I don't know much about this Republican Senator Jim DeMint from North Carolina, but I do know that he would have a problem with about half of my friends.
(Click on photograph to be taken to Huffington Post story on DeMint)
This guy thinks that homosexuality is immoral and that having an openly gay president would be the worst thing that could ever happen to America. He believes that homosexuality is "immoral" and that "marriage is a religious institution" and "Governments should not be in the business of promoting a behavior that's proven to be destructive to our society."
A behavior? Religious Institution? Destructive? Could he be any more insulting? Most likely, but he seems to stand by his words with pride and no remorse for the human beings he just criticized. I have a few issues with his statements.
One: Homosexuality is not a behavior; it's a sexual orientation. It's not the way a person acts, it's the way a person feels about the opposite sex and in my book there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. This is the 21st century if you haven't noticed, DeMint. According to the U.S. census bureau, 1.5% of Americans have come out as homosexual and those are just the ones that have come out. In all reality, we all are a little gay. Even you.
Two: Your whole statement about "marriage being a religious institution" is bogus. Yes, a good deal of Americans still hold their weddings in a church and have a priest and so on and so forth, but another good deal of Americans don't believe in religion and would die before they got a priest to join two atheist hands in marriage. And, according to the U.S. census bureau, in 2001, about 12% of Americans identified themselves as either atheist, agnostic, humanist, secular, or non-religious. And the homosexuals that do believe in God have already told themselves that he loves them no matter what. Therefore, marriage is far from being a religious institution. That's just what you think.
Three: What part of homosexuality is destructive? If you are talking about like raves and techno and drugs, everyone who does that is not gay. If you're young and stupid enough, you'll do it. If you are talking about two homosexuals adopting or having a child together, that's not a course of destruction either. As long as the parents can give the child the love and support they need to get through the trials and tribulations of life, by the time they get to the age where they can have their own opinions and see homosexuality as a way of life for some people, they will be just fine. And, if you mean destructive as in like...bombing people or causing mayhem or tearing people down for their sexual orientation, I think you may be more at fault for being destructive, Sir.
I'm sure there are more Republicans out there that believe in the same things you do, and that's why we don't have a Republican president. That's why gay marriage is allowed in five of the 50 states of the United States. That's why people like you are frowned upon for being closed-minded. And that's why people like you will never ever make it to the top.
The only thing I know about Predator Drones is that it's really great when my fiance gets them from killing enough people in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 because he gets to kill even more people! That sounds great for a video game, but in real life it just sounds like murder to me.
Predator Drone Aircraft
I know that we have issues overseas; okay, maybe more than just some 'issues'. In this article, The Drone Dilemma, featured on Newsweek, the Obama Administration talk about possibly expanding their use of Predator Drones over more densely populated areas of Pakistan. Previous use of the missiles have been successful and some officials think it would be a great idea to start wiping out more people with them. President Obama is a little hesistant though.
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 Predator Drone Set Up
In case you don't know exactly what a Predator Drone is, it's a CIA search and destroy program that launches missiles from a remotely piloted drone aircraft. And, if the damage that it does in the video game is similar to the damage it can do in reality, a lot if people can die even if they are just in the proximity of where it lands. Obama is worried about killing more civilians for unnecessary reasons, which I think is comendable. I know certain people need to be 'taken care of', but not everyone in Pakistan is a terrorist.
The Predator Drones have succeeded in killing some top people in leadership positions for the Taliban and getting rid of some experts who know about 'weapons of mass destruction' (which should just be called bombs, or nukes, or whatever). I'm sure that makes Americans feel a little bit safer. But you have to think of all those poor women and children who have lost members of their family who may be in a direct line of fire without even knowing about it. We are talking about exterminating human beings like they were cockroaches. It's like taking that aerosol can of Raid and spraying it on a helpless ant colony. Ants can't do anything but walk around and try to feed themselves, while doing some occasional breeding. The innocent people of Pakistan who are going to get hit with that Predator Drone are like those ants: helpless, self-sufficient, and occasional breeders. Their just like us in a way, except we haven't foreseen any missiles coming our way without warning. We may be giving the Taliban some ideas though!
Predator Drone Missile
I'm not saying that using the Predator Drones is a bad idea, but it is a definite risk of just making matters worse. If more people are killed, more people who were attached to someone not involved in this mess, more people are going to get angry. If not angry, more people are going to get violent. But I'm not one for politics or weaponry or making decisions on who lives or dies. Apparently, that's the governments job. I'm just a writer.
If you click on the title of this blog, you will be taken to a very moving blog by Russell Simmons on the Huffington Post website. In Simmons' blog, you will find the kind of hope and fire that I wish to someday have for our nation. He talks about how people like Rush Limbaugh and other veteran Republicans will never win the war on racism. A war that has been going on since before my own grandmother was born.
I know a lot of people say "well racism is only still around because people like you keep bringing it up". Well, the only reason I bring it up is because it means a lot more to me to stop these shenanigans, if you will, and try to bring our country to a place of peace. Why must we be at war with each other when we are already at war with others?
At this moment, I don't really see a future without racism. It's not that I have given up hope on our country, but I fear that people like Limbaugh will reach more and more and make them believe that people of color can do nothing but wrong. As Simmons quotes in his blog, Limbaugh made a statement on his show trying to interpret Reverend Jackson's words. He said that "the black frame of mind is terrible and Tiger's choice of women didn't help". Help what exactly? A black man cheats on his white wife with a white woman and all hell breaks loose? What about all the white men who have cheated on their white wives? Why don't they get called out only if their name is Bill Clinton? What about white men who cheat on their black wives? What about all the black men who cheat on their black wives? Why doesn't he care about them? What about the Asian man who lives next door with the latina? Is he going to get called out too? Is that going to make Jackie Chan any less attractive? The point is is that people like Rush Limbaugh have one purpose in the world and one purpose only...to make people think what he wants them to think. And he may succeed to a degree, but everyone won't follow in his footsteps. And thus, this war may never end.
I am a perfectly professional black woman engaged to a perfectly respectable white man and I, myself, do not get any sort of verbal thrashing because of the community that I live in and because of the people I surround myself with. But I know that there are some people out there who are not as fortunate as I am. And I wish I could apologize for the way the world treats you. It is truly unfair. But hopefully something will be done about it someday.
So, I just wrote my final article for school about Christmas Shopping. I am graduating on Sunday, and this will be my official last paper of my undergraduate years. I like it enough that I am going to post it here. Enjoy.
Holiday Shopping: No Recession will keep them down
By Faith Larraine Hampton
The holiday season is here and the shopping has already taken its chance to start emptying the pockets of anxious holiday shoppers. Even with the recession creating a job loss rate that is excruciating to look at, that will not stop the holiday shopper from gathering up the Christmas sales from their favorite stores. Whether it be a gift for the spouse, the kids, or a little something for the shopper, the lack of funds will not make anyone lose out on a little holiday spirit.
American Research Group, Inc. has conducted their 24th annual holiday spending survey and came up with some interesting results. Holiday shoppers plan to spend an average amount of $417 for the 2009 Christmas shopping season. That is a little less than 3 percent lower from the 2008 statistics, coming in at an average of $431 for the holiday shopper. But that is nothing compared to the 50 percent decrease from the 2007 holiday spending average of $859. This year’s average has been the lowest since 1991 when the holiday spending average was at $419.
American Research Group, Inc. also found out that 42 percent of holiday shoppers plan to spend their funds doing online shopping, compared to only 36 percent of shoppers who have decided to stay with the traditional catalog Christmas shopping. 23% of the surveyed shoppers stated that they will pay full price for their Christmas products, compared to the 53% of shoppers who said they would rather wait for the sales. Despite these numbers, a great deal of shoppers have already done their Christmas shopping. According to the Wall Street Journal, 195 million shoppers collected their Christmas gifts this past Black Friday and the subsequent Cyber Monday that followed. An average of over $300 was spent per person.
Internet shopping has been soaring in the past few years as more and more shoppers take their chances with doing if not some then all of their Christmas shopping online. Shoppers have been using the web to find online vouchers and better sales than they can find in stores to get the best gifts for their buck. According to Online PR News, the number of internet Christmas shoppers has increased by a third in recent years as consumers become more tech-savvy. In 2009, 53 percent of shoppers were shown to do all of their Christmas shopping online.
Despite what those articles have said, multiple store managers have said just the opposite. Tony Lark, an executive team leader at Target in University Heights, believes that sales made from the Target website have had no effect on sales in the actual Target retail store.
“People like to see what they’re buying,” explains Lark. “The online website does good business but people like coming in to the store for the atmosphere. I don’t think our guests want to go through the website unless they are buying something that is exclusively online.”
But it’s not just Target who believes that their online counterpart doesn’t do their store justice. Nancy Carriggan, department supervisor and store manager at the Toys ‘R’ Us in Parma, also seems to believe that people would rather go shopping in store than out store.
“The online Toys ‘R’ Us site hasn’t affected us here at all,” says Carriggan. “It hasn’t given us any trouble. That is probably because the website sells different things and our customers prefer to come into the store to get whatever it is they are looking for.”
Michelle Davis, assistant store manager of the Cleveland Heights Wal-Mart, tells a different story about the competition between their physical location and their cyber location.
“If you were to buy something from our Cleveland Heights store website, we do site to store,” explains Davis. “What that means is that when a customer buys something from that particular website the proceeds go to this stores physical location. In essence, there is no competition between the physical location here and the website.”
It is good to see that some stores are not suffering from their subsequent online sales, but the real question is how the stores are doing in sales on their own. Was Black Friday the big success that all the consumers made it seem like that next Monday morning?
“Black Friday went very well for us at this Wal-Mart,” says Davis. “I can’t give you the numbers but we actually did go up in sales. And, due to last year’s events with the one person being trampled at a Wal-Mart and a child who lost their life at another company’s store site, we felt that Wal-Mart should increase their security and add some structure for the event.”
Davis went on to explain that the store’s Christmas sales go on throughout the season. They have some sales on Black Friday and some two weeks before Christmas. Carriggan at Toys ‘R’ Us explained that their sales have been going since September and Lark believes that Black Friday was the official start to the Christmas season for Target.
But what was the big seller on Black Friday? According to all three sources, Zhu Zhu Pets are the hottest thing on the market, from Mr. Squiggles to Pipsqueek the yellow hamster. Each fluffy pet toy has their own musical tune and their own style. And, due to the lack of quantity that each store can get in, none of the sources can keep this item on their shelves for long.
“They come in a very limited quantity,” explains Carriggan. “But I guess people like them so much because they are cute.”
“Those Zhu Zhu Pets are impossible to find,” says Davis. “The demand is much higher than the supply. But we also can’t keep the Wii in-stock either.”
Even though the Wii has been out since 2006, stores are still only getting it in quantities of 10 to 15 at a time. The console and its games have become more popular over time.
With or without the recession, Americans have seemed to have decided that bringing Christmas joy to their spouses and little ones is a little bit more precious than crying over empty pockets. Retail stores have taken advantage of this fact with their multiple month long holiday sales and adjusting their store hours for the holiday season; Toys ‘R’ Us has changed their hours from opening at 10 a.m. to opening at 7 a.m. for the holidays. Recession or not, Christmas will never be cancelled.
(The last names are made up, but the first names of the sources are real. Everyone only gave a first name and their title)
Global Warming has been an issue that has apparently been a long time coming, but I have never put my two-cents in on it. Part of that reason is because I like the fact that Cleveland is warmer than it should be. I get tired of the slippery slopes and dangerous commutes to work from snow-covered streets. But, despite my own angers with wintery conditions, that doesn't mean that I should be happy about the neglect we have put on our planet.
Editor & Publisher, America's oldest journal covering the newspaper industry, had an article last night that talks a bit about the toll global warming has taken on certain editors. According to the E&P staff, 56 papers from 45 different countries have decided to write a connecting editorial based on the world's climate change scares and how we need to take cahrge, come together and try to make matters better instead of worse. Here is a snippet of what they said:
"Unless we combine to take decisive action, climate change will ravage our planet, and with it our prosperity and security. The dangers have been becoming apparent for a generation. Now the facts have started to speak: 11 of the past 14 years have been the warmest on record, the Arctic ice-cap is melting and last year's inflamed oil and food prices provide a foretaste of future havoc. In scientific journals the question is no longer whether humans are to blame, but how little time we have got left to limit the damage. Yet so far the world's response has been feeble and half-hearted."
(Click on the Editor & Publisher link above for the full-story)
Well, someone's not happy. But I think they have the right idea. One point they made that really clicked in my brain is that we are running out of time to fix this situation. I've been hearing about these climate change issues for years now and I haven't really heard too many great ideas.
One idea I came across this morning to amend the situation was the possibility of "injecting particles of sulfur into the stratosphere—the upper layer of the atmosphere—to cool the planet and buy time for humans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions". Now, I'm sure that wasn't exactly a half-hearted idea from Nobel Prize-winning scientist Paul Crutzen. He must know a little bit about what he's talking about if he won a Nobel-Prize before (or at least you would hope). The idea might not be bad, but I would have fear for people who are allergic to sulfur. Whose to say that the sulfur could contaminate the air and start making people drop like flies? I'm not a scientist (obviously) but I don't think injecting things into the air that is already contaminated is a good idea, no matter what layer of whatever-sphere it is. And even if the idea is safe, whose to say we have enough time to wait for it to work? Whose to say anyone will change their behavior after the injection? The National Georgraphic article that this information came from states that Crutzen's injection would "imitate the cooling effects of volcanic eruptions". Other people who are like me are just going to be scared that something is going to explode and kill us all before the sun fries us like chicken wings! Volcanic eruptions don't sound good! Even if it is something that would just resemble it...it's all too scary.
I don't want to give up on believing that we still have time to right this wrong, but part of me is thinking that our time is quickly coming to a close. And I don't even know what will happen whenever something does happen because of these climate changes, but I know it won't be good. Otherwise, people wouldn't be making such a fuss about it. All we can do is try to cut down on the pollution and our own personal emission of greenhouse gases. I don't know if this thing will be a silent killer or not, but I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
Here is one last quote from the E&P article:
"It is in that spirit that 56 newspapers from around the world have united behind this editorial. If we, with such different national and political perspectives, can agree on what must be done then surely our leaders can too."
I'm not one that has had much of a focus on trying to understand the issues, trials and tribulations of politics. There is a lot of terminology that I just am not certain of, and I'm sure there's a lot more that I don't understand. Despite these facts, I would like to try my hand it. Feel free to point out my flaws.
The most intriguing issue that caught my eye on the HuffPost today was on Democrats possibly revising the rules of Presidential Primaries.
This past election was the first one that I wanted to really get involved in. I didn't try to be an 'Obama Mama' or anything, but I went out and voted and put my two cents in when people were complaining about Obama's promises and plans. Even though he's not doing as well as we thought he would do, he is still better than Bush. And even though the Democrats are happy with their Obama victory, they still make the point that the primary rules need some altering.
According to the HuffPost article, the 2008 Iowa caucuses took place a couple weeks earlier than it did in 2004. Also, Michigan and Florida were two states that decided to move the date for their 2008 primaries. Even though this didn't really do any particular 'harm', it still made the Democrats a little uneasy because of the possible consequences.These situations caused a bit of party frustration, saying that this would give the Democrats an extra power boost for their candidate.
Now I'm not entirely sure how big of an issue this really is because I haven't done a ton of research, but I remember when Bush was going for one of his terms and Kerry had been pronounced the winner. All of a sudden, Bush's brother, the then governor of Florida, stepped in and then Bush was pronounced the President of the United States. I know respective Democrats had to be angry over that. Since that was multiple years ago I can't remember if it that situation blew up as much as this current situation...or should I say speculation?
So a few states got to go first. A few states got to decide who they were going to support first. Is that nearly as bad as someone's victory being stripped from them moments after they were declared a winner? And unjustly for that matter! I really don't think enough was done to right that wrong...obviously not because we had to deal with Bush for eight years. The Republicans obviously had a few more tricks up their sleeves than the Democrats then. This situation that they are covering now may have been planned, but I'm pretty sure Obama had enough support anyway to get him a victory. Bush knew he wasn't going to win without a back up plan.
My point is that fuss after fuss can be made, but at least Obama won without having to call in some favors. Go ahead and make your changes so that people won't think you've corrupted anything; that's fine. We all know it was a fair fight. Or at least most of us have come to terms with the fact it was a fair fight. Some others may have not come to those same terms. At least he didn't have to ask Michele to vote a few more times...
Chris Good wrote a story for The Atlantic this morning, stating what some of the suggestions were for amending these primary issues:
Grouping states in "regions" instead of "sub-regions"
Perks given to states that abide by the national schedule
Reduce the number of superdelegates
Well, that's all fine. Fix issues that could or could not be fixed. To me, it seems like that are making something that is already simple and in place somehwat conveluted. As long as who ever wins is fair and just about their victory, that would probably be fine with America.
The story also states that since Obama has stated that he will be running for a second term in 2012, these changes wouldn't take place until 2016.
As I read the article, I wasn't as astonished by the number of deaths as some other facts that I had come across. Apparently, Russian nightclubs and resturants think that covering their ceilings with twigs is a great way to bring in the crowd and make them have a connection to nature. Or [paraphrased from HuffPost] 'gives the building a rustic look'.
I also read that fire safety precautions are not entirely enforced as much as they should be. Officials have been somewhat lacking in the push of the safety codes, allowing twigs and plastic ceilings to fly with establishments, regardless of the possible consequences.
With those 109 dead, a good deal of the people died from smoke exhaustion, but also from being trampled. A quote from a Russian nightclubber stated that there was only "one exit". This nightclub had obviously broken more than one violation, but was still allowed to operate.
I never believed that pyrotechnics were good for close quarters. Almost like at wrestling shows when all those pyros and fireworks go off as the wrestler's wobble out to their favorite theme song. I always get a chill up my spine for the audience members who have to sit closest to where those fire hazardous materials are set off.
[Speaking of wrestling: For those wrestling veterans, Rikishi's brother (Umaga) died yesterday -
Those 109 were somebody's children, and I believe that is a part that should really be taken into account. The fact that some of the parents who still allowed thier son or daughter to live in their home will now have to deal with the fact that they either knew or allowed their child to go to this venue, despite possibly knowing what their child was getting into. Of course this is all assumption, but it is possible.
According to the Huff Post, this had been the largest fire massacre since Russia was known as the Soviet Union. Not to mention that there was a nursing home fire back in 2007 that killed 23 people, despite officials knowing of fire hazards and simply not doing anything about it.
Maybe this will help those officials who have been so negligent to get back on the bandwagon and start keeping their Russian citizens safe while thier partying it up in the forest deck-out clubs.
I am a member of the Society of Professional Journalists and I have been getting a numerous amount of emails in my inbox about the Shield Law -- a legislation and 'privelege' of sorts for journalists that protects us from being forced to reveal an anonymous source's information that we have collected during our newsgathering. For quite some time now, the Federal Shield Law has been under attack by state senators and other government officials, trying to either get rid of the legislation entirely or (recently) make it apply only to 'salaried employess or independent contractors of news organizations". Freelance writers, students (like myself), and online journalists would not be protected.
As I did some more research about the origins and benefits of the Shield Law, the SPJ website made some very interesting points. I know that some parts of the government think that it is unfair for journalists to have so many confidential sources, but we do have a purpose. As the SPJ website states, it was anonymous sources that helped to reveal the culprits of the Watergate scandal. It was multiple anonymous sources that helped clear up debates about what is going on over in Iraq. In some cases, it is necessary to keep our sources confidential. If not for their own lives and family's sake, for our own.
I have said it many times and I will say it again; being a journalist is dangerous. Investigative reporting can be rewarding at times, but it can also put us in some serious sticky situations. Without the Shield Law, journalists would be forced to reveal their sources in court if asked to do so; no matter the consequences. It makes me wonder how long the government has actually thought about the consequences -- what taking away this legislation would be like for the journalists who are telling their families, friends, readers, etc. about the news that they really need to know.
For example, let's say you see a murder occur somewhere. Let's say...someone attempts and succeeds at assassinating a senator or congressman and you witness the entire thing. Naturally (if not too much in shock) you take a photo, video, have some sort of documented proof. You know that you can't keep it inside; you have to tell someone. So you tell me. You tell me the entire story, show me or give me your proof and you ask to remain anonymous for the sake of your own life and your family's life and your friends' lives, keeping them out of danger. I tell you that I promise to keep your name, whereabouts, etc. confidential. I write the story. Obviously, I would get called into court to state again (even though I already wrote a story on it) what you told me about the assassination. But, without the Shield Law, I would be forced to tell the court who you are or risk the dire consequences...most likely jail or prison time for not cooperating. And, because i told you I would keep you safe, I would go to jail for you. I wouldn't even think twice about it. But, if we can protect our legislation...our 'privelege' to keep our sources safe, all of that could possibly be avoided.
SPJ is trying to keep every journalist aware of ever step that is being taken for and against the Shield Law, but they can only do so much on their own. I support the Shield Law, and if you are a journalist I am sure you do as well, but we can't do this alone. A great deal of awareness needs to be brought to the table to secure our anonymous sources and our journalists. 49 states (excluding Wyoming) have some sort of Shield Law to protect the anonymous source and the journalist. Taking away this legislation could mean someone's life. I know that sounds...overdramatic...but in essence...at the end of the day...it's not. You can give two shits about protecting journalists, but you should care about protecting our sources. Some cases would still be mysteries without them.
I was going to go off on a rant about how the only people that should care about Tiger Woods cheating on his wife or not are Woods and the wife. But, I thought it was pretty pointless though since I'm sure tons of people already know they shouldn't care, but they care anyway. Well, as I perused my different news sites to find something else that might peak my interest, I simply found things that just angered me. "Matthew McConaughey goes Christmas Shopping". "LL Cool J to host the Grammy Nominations Show". Why are people so obsessed with PEOPLE?
I wonder if the general public realizes that Tiger Woods is just a somewhat attractive man from Cypress, California who has some talent while on the green and thinks its OK to cheat on his wife as long as he doesn't get caught. Do you realize this? Or do you see him as a celebrity first? I can name a few boys from high school who were somewhat attractive varsity golf players who thought it was alright to cheat on their girlfriends as long as they didn't get caught. Why aren't they in US Weekly? Because their girlfriend's not Tila Tequila? Because they aren't rich? Is it because they haven't been on the golf channel? I'm sure somebody recorded them for public access, so it can't be because they weren't on TV at all. Personally, I don't understand. Similar to what I said about Speidi (Spencer & Heidi Pratt), why do we care? They are just ignorant children playing house and we are the ignorant consumers of their stupidity (says the girl with a picture of Sean Connery on her desktop).
It's not that it's entirely a bad thing to want to read up on the people who are higher up or have more money than, oh say, Clevelanders like me. It should all be for just laughs and giggles and innocent jealousy. But we can't worship them. They certainly shouldn't be the first thing we think of in the morning and they certainly shouldn't be the last thing we think of before we go to bed at night. People need to take the time to think of themselves; to take pride in themselves and the works that they have accomplished. Sure we watch our television shows and gawk at Beyonce's thunder thighs, but at the end of the day it should be about you and your family. That should mean so much more to people than the age difference between Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher.
Even though all of the holiday sales are supposed to be over with the passing of Black Friday (and apparently Black Saturday and Sunday as well), there are still numerous amounts of sales going on. But instead of these sales being in actual retail stores, it is the retail stores online sales that are all the rage this morning. Cyber Monday is taking over every Christmas shoppers pocketbook, and it might have even gotten a grasp on yours...probably five minutes ago or within the next half hour.
Isn't Cyber Monday just the best thing. Christmas is coming, jobs are being lost, the economy is crashing to a devastating degree every minute. It's all so joyous. Of course I think it is a great idea that people are going out and spending their hard earned funds on HDTVs and expensive jewelry that they may have to pawn later. What extravagance! How amazing it is when people are in a recession and everyone takes it lightly.
I myself can't feel guilty for buying a Venti Vanilla Cappuccino from my local Starbucks without cringing about how empty my wallet is. There's no money. There's no money and there's no jobs. There's no money, no jobs, but sales sales sales are booming! Spend $50 and get free shipping at Target! Spend over $100 at UGG Australia and get free shipping! A $75 online order from Macys.com will get you free shipping! But wait...free shipping isn't a sale! Free shipping is simply a way to get you to spend money and make you feel like you're not really spending any because it's free to get it shipped to your home by the time Christmas rolls around. That's not a sale people. That's just persuasion and manipulation. That's marketing. That's great advertising. That's a fuel to each individuals personal recession.
I know it's so much fun to shop. But think about how much more fun it will be to shop when you don't have a dime to spend! Cyber Monday is the best Monday of the year! Helping you empty your already empty wallet!
