What America Needs

America doesn't just need a President who actually does what he or she says he or she will do.

America needs a President who actually says what he or she is going to do.

Case in point: Bush. When he was campaigning he said nothing about Iraq. But he was going to go to war with Iraq all along. And if you still don't believe that, just do a little research on the war.

I'd rather have a candidate who says "this is what I am going to do" and let me decide whether I like that or not, than be vague with their opinions and make me have to do extensive research to see whether I trust them enough with my vote.

Who I'm Gonna Vote For

Well, the truth is, I don't know who I'm going to vote for. And I don't plan on deciding until after the primaries. (Which I am not voted in because I am not, and never intend to be, a registered party member.) But why am I waiting?

Because it allows me to be a bit lazy and only research the candidates who have a feasible chance at winning. If I don't like any of them, I'll do what my parents have done since Bush # 1 and write someone in, being confident that my vote isn't going to someone I don't really like.

There's a greater likelihood that I will vote Democrat, although if John McCain gets the Republican nomination, that could change. I won't vote for Hilary because she scares me. If Bill could run again, I might consider it. I've heard the man speak in person at the University of Minnesota and he's definitely an intelligent man. I'd just have to brush up on his policies and see where they fit in with my beliefs. But Hilary is a no-no. She's scary and while I would love to see the first female president in my lifetime, I can wait another four years for it to not be her.

That's about all I've decided. But some of my requirements for candidates are:

1) Must have a plan for Iraq. A concrete plan to do SOMETHING about the situation, to make it better, and to bring out the light at the end of the tunnel. If that takes 10 more years, fine. As long as there is an end in sight. I'm not stupid enough to be for immediate withdrawal. We can't leave now without serious consequences and that's a fact. Whether we should have gone in the first place is a moot point. We're there now, and we need to figure out a way to get the country on its feet so we can go back to worrying about things on our turf.

2) Must be against No Child Left Behind (or for reforming it.) It doesn't work, and instead of teaching our kids how to think, we are teaching them how to take standardized tests. Punishing schools for poor performance doesn't work. Poor performing schools need more funding to raise their status.

3) Must be ready and willing to do SOMETHING about the state of health care in this country. As I've stated many times before, I think universal health care is a great idea with bad execution. Kind of like how communism is a pretty neat economic policy, yet when you throw human nature and dictators into the equation, it doesn't work well at all. Anyway, every citizen of this country deserves access to health care without having to sell their first born child. Finding a way to do that, well, that's why I don't run this country.

4) As much as I would like a candidate to come right out and say "I think it should be legal for homosexuals to marry in the state", it's not going to happen anytime soon. Unfortunately, "separation of church and state" apparently doesn't apply to homosexuals and their relationships. Mostly because the word "marry" is used. I think marriage is a religious institution, and that all secular marriages should be called civil unions, whether it is between two men, two women, or a man and a woman. If you get married in a church or other house of religion, then it's a marriage. Except then we have to find a new verb for "marry." Crap. But anyway, it's long been my opinion that religions can dictate who is allowed to marry in their churches, synagogues, mosques, etc., but that the government has no right to say that homosexuals cannot be joined in a civil union. I'll stop now.

5) Must be willing to fight against those who want to overturn Roe v. Wade. I would never choose abortion for myself, but I still think it should be legal. Decriminalized, if you will. Yes, I just compared it to marijuana. Speaking of which, I'm for the decriminalization of that for medicinal purposes, but I'm against the use of it for any other purpose.

That's about all I can think of for now. Perhaps I'll add more later. But I'll be sure, once I've made a decision, to let you all know who I plan on voting for and why. For now, you can take my requirements and find the "perfect" candidate for me, if you so choose.

What's Wrong With Celebrating All Holidays?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I hope you all recognize that as the First Amendment. It's come under scrutiny in Green Bay, WI recently as City Hall was displaying a Nativity scene. The display has now added a Wiccan symbol, and just three days ago, the City of Green Bay voted to keep the Nativity display.

Now, as I understand the First Amendment, it means that Congress cannot make laws that establish a national religion, and it also cannot make laws that prohibit the free practice of religion.

With the City Hall display, I do see why they should not only display a Nativity scene. But, what if at the beginning of Hanukkah, a menorah was displayed? What if Kwanzaa symbols were displayed at the beginning of that holiday? Or Pagan symbols displayed on the solstices? Or Islamic displays during Ramadan? To me, displaying symbols of multiple religions is neither establishing a national religion nor inhibiting the free practice of any given religion.

The First Amendment has too often lately been used to completely eliminate religion from our country. It's "freedom OF religion", not "freedom FROM religion." And that means that the state can respect multiple beliefs without favoring one over the other.

Thanks, Jamie Lynn

Well, since yesterday it has been all over the news that Jamie Lynn Spears, 16 year old sister to Britney Spears, is pregnant. My first thought at hearing this was, "Damn, I thought at least one of them would be stable." My second thought was "Holy shit, she's 16!"

Now, I don't want to talk about how her parents are bad parents, or how Jamie's just following in Britney's footsteps. I'm not here to make judgements about her character, though it is very hard not to do. What I want to do is use this event to hopefully spring some change in America.

Jamie Lynn was quoted in various news articles that she was "shocked and suprised" that she was pregnant? Really, Jamie Lynn? You're shocked that sex can lead to babies? Sounds like someone didn't get good sex education in school. If she didn't think enough to use protection, or didn't realize that protection existed, that is definitely the educator's fault. Now, I certainly didn't learn about condoms and the Pill from my parents, I learned about those from health class, and yes, TV. But someone taught me that if you use a condom correctly, it prevents pregnancy 97% of the time. Use the Pill properly and it prevents pregnancy 99% of the time. Use them both together (correctly) and you pretty much aren't going to get pregnant.

So why didn't Jamie know this? I'm going to guess that she didn't get comprehensive sex education in school, and she didn't learn it from someone else. Perhaps she thought that you can't get pregnant if the woman is on top (not true, gravity can't defeat the little swimmers), or that there is only one day a month when you can get pregnant (also not true). Maybe she thought that you can't get pregnant if you have sex while on your period. (Also not true, sperm can live for up to 5 days in a woman's body.)

Now, there is nothing wrong with teaching abstinence. At one point in my life I thought I wouldn't have sex till I was married. Then I met my current boyfriend, and let's just say I wanted to see what all the fuss was about. But I was (and still am) smart. We use condoms every time, and I'm on the Pill just to be extra safe. I'm a college junior with dreams of medical school. I do NOT need a child right now. But anyway, there is absolutely nothing wrong with teaching abstinence. It is, after all, the only sure-fire way to not get pregnant, and to not get STIs. However, there will always be teenagers who do not intend to practice abstinence. Or teenagers who get caught up in a heated moment, don't use a condom, and 4 weeks later are peeing on a stick praying to God it doesn't turn blue. These are the teenagers we need to be educating.

I realize that a lot of religions and moralities prohibit sex before marriage. I was raised Catholic, believe me, I know. However, what proponents of abstinence-only education have GOT to realize is that not everyone shares their morality. This country is full of people with thousands of different beliefs, not all of which are against pre-marital sex. Some proponents are worried that by promoting safer sex, we are demoting those who choose to be abstinent till marriage. This is where parenting comes in. If you are really against pre-marital sex, it is up to YOU as a parent to convey that to your child. Public schools should not be the ones to say pre-marital sex is right or wrong. And besides, educating our children about sex doesn't make them want to have it anymore. Hell, if someone had told me how awkward it is to stop action so the guy can put a condom on, or how shitty it is to find yourself out of condoms and the Kwik-E-Mart closed when you haven't seen your boyfriend in two months, maybe I would have reconsidered having sex at 19. (Just kidding. Maybe.) Anyway.

Comprehensive sex ed doesn't mean saying "if you use these protective measures, you won't get pregnant." It means saying "sex has consequences. If you're willing to accept those, here are some ways you can lessen your risk of those consequences." Abstinence-only education teaches that sex is dangerous and that you WILL get pregnant if you have sex. Scare tactics don't work on this generation. We're smarter than that. Parents and the school system just need to help us be a little smarter.

And Jamie Lynn? Should have stuck with oral.

-----------------------------------------------------

http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSN2018929820071220
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20167193,00.html?xid=rss-tophead...
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20167191,00.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSN2018929820071220
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1576746/20071218/spears_britne