In the spirit of dredging up things from the past that can bite one in one's rear, I found this lovely post on FireDogLake that I find quite humorous - simply because Santorum really did put his foot in his mouth. Seemingly directed towards more democratic/left leaning women, this particular blog looks to be fairly legit. It has a few quotes from the Huffington Post, and is well written (minus the rather informal verbiage). Not to mention, its off the suggested sites list! I believe the author, like myself, stands agape as they discuss the level to which Santorum has sunk in his mentality. Even for nearly 20 years ago, this seems low. I do have to ask, however, is this a comment on how he views women/unwed mothers -like the author strongly suggests- or is this a glimpse of his view on certain classes within our society. The middle to lower classes do seem to have a higher percentage of unwed mothers.
Basically, in 1994 Santorum got to talking at an event (ironically - on April 1st) about his stance regarding welfare for single mothers. He seemed to believe it best to make sure they knew the father of the baby was before they were assigned benefits. If they didn't know/ refused to list the fathers name - they got rejected. Period. Now, he apparently did try to explain by saying that "If Mom knows that she isn’t gonna receive welfare if she doesn’t tell us who Dad is, y’know maybe she’ll be a little more careful, maybe." While I see a purely logical reasoning for this kind of policy, there are a lot of mothers out there who don't know the father (and decreasing "promiscuity" would be nice for the over all health of our country), I find myself unsure of the intention behind his ideas.
While there certainly are many, many arguments against such a brazen mindset (especially the rights of those single mothers). I sure have to say, he has got some guts! However, the past is the past right? I wonder how his campaign is heading now? That was 18 years ago... maybe things have changed. One can only hope.
Friday, March 9
Friday, February 24
Obama Cuts our Space Funds for 2013, Sorry Mr. Jetson!
Ah, space. It has captured the hearts and dreams of many, and inspired nations to spend thousands on discovering everything first. We have been in a literal “space race” for at least 5 decades. The race to space has inspired many great films, books, cartoons (I heart The Jetsons!), etc. These works of fiction may, sadly, remain fiction for quite some time however. President Obama has reported that the pennies pinched for our space program will be $59 million less in 2013. Cutting our program back again to $17.7 Billion. Not that $59 million is such a huge number in comparison, nor will it seem to stop us from our plans of developing a new heavy-lift rocket and crew capsule, but I’m sure that amount of money is nothing to sneeze at - even for NASA.
In this Editorial, Human Spaceflights Prospects Dimming, there is talk of our national pride being boosted by manned space missions and a question of where we are headed. It also causes me to ask: how will the lack of money (aka interest) to invest in our space program affect our countries morale in the long run? No one can say for sure. However, national pride seems to be taking a downturn and any boost would be helpful. Though the actual audience this article seems to be pointed towards is the older generations who experienced the swell of pride when John Glenn successfully orbited the earth 3 times, I believe our generation remembers the urge we found at 10 years old to discover the unknown and fly weightless whilst slurping up droplets of juice as they float by our heads. The tone and main feeling of this article gives the general impression that maybe we are left uninspired by recent missions to mars, mercury, etc because they use robotic probes and do not inspire “the way a Marine pilot from Ohio did 50 years ago.” This leaves us hopeful that we will find a way to send other astronauts further and perhaps inspire our nation once again. I find myself in agreement. I personally never looked up to a particular astronaut but I do think that we are missing the quality role models for young children that we used to have. Role models that inspired good morals, good ethics, and hard work. Maybe if this next generation’s children looked up to someone more like John Glenn and less like Snooki, we’d have less problems in general. Maybe even common sense would make a come back! The article also mentions the different directions/decisions Presidents have made through the years focusing on Kennedy’s challenge to land on the moon. Also mentioning George Bush Sr. and Bush Jr, who both pressed for moon missions and trips to Mars, and Obama has discussed landing on a near-Earth asteroid.
I am unsure how necessary a focus on space is for right now, but it could be just be the moral boost our country needs to get us back on our feet so maybe we shouldn’t rule NASA out just yet. I’m just sayin.
In this Editorial, Human Spaceflights Prospects Dimming, there is talk of our national pride being boosted by manned space missions and a question of where we are headed. It also causes me to ask: how will the lack of money (aka interest) to invest in our space program affect our countries morale in the long run? No one can say for sure. However, national pride seems to be taking a downturn and any boost would be helpful. Though the actual audience this article seems to be pointed towards is the older generations who experienced the swell of pride when John Glenn successfully orbited the earth 3 times, I believe our generation remembers the urge we found at 10 years old to discover the unknown and fly weightless whilst slurping up droplets of juice as they float by our heads. The tone and main feeling of this article gives the general impression that maybe we are left uninspired by recent missions to mars, mercury, etc because they use robotic probes and do not inspire “the way a Marine pilot from Ohio did 50 years ago.” This leaves us hopeful that we will find a way to send other astronauts further and perhaps inspire our nation once again. I find myself in agreement. I personally never looked up to a particular astronaut but I do think that we are missing the quality role models for young children that we used to have. Role models that inspired good morals, good ethics, and hard work. Maybe if this next generation’s children looked up to someone more like John Glenn and less like Snooki, we’d have less problems in general. Maybe even common sense would make a come back! The article also mentions the different directions/decisions Presidents have made through the years focusing on Kennedy’s challenge to land on the moon. Also mentioning George Bush Sr. and Bush Jr, who both pressed for moon missions and trips to Mars, and Obama has discussed landing on a near-Earth asteroid.
I am unsure how necessary a focus on space is for right now, but it could be just be the moral boost our country needs to get us back on our feet so maybe we shouldn’t rule NASA out just yet. I’m just sayin.
Friday, February 10
Tug of War
The first amendment demands: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”
In the recent BBC article Boehner Calls for Law to Stop US Contraception Rule we have to question:
Is the requirement for contraceptive insurance coverage in “church-linked” institutions intruding upon their First Amendment Rights?
I personally find myself in a quandary. On one hand I don’t believe that the government has the right to tell a church or any private institution how to run their business, above the basics anyway. On the other hand, if the institution is in fact a public (or a government funded non profit) how can the government not regulate them?
There are those, who -unlike myself- have formed very strong opinions on said rule. Some are emphatically in agreement with the “White House’s” rule, saying the church "can't impose its religious views on people and whether they can have healthcare" (Wisconsin Representative Gwen Moore). While others argue aggressively against it saying "This attack by the federal government on religious freedom must not stand and will not stand" (Speaker John Boehner).
Get ready, it’s another game of political tug of war! This article is interesting to read, if not simply because of the reactions it has caused. As for which side is right in this argument, that is up to the reader… I just know that when situations like these arise I must simply agree with a wise friend of mine and say “at least the issue has been brought to light and it is actually being discussed.”
In the recent BBC article Boehner Calls for Law to Stop US Contraception Rule we have to question:
Is the requirement for contraceptive insurance coverage in “church-linked” institutions intruding upon their First Amendment Rights?
I personally find myself in a quandary. On one hand I don’t believe that the government has the right to tell a church or any private institution how to run their business, above the basics anyway. On the other hand, if the institution is in fact a public (or a government funded non profit) how can the government not regulate them?
There are those, who -unlike myself- have formed very strong opinions on said rule. Some are emphatically in agreement with the “White House’s” rule, saying the church "can't impose its religious views on people and whether they can have healthcare" (Wisconsin Representative Gwen Moore). While others argue aggressively against it saying "This attack by the federal government on religious freedom must not stand and will not stand" (Speaker John Boehner).
Get ready, it’s another game of political tug of war! This article is interesting to read, if not simply because of the reactions it has caused. As for which side is right in this argument, that is up to the reader… I just know that when situations like these arise I must simply agree with a wise friend of mine and say “at least the issue has been brought to light and it is actually being discussed.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)