Stem cell research

I was reading a blog posted by fellow classmate, Mollie Hammer, titled, “A person, or not a person: that is the question” discussing stem cell research. This is another one of her wonderfully written posts, whether you agree with her take on favoring this research or not. She clearly states both sides of the argument in the first paragraph and supports her own opinion by relating on a personal note. She provides the definition of stem cells prior to beginning her argument, “stem cells are cells with the ability to divide for indefinite periods in culture and give rise to specialized cells.” Mollie continues on to provide unbiased, scientific facts explaining what stem cells are used for and the many benefits they can provide to those with various disabilities. In her last paragraph, she states the other side of the argument (those who oppose stem cell research). She concludes her post by claiming that those who oppose this research do not have their facts straight on the issue.

I feel that after reading this post, I feel that Mollie has provided a strong argument to support her view in favor of stem cell research. The only thing I would like to have seen included in her post is some sort of reference to support the facts she has provided about stem cells. This is important so her readers will know if the information that she has provided is credible and they would have the option to read further about the subject. Overall, I think Mollie is an excellent writer and I enjoy reading her blogs.

Get ‘em the hell outta’ there!

I wish we would just remove the troops from Afghanistan and be done with it. Sure, I know it’s not that simple but it sounds good. I read an article in the NY Times that said President Obama is scheduled to announce his decision next week, regarding how many troops he will be sending to Afghanistan. Although, it wasn’t his decision to start this whole thing and send them in the first place, he is left to clean up the mess. He says that he does intend to “finish the job”. I know it’s necessary to send additional troops over to assist with the withdrawal. I also know that it’s not as cut and dry as a lot of people may think. President Obama doesn’t just make a phone call and say, “Ok, it’s over. Round ‘em up, we’re closing down shop and everyone’s coming home!” Besides searching for answers to the 9/11 attacks, I don’t see why we’re still over there. Does it really take almost 9 years? In other cases, I feel that the U.S. spends a lot of unnecessary time trying to help “fix” other countries’ problems. Some that would otherwise have a negative impact on the U.S., sometimes not. In some cases, these countries will never be “fixed”. They are not “fixable”. All I’m saying is that there has been a LOT of unnecessary bloodshed in Afghanistan over the years. I’m looking forward to hearing the details of President Obama’s “comprehensive strategy” next week to see if we may truly be nearing the end of this long and drawn out war.

On the side-

Let me also take this opportunity to say that it really irritates me that the media refers to President Obama as, “Mr. Obama”!! I found this to be the case in most (if not all) of the political articles and blogs I’ve read online regarding President Obama. It seems a bit disrespectful. You may choose to address your father-in-law by “Mr.”, but not the President of the United States. He has worked hard and has earned the title of President. So let’s show him a little respect. I don’t recall any of the previous presidents being referred to as “Mr. Bush” or “Mr. Clinton”. Why does the media think this is okay? Do they not recognize this as being incorrect? Or, do they not care? I don't get it.

Mind your OWN business, America!

I found a great post titled, “Equal rights for ALL” written by Mollie H., discussing the gay rights controversy. I think this is a wonderfully written article. She mentions that, “When you deny two people from having a legal marriage contract, you are not just denying marriage, but their basic rights as American citizens.” I couldn’t agree more. Mollie makes several excellent points to support her argument. One of these being, “Our country has a bad track record for denying people their basic rights due to fear. A fear of people who have different colored skin, people of different genders, people with disabilities, and now people who love differently.” This totally goes against the idea of “equality for all citizens”. In each of these cases, it has taken us a while to finally get it right (equal rights for minorities, women, people with disabilities). Why are Americans so scared of change and of others who don’t fit the typical American stereotype? Secondly, she points out, “One main argument against same sex marriage is that being a homosexual is a choice.” True, whether or not being gay is a choice or not, either way, no one desires or chooses to be discriminated against. So, why does it matter?

I believe that if more people were to just mind their own business regarding these controversial issues (abortion, religion, gay rights), the world could be a better place. Regarding these issues, why in the world does anyone care about how his or her neighbor chooses to live their life? Their choices and decisions are for them to take up with their own God, they have to live with them. It is NOBODY else’s business. People should respect the views and opinions of other people. You don’t have to agree with them or adopt their views and beliefs but they should be respected. This is what makes us all different, unique individuals. It is the beauty of being an American.

Health care legislation

I don’t know if I feel strongly that the U.S. Government should be responsible for providing healthcare for Americans. However, I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad idea. There are so many variables to consider with regard to this controversial topic. Where should the money come from to support it? What would this healthcare bill do to private insurance companies? How would providers be affected? Would Americans “abuse” the system? These are just a few of many that come to mind. There has been a final plan proposed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California that could be up for a vote on the House floor next week. The final proposal would require employers to offer insurance to employees or face penalties, provide subsidies to lower income families to help them purchase insurance and would fine Americans who do not elect coverage. Funding for this particular bill would come from taxing high-income people and cutting $500 billion in payments to Medicare providers (whom are already reimbursed at lower rates than they are by private insurances). Taxing the “rich” people? Sounds like a good idea to me (probably because I am not one of them). I think employers should be required to at least offer health insurance to employees. However, I think it’s terrible and ridiculous to fine Americans who don’t purchase coverage. That seems a little excessive. I feel there are times when a line has to be drawn and the government should mind their own business, this would be one of them. How are they going to require people to purchase some sort of insurance? That’s not practical. I hate to sound cliché but you can’t squeeze blood out of a turnip. Despite all of the different variables that remain to be considered and ironed out, I think it’s a good idea for the government to offer Americans some sort of alternative to private healthcare.

Apparently, our First Amendment Rights don't apply in this case

I cannot believe that a court can make a child custody ruling based on a parent’s religious practice. Are you freakin’ kidding me?!? I (obviously) had never heard of this until I came across Eugene Volokh’s informative blog. In my opinion, this is a very well written article. He displays an excerpt from the case ruling he is referring to in this article. The author gently takes a stand without offending those who may crazily agree that a parent’s religion should play a role in the determination of child custody. It doesn’t appear that he is targeting a specific audience but simply informing the public of these absurd court rulings. I like that he supplied his readers with examples of similar documented court cases as well as the links to other informative posts. He has provided plenty of credible resources in order for one to take a well-informed stand on the issue.

If it’s not already obvious, I totally agree with Eugene Volokh’s take on this subject. Is it really anybody’s business (especially that of the court’s) if you participate in church activities or are even consider yourself to be a Christian? You know, there are many people who attend church and have their children enrolled in the church daycare, but yet are unfit and even abusive parents. There are also those who may not have any religious beliefs but prove to be wonderful parents to their children. So, the courts that make these rulings are also making the indirect judgment that those who belong to a church are better citizens than those who do not? Does it really matter? It is a total violation of the First Amendment for the government to infringe upon the rights of its citizens. How has this been allowed? After all, isn’t this America?

Does capital punishment cost too much?

I stumbled upon an interesting commentary in the New York Times arguing that states should abolish the death penalty. The unknown author makes a claim that the death penalty is, “immoral, does not deter murder and affects minorities disproportionately.” However, to encourage states to abolish the death penalty based solely on the fact that it costs too much is not a good enough reason. Anyone who agrees in the death penalty likely has other reasons for believing that it is an acceptable form of punishment, despite how much it costs. Did you notice that all of the “facts” provided in the article were gathered from the Death Penalty Information Center, which is “a research organization that opposes capital punishment”? I didn’t even know there was such an organization. For those who already oppose the death penalty, this commentary just adds more fuel to their fire. Apparently, the author is conservative and likely targeting fellow conservatives and those who oppose capital punishment. In my opinion, the author is not very credible, as he/she does not provide us with any information about him/herself. Obviously, this editorial is written from a biased perspective. It is concluded that, “If lawmakers cannot find the moral courage to abolish the death penalty, perhaps the economic case will persuade them.” Although I disagree with the author’s stand against capital punishment, he/she does do a good job of bringing this financial issue to everyone’s attention. Assuming that the “facts” presented are accurate, it does give something more to think about.

A Note To Politicians: Grow Up Already!

You’re probably tired of hearing all the talk about Rep. Joe Wilson’s recent outburst during President Obama’s speech to Congress. However, I found it very interesting to know that Rep. Joe Wilson’s outburst wasn’t the first, second or even third in the history of political debates, and it will likely not be the last. I was shocked to learn of the previous violent outbursts (and even physical attacks!) that have taken place in the history of our nation’s politics. One would like to believe that these politicians are respectful, mature, well-mannered adults but their irresponsible and childish behaviors show otherwise. After all, these are grown men and women that we’re talking about, right?!