The Death of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Last week, the policy of "don't ask, don't tell" was repealed in the United States through a law signed into action by President Obama. "Don't ask, don't tell" has been the policy in the United States armed forces since 1993. There are a few details that need to be worked out, though. For one, troops now need to be trained on "how sexual preference should be handled when army staff are organising sleeping arrangements in military barracks." Guidelines such as this need to be signed by Obama as well as important figures in the military. After that is done, there will be an additional sixty days in which the ban will still be in place before the new law in placed into action.

"'No longer will our country be denied the service of thousands of patriotic Americans who were forced to leave the military, regardless of their skills, no matter their bravery or their zeal, no matter their years of exemplary performance because they happen to be gay'" --President Barack Obama

The repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy makes me very happy. It is about time that equality is broadened even more in the United States. For a country that brags about how everybody is equal and is entitled to the same rights, there sure are a lot of restrictions placed on people that are seen as "different". I hope there won't be many problems encountered along they way to finalizing the law.

Source: BBC News--"Barack Obama signs gay military law"

New Start Treaty

On Wednesday, the United States Congress approved the New Start treaty. This treaty is between the United States and Russia, and through it "Russia and the United States will cut deployed nuclear warheads by 30%." Boris Gryzlov, the speaker of Russia's lower house, is likely to approve the treaty on Friday. However, the upper house in Russia probably won't be able to approve the New Start treaty before the end of the year. This treaty is to be the biggest "arms control agreement" in about twenty years, President Obama said, and will keep everyone safer.

I think that this is a very good agreement. Anything that will hopefully keep nuclear weapons under control is beneficial for not only Russia, but also the United States. It would be even better if treaties such as this were not limited to two countries, but were shared by any countries around the world that are in possession of nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that all of those countries will participate in such an agreement.

Source: BBC News--"Russia applauds US vote to back nuclear arms treaty"

Issue #1 - Comprehensive vs. Incremental Health Care Reform

Health care is a very big topic of debate in the United States, especially since the new health care bill was passed. Since 2007, there have arisen two main types of health care--comprehensive and incremental. The first focuses on universal health care, while the other simply deals with expanding the existing health care plans and coverage in the country. Those who support the universal health care plan believe that it would greatly help reduce the rising costs of health insurance and other medical costs. Opponents of universal health care are of the opinion that it would add to bureaucracy and rising costs. It is important, though, that despite their opposition to universal health care, not all of these individuals believe that American citizens should not all have the right to health care.

I believe that universal health care would be a good thing for the United States, and for the many citizens who depend on good health care. One positive aspect of this health care program is that people will still be allowed to choose the physicians and institutions that they want. That way, nobody will be forced to lose the doctors, clinics, hospitals, etc. that they like. To fund such programs, there would be some increased taxation of U.S. citizens that belong in the top 5%, but health care amounts are already deducted from many people's pay, it would just be a deduction in a different form. I won't pretend to understand every single aspect of the health care bill, but from what I do understand, I believe that it would be very beneficial for citizens of the United States.

Source: Govtrack.us

Issue #2

Issue #3

Eliminating Coconuts for Obama

In anticipation of President Barack Obama's visit to Mumbai, India, all of the coconuts on trees surrounding the Ghandi museum have been removed. This is a tactic used by security to ensure the safety of Obama from falling coconuts that injure and/or kill many people every year in India. This security precaution comes with other maximum security steps leading up to the visit that will fall at the same time as a religious festival, Diwali. The museum has recently had many upgrades made to it in anticipation of the visit and will be closed on November 5 and 6 while the president is visiting.

This is one security precaution we don't hear about too often! While somewhat silly, the precaution is understandable due to the history of coconut related injuries, and I actually commend the Indian government for paying attention to such little details such as this. I also appreciate that Obama cares so much about this part of Indian history. He himself said that he would like to have dinner with Ghandi. Sometimes people don't look far outside of their own nation to find individuals they look up to.

Source: BBC News - "Coconuts removed in India ahead of Obama visit"

Haitian Cholera Outbreak

After fifty years of not having a cholera outbreak, Haiti is now experiencing a fairly severe outbreak of the disease. Since Saturday, 2,000 people have been brought to hospitals and an additional 105 people have died, which brings the total number of deaths from the outbreak to 442. The strain of cholera that has been found in Haiti is the same throughout the country and is the same strain often found in South Asia. Despite opinions that the cause of the outbreak will likely never be known for sure, the United Nations is investigating into Nepalese peace keepers who may have spread the disease.

This whole situation is just horrible. Haiti is still struggling to recover from the earthquake that struck at the beginning of the year, and more death and destruction is not what they need. The only upside is that this strain of cholera is easy to treat, but that doesn't eliminate the fact that so many people have died already.

Source: BBC News - "Haiti cholera deaths rise sharply"

Obama Takes the Blame

In a statement following the November 2 mid-term elections, President Barack Obama said that he takes responsibility for the country not making as much progress as the people thought it needed to make. He went on to say that there has, indeed, been progress made, but most of the country does not see these changes. After the Republicans succeeded in taking the majority of seats in the House of Representatives, as well as gaining seats in the Senate, they made it known that they planned on changing some of the reforms and actions that Obama has taken so far in his presidency, such as the healthcare reform. President Obama did say that he would listen to ideas about the healthcare bill and other reforms, and stands by his opinion that there are still many changes that need to be made in the United States.

I like to hear that Obama is not trying to make himself seem perfect - he can stand up and admit that he is to blame for change not happening as quickly as the general public would like. There is another side to this, however. For one, it takes time to make changes that will benefit the country, and sometimes two years is not enough time to accomplish that. Also, the healthcare bill has not even gotten a chance to succeed, so I don't think that Republicans have any right to eliminate it at this point. Some members of the Republican Party are not acting like they have any interest in working with the Democrats to benefit the country. That is not okay. We need them to cooperate so that the people of the United States can benefit, not just deal with the two parties not being able to accomplish anything.

Source: BBC News - "Obama says US voters 'frustrated'"

Video Game Restrictions

After a ban in California that prohibits anyone under the age of 18 from buying or renting overly violent video games, the case has been brought to the Supreme Court. Some of the justices do believe that such video games are not the best influence for younger teens and children, but at the same time do not believe that this ban can exist due to First Amendment rights. Other justices, such as Chief Justice John Roberts, believe that it is not acceptable for such violent images to be experienced by children. He was quoted saying, "We do not have a tradition in this country of telling children they should watch people actively hitting schoolgirls over the head with a shovel so they'll beg with mercy - being merciless and decapitating them - shooting people in the leg so they fall down." Another side of the debate is that the violence in video games is no more than what is seen on television or in movies, so if the video games have an age restriction put on them, it would only be logical for the other genres of entertainment to have them as well.

It is true that some video games are ridiculously violent, for some because the violence makes the games easy to market and appealing to the consumer, while others the violence is merely a significant part of the video games' story lines. I don't necessarily believe that there should be a legal ban put on minors buying or renting the games. When buying games, I think that 17 is old enough to purchase them without an adult, while anyone younger should have parent or guardian approval. In the case of renting, rental stores should have a system where parents can approve and allow their teens to rent games without their presence, and they could also deny the rentals.

Source: BBC News - "Supreme Court considers violent games rules case"

2010 Mid-term Elections

During the 2010 mid-term elections on November 2, the Republican Party was able to gain control of the House of Representatives, while the Democrats were successful in keeping control of the Senate. Across the country there were many Republicans that won elections for governor as well as state positions. Many of these Republicans were elected in states and regions that were typically known to vote for Democrats. These patterns successfully show Americans' reactions to Obama's administration thus far. Many political analysts think of the outcomes of the mid-term election as a response to what many consider to be a low success rate on President Obama's part.

I think that this will be an interesting change in politics in the United States. What I am most interested to see is whether or not Republicans and Democrats in Congress will be able to work together seeing as how they have not been able to do so very well in the past few years. One aspect of the election that I do not understand fully is why people would choose to retaliate through their votes. Sure, Obama has had his flaws in the past two years, but voting for the opposite party just because of him doesn't seem like very logical reasoning to me.

Source: BBC News - "As it happened: US Mid-term elections 2010"

Gays in the Military

About a week after the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was "struck down," a United States appeals court decided that a ban on gays serving in the military would be reinstated, at least temporarily. The U.S. military continues to struggle with how they can integrate gays into the military without making dramatic changes. Despite how much the United States has been struggling over the issue of gays in the military, many other countries around the world "allow gay personnel to serve openly." "Don't ask, don't tell" was established under the Clinton administration in 1993. The policy made it so that military officials were not allowed to inquire about sexual orientation, but if any individual was found to be gay, they would be released. Following the decision about the policy, many former servicemen who were found to be gay and expelled from the service attempted to re-enlist.

I am glad that the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was struck down, but that doesn't mean that the United States is making any progress in allowing homosexual individuals to be treated equally. There are still many areas of society in which they face great discrimination. Also, I think it is wrong for there to be temporary ban on gays in the military while a final decision is still being awaited. For a country that prides itself in being free, we sure do a good job of discriminating and preventing all people from having freedom.

Source: BBC News - "Court allows Pentagon to re-instate ban on gay soldiers"

"Rentafriend"

Most of us have seen commercials for online dating sites, but how about websites that allow you to rent a friend? There are now multiple countries that now offer such services on the internet. The name of one of these friendship sites is Rentafriend. On Rentafriend, anybody can "become a friend and advertise your social services on the site, anyone wanting to rent a friend must pay $24.95 a month...to become a member." Aside from those fees, some "friends" will charge hourly rates or may only require that the person who sought them out on the website pay for the costs of their activities, such as dinner, a movie, etc. Along with just providing companionship, individuals on friendship sites may also offer to do chores or tasks, acting as an assistant or housekeeper.

I think this is a bizarre idea, but at the same time, I don't know whether it can be defined as a completely bad idea in my opinion. On one hand, I don't know if friendship can be built on paying someone for companionship. On the other hand, what started as compensated time could evolve into true friendship, which is nice. Like anything where strangers are meeting each other, I think people need to be careful of where they meet. It would always be safest to meet for the first few times in very public places. It will be interesting to see what becomes of these friendship sites...

Source: BBC News - "Is a rented friend a real friend?"

Picture Source

Issue #3 - Social Insecurity

Social Security is an entitlement and a program of the United States that was established as a way to fight poverty following the Great Depression. It has, in fact, been quite successful in lowering the poverty rate from the 1930s to today. After retirement, individuals who earn lower wages generally receive a higher percentage of benefits from their Social Security package than those who earn higher wages. Social Security is contributing greatly to the national debt because of its money problems and the possibility of going bankrupt. The major problem that the Social Security program now faces is that it will soon be taking in less money than it will be spending. Should Social Security continue to exist in the United States or should the program be eliminated?

I think that Social Security should continue to exist in our country. The risk of bankruptcy is present, but with some changes, it could be possible to eliminate the problems that the program is presently facing. Social Security has been successful so far in decreasing the prevalence of poverty, and hopefully it will continue to do so if the program is kept. I also don't believe that retirement should become privatized. This is a program that really should continue to exist. Like any other problem, individuals in power simply need to think of ways to solve it, as well as the many other problems contributing to the United States' growing national debt.

See this article for an idea of what President Obama's opinion is.

Issue #2 - Spending What We Can Afford

Issue #1 - War Dollars

First Woman in Five Years to be Executed in the United States

On October 30, 2002, the husband and stepson of Teresa Lewis were found dead in their home after being shot. Lewis was found to be guilty of conspiring to murder the two, and she was also found guilty of hiring two hit men to commit the murders. Lewis, who has learning difficulties and an IQ of 72, filed for executive clemency in August, but Virginia's governor has said that there are no compelling reasons to grant her clemency. Matthew Shallenberger and Rodney Fuller, the two men found guilty of committing the actual murders of Julian and Charles Lewis, were both sentenced to life in prison but have not been sentenced to death.

I think that it is a shame that the United States still allows the death penalty. Even if one were to use the reasoning that the punishment should fit the crime, Teresa Lewis was not the individual who committed the murders of Julian and Charles Lewis, so that doesn't even fit the circumstances. Along with that, anybody with a low IQ, even if not found to be mentally retarded, should probably be evaluated in a different manner than someone with a much higher IQ. I find it hard to believe that she would have really thought out an elaborate plan that would result in the murders of her husband and stepson. Furthermore, if anybody involved in these murders were to be sentenced to death, why not the men who committed the murders?

Information and picture source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11401164