Equal Rights and "Don't Ask Don't Tell" Policy

In reference to “Your Right to be Gay” there is no question or contest, one does have the right to be gay. The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy stems from article 125. These articles have a few different elements in which it represents. These elements include unnatural carnal copulation with another person or animal. The term unnatural relates to determined by nature. I remain baffled by this meaning. All humans are conceived the same the same way, sperm meets the egg. So if we are speaking in terms of nature, we are all the same. Now if we are to talk about nurture and whether that plays a role in one’s sexual preference that is a whole different ball game.

                Integration throughout history has indeed made everyone uncomfortable in some way, shape or form. And no matter what people say or do, there will always be those that feel discriminated against. The question I ask is “if everyone is suppose to be treated equal, why is there still sovereign nations or reservations?” Our government provided the Native Americans with designated land in which they signed treaties.

                “Treaties are defined simply as contracts between nations. Until the United States unilaterally decided in 1871 to stop making treaties with Native Americans, these contracts were how the United States negotiated its relations with Indian tribes. The treaties secured Native lands for American expansion in return for promises of goods and services and established the rules that would govern the ongoing relationship between whites and Indians—although these rules were often violated by the government, its citizens, and, less frequently, the Indians.”

Was this not an attempt to segregate in the same sense? But we still have reservations and they have their own government in place.

In all actuality, everyone wants to have the same rights as one another. In military speaking, we should not have to hide who we are, or who we want to be with. The government foresees that we all have equal rights, so why do the military guidelines need to be different?

               

Health Care Crisis

As we approach the New Year , it's time for annual insurance review. I can't help but be grateful that my current job pays my health care premiums. Reading this article by Fox News leaves me to wonder just how much my insurance premiums would cost full price, since most jobs provide full-time employees insurance at a discounted rate. "The idea isn't to just raise revenue, economists

say, but finally to turn Americans into frugal health care consumers by having them face the full costs of their medical decisions." This quote sends many negative thoughts through my mind. "Frugal" really! I sure hope that the government based health care in place before they "chop" the tax cut employers get now.
I am not entirely convinced that this idea is not just to raise revenue, but to force communities into government health care more quickly. By taking away the tax break for employers, employers will not be able to provide insurance for employees at a discounted rate. Many middle class society members live paycheck to paycheck and I am sure would not be able to give up one third or half of their paychecks to insurance premiums. The government claims that an incentive for employees would be higher pay. They say that since employers did not have to provide insurance them they could afford to pay the employees better. Talk about a slap in the face, we will pay you seventy-five cents more an hour, but now you have to buy your own insurance for you and your family. How's that for government support! Sounds to me like we do not have a choice anymore, like it or lump it.

The Liberty Tree: Austin's poorest spend 45% of income on electricit...

The Liberty Tree: Austin's poorest spend 45% of income on electricit...

This posting has definitely caught my attention! As a newcomer to the homeowner society, I had no idea just how expensive utility bills could run. So I was not surprised to hear that Austin's poorest population spends on average forty-five percent of their income on the electric bill. It truly amazes me that that could or is almost half of somebody's salary. I cannot help but wonder if gas would be cheaper to run certain appliances compared to electricity. As I tried to do some investigation to whether there was truth or tale about gas being cheaper than electric, I came across CenterPoint Energy site. This site provides a calculator to provide you with information to what is the better option. However, since CenterPoint Energy is a natural gas company I imagine that there is some bias to their calculations.

For being Austin's prominent newspaper (Austin American Statesman), I am rather disappointed that there was no statistical information provided. I would like to know where that data came from and was the information obtained as a random sample. I find that to be a pretty modest statement "Austin's poorest" to be publishing without the reasoning behind the rest of the story. The information that was provided does not sooth the curious mind, but instead leaves many unanswered questions! Like many other fellow Americans, I want to see the proof behind something before I am willing to believe it! However, if it is true, then maybe the power companies could do something about their increasingly high rates.

What's All the Tweet About?

We have all heard of Twitter by now, it is the new social networking hype. But did you also know that it can be used for hostage negotiation? Yes it sure can! The US State Department (Crowley) sent a birthday tweet to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "Happy birthday President Ahmadinejad," the first tweet reads. "Celebrate by sending Josh Fattal and Shane Bauer home. What a gift that would be. "The second tweet reads: "Your 54th year was full of lost opportunities. Hope in your 55th year you will open Iran to a different relationship with the world." Seriously, is this what our government is coming too? The world of technology is forever changing, but I do not think it should involve tweets of negotiation.

I cannot help to wonder if this could be true. I am left stunned and disappointed to the fact that our governing people could stoop that low. I tried to look for the original posting of the birthday message, but I had no such luck. There were several comments left by viewers like me, that just do not understand the "why" behind it. I think of Twitter as a way for everyday common people to communicate and have fun. I do not see it as a governmental tool to create conflict and more controversy. I believe it to be childish and selfish response to a very serious and deeply saddening issue. These men are part of somebody's family; they are friends to many and deserve respect.

This has definitely produced much social jargon and cannot help but wonder if it has anything to do with the forthcoming elections. This truly is a desperate cry for a popularity contest.

 

 

Thinking Twice

USA Today provided me with a very interesting editorial to ponder. The overview of this article is very simple. "Cash-strapped" states are deciding that they need to charge fees for public defender attorneys. A fee, that puts a damper on one of our Constitutional Amendments, a right a fair trial. "If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you by law," and so on, we all know these words. The author also thinks that these state's divine plan to charge court and attorney fees will backfire, resulting in having to pay extra to house the convicted defendants in jail who cannot afford to pay their fees and that these states need to find other ways to pay for their court system. The claim and creditability of this editorial is real, especially for those who have endured some of those pain-staking fees.
From my opinion this editorial holds a biased commentary towards how the government is run, regardless of what our Constitutional rights as American citizens. It also depicts a certain audience's attention, one that already has issues with the government. Logically speaking this is a great way to help recover from the economic downfall, but is it really? The author makes for a great argument but fails to see the other side of the fence. As a taxpayer, I see nothing wrong with people having to pay for their attorneys. I believe that if they committed a crime and are convicted, then "yes" absolutely they should have to pay certain fees. If they are innocent, then "no" they should not have to pay. The fees that are being charged now will surely raise controversy.

Unfinished Business

To summarize the article from USA Today ,Congress is adjourning this week. They will begin campaigning for reelection and leaving unsigned bills that have yet to be passed. Numerous bills, including one that will give the Food and Drug Administration higher levels of resources. These resources would include more staff and authority for public safety.Public safety dealing with nutritional benefits of the public should be at the highest concern of the American people.
The intent of this article is to inform the public of what goes on behind closed doors of the Congressional floor. It exposes the sad fact that lawmakers are more concerned with keeping their jobs than actually doing them.This author refers to a bill that was passed in the house but due to a filibuster in congress is stalled. These filibuster moves prevent important bills from getting through.This information is available to the general public. It is even broad casted on most television networks via cspan channels.
Agreeing with this column would lead followers into believing my views to be of a pessimistic nature also. I agree with them in the sense that more needs to be done about certain issues instead of sitting on them. But on the other hand, I think they are doing their best with what they have to work with. Newspapers post commentaries that are going to catch a person's eye, so they can draw them in, by doing this they can put in their biased comments. I think that we as the public should concentrate on what we could do to help, instead of blaming congress for not doing their jobs!

Poverty Numbers Rising

According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development the number of families  in homeless shelters has risen to 170,000 from 131,000 from the years 2007 to 2009.(Source, New York Times)

 

MSNBC believes this to be unfortunate timing for Obama's party, with elections just around the corner and the seat of Congressional control at stake.What does this mean for Democrats? Does the fall of economy have anything to do with who has Congressional control? The anticipated poverty level is suspected to rise to 15 percent from 13.2 percent. President Obama is dedicated to getting the economy back on it's feet. He stresses that if we can get the economy up we can increase the number of jobs and help poverty levels to decrease over time.

I did not realize how bad our poverty levels really were. I believe this article provides an eye opening experience for those like me, who are not well aware.