the US. The American people would no longer be worried about Medicare or Medicaid. Elderly people will not have to be concerned about who is going to take care of them when they become unable. The government would take care of them. Socialized medicine will help to get sick people to the right types of doctors who can correctly treat the patient.
Sure, people who work in the medical insurance industry might have to make a career choice, but until people stop dying, there will always be life, car and homeowners insurance.

Definition of Terrorism

Osama bin Laden is generally accepted as a terrorist by people in the United States. But, to much of the al-Qaida organization, he is considered to be a hero. According to many of their beliefs, bin Laden did the world a favor when he organized terrorist bombings across America, and therefore from al-Qaida he is praised for his heroism. To them, Americans are considered the devil. To us they are considered the devil. But wait, this brings up a new question.
Is George Bush a terrorist? Political views aside, certainly by the logic that we have established, members of al-Qaida, more importantly their families, must believe that President Bush is no better than we think bin Laden is. But wait a second, the leader of the apple-pie-loving, bald-eagle-protecting, flag-waving, in-God-we-trust United States of America cannot be a terrorist…
Now stop right there. I am not saying that George W. is a terrorist; I am just trying to show you how confused many Americans are about the definition of the word terrorist.
According to Webster’s dictionary, a terrorist is a person who terrorizes or frightens others. By that definition, my own loving dad is a terrorist: I was definitely frightened from ages four to six just because of the stories that he told me about the boogey monster. I think we can safely agree that this definition may be just a little too broad.
If you break it down, the word terrorist has two parts, ‘terror’ and ‘ist’. Traditionally we add the suffix ‘ist’ to adjectives that we want to turn into a type of person. Whether or not that is the accepted way of creating words is another debate entirely; we can use slang however we want. The word terror means an intense fear, according to the American Heritage Dictionary. That is still very broad, but maybe it is not wrong. Maybe terror, like most adjectives, is in the eye of the beholder.
Maybe calling someone a terrorist is saying that in your opinion, that person frightens you. When Fox News calls someone a terrorist, it means that the producer or the writer is afraid of this person. When President Bush calls Saddam Hussein a terrorist it is because he is frightened by the thoughts that his father instilled in him about Hussein.
Maybe as Americans, we should be better people and not throw the title terrorist around so loosely.

Are the states at fault for lousy drivers?

Across the United States, teenagers are becoming licensed drivers. They practice for months with parents, they take the written test, and then they take the driving test. In some states they are required to also take a driving course. But is this enough? Why are the requirements to become a licensed driver different from state to state? Why are some more lenient on requirements than others? Are these differences the cause for so many deaths among teen drivers?

According to the Center of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 36 percent of deaths among teens is due to motor vehicle accidents. In 2004, 4,767 teens. aged 16 to19, died of injuries from vehicle accidents. I think the reason all of these accidents and deaths happen is because teens are not taking hard enough driving tests. In some states the requirements to get a drivers license is harder than in others. For example, in the state of Georgia the minimum score a driver can get is a 70 and in Washington they have to get an 80. According to Stateline, the restrictions that are placed on states cut the fatalities of drivers by 19 percent.

After going to the different DMV websites for different states I realized just how different the requirements were. In Washington, the teen must be 15 1/2 to get their learners permit. The driver must be in the car with someone 21 or older and must have 50 hours of supervised driving, including 10 night hours. They are required to take a driving course before they can take any of the exams. When the teen goes to get their drivers license they must take a written exam and make an 80 percent and a driving exam and also take a drivers exam which also requires them to make an 80 percent.

In Georgia, teens must be 15 years old to get a permit. They must have 4o hours of supervised driving and 6 hours of night driving. When the teen goes to get their license they must take a written exam and a driving exam, that only requires them to get an 70. Although these Georgia regulations are not as tough as the Washington regulations, the licensed driver has a lot more rules to follow. These rules include passenger restrictions, time restrictions, and time of day restrictions.

Arkansas has one of the most lenient driving requirements that I have seen. Teens there can be 14 to get a learners permit. I don't know why they would want to, but that is their policy. There is no amount of supervised driving time, no supervised driver restrictions, and no passenger rules. The leniency of these rules has given Arkansas second place to having the most teens deaths in 2001, according to state master. I don't know if Arkansas is still in bad standings, but if their driving requirements are still the same, I doubt it.

These are just a few of the state requirements in the United States. Could these requirements be the cause of the 36 percent of teen deaths from motor vehicle accidents? I think so.

Spying on Terrorists is always a good thing

The Domestic Monitoring Program that President Bush put into place is a program that lets the National Security Agency put suspected terrorists under watch. Under this program, the NSA is authorized to eavesdrop on conversations that are leaving and entering the US. This program was designed after 9/11 to stop terrorists from attacking again. The controversy in this program is that most people think that a court approval is needed.

A lot of people that do not think the idea is a good idea is because they consider this to be spying on people. They are saying that they do not want to know when people are plotting against the United States. They want to wait and have another 9/11 happen. People who do not agree with the program also want a court approval before the monitoring takes place. I can already find a problem with that. So the people that want to wait for court approval want to wait for the court date. The court date can take place at any time and it can also take place a long time away. So while we are waiting on this court date to happen, people can be plotting and acting against the United States. I guess they just don't want people in America to be safe.

I think the monitoring program is a great idea. If people didn't have anything to hide, they would not mind having their phone taps. I think that people do not want this to happen because they have something to hide. If people are doing bad things in our country than they should be caught and stopped before another terrorist attack happens. If the NSA can catch terrorist before they attack, than terrorism will eventually become a lesser threat. Yes, it will take a while but I think it is worth the safety of our country. One reason why people should be happy because this is taking care of some of the danger in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we are catching the terrorists, this could later call for fewer troops. Well people complain about how there are too many troops over there, so this could bring down the amounts of troops there and eventually allow for all of them to come home.

In my History class, we learned about our natural rights, Life, Liberty, and they pursuit of happiness. I do not think this program is breaking any of these rights. If this monitoring program does not take place, then I think we are going to loose these rights. More people will die and grief will be a part of the lives of more people in the US. This program is there to keep everyone safe and to seek out the people who try to bring us harm. They are definitely not trying to spy on us.

Unborn children should not be aborted

For the most part, I agree with the bill from 2006 completely. I have found out that in most cases, most women who get abortions did not even want to get pregnant. In the United States, 49% of the pregnancies in America are unintended and they are aborted. Out of all the women that obtain abortions, 52% of them are 25 or younger, 33% are 20-24 and 19% are teens. Here’s an example of how many abortions actually occur. In 1996 there were 1,221,585 abortions in the United States alone, so using the percentages above 232,101 were teens and 403,124 were between 20 and 24 years of age. Although these numbers have been going down slowly, this new act can help with the decrease of abortion drastically. So in other words, I think that the new abortion act is fine in most cases. If the women decide to have an abortion, seeing an ultrasound will let them have a change of heart. Ok...so it will cause guilt trips for women, but it is a guilt trip that will save another human beings life.

Although it will not get rid of abortion 100%, it will help in the decrease. If teens and adults decide to have unprotected sex I think that they should take responsibility for their actions. If the did not want to get pregnant, they should have been more careful and not had sex off the seat of their pants. If you are not ready to have kids, I think people should consider having safer sex. I think this should also go for married couples. If they decide to have unprotected sex and have an unintended pregnancy, they should also have the baby. If they couple thinks they are too old to have kids, maybe they should have thought of that before hand. If they to the actions to get pregnant, they should not take a life for the mistake that they made.

But on the other hand, I also think that some cases should be considered. Rape is an issue that stands in some abortions. When women are raped and get pregnant, I fully agree with having the baby aborted. Being raped is one the worst things that can happen to a girl or a woman and she should not have to be reminded of that every time they look at the child that they had been raped. In these cases, I think there should be an exception. Anyone who has gone through rape should not be forced to have his or her rape baby. Another exception to this rule should be women who are at risk for their lives. Usually when women give birth and their lives are at risk, the woman dies and so does the child. I think it is better to loose one life over two, especially when one life can be saved. These are the only exceptions that I think are important and should be taken into consideration.

Only 35 MPG?!

The United States Government just passed a bill into law that states that all new motor vehicles produced after 2019 are required to have at least a 35 mile-per-gallon fuel consumption. While this law is good, in that car manufacturers will be required to make slightly more fuel efficient vehicles, it is horrible that it is only 35MPG. With China and Japan producing 100MPG cars now, and requiring vehicles be at least in the 70s, American car companies cannot even sell most of their cars over seas. Europe is the not as high as Asia, but most of their vehicles are at least in the 50 to 60 MPG range. While the bill was supported by many "tree-huggers" it is said to be the only compromise between the legislators and the car companies. COMPROMISE?! Why is our government compromising with businesses?! Our government should be looking out for the people, not the companies.

Price Gouging?!

With gas prices rising like the temperature, there is all of this talk about gas stations price gouging again. When there was a shortage here in Georgia, because of the hurricanes and the current war, we saw prices rise above three dollars and sit there. At one point, right after a major hurricane, prices went even higher and then we saw businesses began to price gouge. Some gas stations had gas being sold for over nine dollars per gallon. Everyone was freaking out because of the shortage, and people were paying this much.
Because of this extreme gouging, the governor set a price that the gas stations could not go above, and placed an 10,000 fee for price gouging. My question is, what gives the governor the right to do this? Why does he get to make a decision to to deter the basic fundamentals of capitalist business in this country?
Price gouging should be allowed. Gas stations should be able to rise prices as high as they want and make money off of the people who are too stupid to wait to buy gas. Florists should be able to charge a hundred dollars for a simple dozen roses on valentines day or mothers day for the guys who wait until the absolute last second to buy them. American business is the backbone of the American economy. Let business do what it wants. We are a capitalist nation, and therefore we should not let the government control business. Let the people. If a gas station wants to charge ten bucks a gallon for gas, well then no one wants to shop there and the station will either drop their price or go out of business. If a business can make some money off of other ignorant Americans, let them.

It's My Money, Spend it on Me!

In America, over a million people die every year from starvation and homelessness. Every year America spends billions of dollars on foreign aide. Why is America spending so much money on other countries when our own country already has its own problems to deal with. America spends all of this money on its invested capitalist interests.
The wars in the Middle East for instance, were started to maintain our positive relations and support with the many nations. America wants to keep this relationship to keep the same relationship with the oil companies in the area.
President Bush has talked many times about freeing the nations of their oppressions and promoting democracy. This is absurd. If America wanted to stop oppressions, why are we not spending as much on countries that are worse off like Darfur and Uganda?
It would not be right to just take all of the funding away from those countries that America is currently providing “aid” to. Instead the funding should be slowly cut so the countries can learn to be independent of America. Once funding is cut, the money should go toward fixing the problems here in America. Keep the money where it belongs. We do not have to go as far as socializing medicine or establishing a communist workforce, but something needs to be done.
Just think, a few billion dollars to be spent to help the million starving Americans equals a few hundred dollars per person. That money could mean life or death for those people.

I'm Free!

Another step toward complete freedom is possible depending on the rule of a Supreme Court case. The Supreme Court is deciding on whether police officers can be held liable for injuries or fatalities caused from high-speed chases. This sounds like a bad idea: are the police not helping by chasing after these criminals? If they are working toward deterring crime, then why should we penalize them for accidents? With just over 350 people killed a year, it should be obvious that something needs to be done about the situation.
If the Supreme Court rules that police are liable for these deaths and injuries, police will be less likely to participate in high-speed chases as to avoid the risk of being held responsible. This would give Americans a new freedom: the freedom to not be chased by the cops. This decision would be the first time the Supreme Court has ever given us freedom, rather than take it away.
I think that I would rather enjoy this new freedom. I would be able to go rob a bank, say Community Bank and Trust, then as long as I drive badly and unsafely, which I do anyways, and the police will not chase me. This would help me when I return next semester to help to pay the 10% increase in tuition. I definitely think that the Supreme Court should pass this law.

Freedom of Political Discussion

In America there is a first amendment that allows each citizen the freedom of speech. There is no law requiring that said citizens must listen to certain people. Professors at any college should be allowed to talk about politics in the class. In fact, professors should be able to speak about their personal political beliefs. Maybe I am biased, since generally in my experience, my views are similar to those of my professors. I am positive that I do not let this bias get to me in my decision.
If a professor feels inclined to speak about their personal political views, more power to them. As long as these professors stay professional about it, and not bias grading or evaluation based on their views. Professors should not attempt to force their students to give their opinions, unless they want to. Professors should also not make students feel uncomfortable when stating their opinions.
As long as the professor stays professional, there is no problem with them talking about their political views. In my opinion, students should feel good since the professor feels that they can open up to them. Professors should feel like they are able to have open political discussions in class. College is the last step before the real world, and in the real world, no one hesitates to get atop their soap box.

Let Everyone Light Up!

Tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable death according to the US Surgeon General. Why then, are cigarettes legal, and marijuana not? There are no proven deaths that are linked solely to marijuana use. In other parts of the world, like Europe, marijuana is used frequently as a pain killing remedy.
The only downside is that every once in a while a young kid is introduced to pot and then later that day is introduced to other, more harmful drugs. The number of times that this happens would drastically decrease if marijuana was made legal. If it were legal, kids and people of all ages would not have to go to bad areas that house loads of harmful drugs. Instead these so-called "pot-heads" could just light up on the corner, just like a tobacco user could.
Marijuana use should be a choice. If the government wants to limit this choice, let them limit their limitations to those that apply to tobacco. April 20th is coming up. 4-20 is the Unofficial National "Get High" Day. Why can we not just bring the world together and have a jolly ole time.

Georgia Alcohol Ban

In the past, the federal government has not done too well with attempting to control alcohol, so what makes the state of Georgia think they can do a better job? The question is not about whether the state should ban alcohol on a religious day, but is instead why should the state have control? These questions bring about a need for change: the General Assembly should lift the ban on alcohol sales on Sunday.
The foremost reason to lift the ban is because there is no good reason to have it in the first place. The ban originated in the 1800s when many states were restricting what their citizens could do on Sundays. The reasoning was that Sunday is reserved to be the day of God. According to the decision of Everson v. Board of Education, the establishment clause of the First Amendment states that no federal or state government can “influence him [a person] to profess a belief in any religion.” While the ban is not a direct denial of the rights of the first amendment, it surely influences the practice of Sunday being the day of God.
Another reason to lift the ban is that since we can already purchase drinks of wine or beer at restaurants why are we not allowed to buy a bottle and drink it in the comforts of our own home.
Some people have proposed solutions of allowing the decision to be made by county or local governments. The entire problem could be solved simply by lifting the ban on purchasing alcohol on Sundays. Lift that ban!

No habla Inglés.

No habla Inglés.

In many parts of the United States, one might hear this phrase in schools, restaurants, and other locations. Many people, including former President Theodore Roosevelt, see this as anti-American. On the other hand are those of us who feel that the United States should not be dominated by one style of thinking, and therefore one style of communicating.

Many advocates including U.S. English, an advocate group for “Official English,” support the English-Only movement to make English the official language of the United States. Legally, America has no official language, English is only official de facto, in other words all government business is conducted in English.

America is mostly made up of immigrants, or descendents or immigrants. Why should the American government decide which immigrated language should be the one spoken in America? From my own visits out of the country, I realized how lucky I was to speak a language that is fairly well known.

People in America, especially citizens should be given the respect of that feeling of security. American should be allowed to speak any language they choose, even at government institutions. Also, if all languages were allowed, Americans could become fluent in multiple languages and therefore be more educated and could communicate with many people.

If the government limits what languages we can speak, how can one not expect the same government not to limit the ways that we think? The government grants us the freedom of speech, why can it not be in the language of our own choice.

2 Party Politics: Educated People and People Full of Hot Air

Based on a discussion last night at the Casa del Waffle (or however it is spelled) I am greatly pissed off at stupid people who have no clue what they are talking about. The 7 of us came to the conclusion that in America, there are two political parties: smart people and stupid people. You don't get to choose which party you belong to, actually your acquaintances decide for you base on your opinions. The conversation had me thinking about it all, and here are a few ways to determine which party you are:

If someone asks you your political stance and you say you're an Anarchist, you're not. Anarchy is against politics. Therefore, you are a member of the stupid party.
If you think Socialism and Communism are the same thing, you're wrong, and a member of the stupid party.
I don't care if you are red or blue, donkey or elephant, left-winged or right-winged, if you do not pay attention to the opinions of that party, and you oppose most of them, you are not that party and instead belong to the stupid party of America.
If your name is Bri Hyatt, you are a member of the stupid party.
If you think that a libertarian is against government, you're dumb, thats called Anarchy; Libertarians are against this form of government. As are most of the rest of the parties.

If you genuinely have decent plausible opinions on controversial subjects, do a little research before you decide to publicly make a stance, then you are most likely a member of the Smart Party of America, also known as SPAm.

If you want to get involved in political discussion, please do the world a favor, either a) shut your mouth or b) do some research first, dumbass.

Edit: I most likely belong to the stupid party, but seriously now, I know when I'm being extremely stupid...usually.
Edit 2: If you cannot see how crazy your democratic or republican part is, you need to open your eyes. Part of the concept of being a political part in this country us that while you generally have great ideas, you often are insane and like to do crazy things.

Death Penalty

In my Writing for Mass Media class today, we had to decide (as a class) what to do our blog report on. The class (not me) decided to do it on whether or not there should be limits on what police can do during police chases. I was really digging the death penalty.

The death penalty, have it or not?

I think there should definitely be a death penalty. It helps Darwin in weeding this world of people who mess up the gene pool anyways. It may cost more to have someone executed but hell, it works.

Also, if you had big deal public executions, people could watch and see what happens if they break the laws.

First on death row should be George W. Bush, he should be put to death for the atrocities that he as committed against humanity. He's the cause of almost a quarter of the amount of deaths that Hitler racked up.
Also, there have been more deaths because of Bush than all of the Al-Queda and Saddam's reign because of Bush. Who's the terrorist now?!

Chillin' with Dylan

Bob Dylan that is.

I was listening to music while doing my homework for my practicum class earlier today. The song Blowin' in the Wind played. This song is one of those songs that makes you actually listen and hear the lyrics. This song made me think of George W. Bush.

If you don't know me, I'm a liberal. I do not much like Mr. George W. Bush.

There is a line in the song that goes like this:

Yes, 'n' how many deaths will it take till he knows
That too many people have died?

Now, Mr. Dylan says the answer is blowing in the wind. Well, I think that George W. is full of hot air. So, Mr. George W. Bush, how many deaths will it take you to know that too many people have died? Or are you just bullshitting us Americans again with your well written (but false) speeches? Are you going to tell us that we're killing for a reason?

Let's just stop before we get too far behind. Its like the Vietnam war all over again.