New Austin Rule Proposed: BYOBag?

    
     Austin has always felt just a little more green to me than most cities in Texas.  With the exception of Lake Tahoe, California, Austin seems to take better care of our parks and wildlife than other urban developments I've encountered (the beautifully refreshing Barton Springs and the small but sweet Blunn Creek Reserve are just two testaments to this notion).  Let's not forget the Single Stream Recycling system Austin put into place in 2008, an enviro-friendly luxury afforded to few US cities.  Now, city officials are trying to plant a foot into the Green Frontier by ordering a city-wide ban of the much denounced (yet widely-used) plastic shopping bag.  

      Mayor Lee Leffingwell along with Bob Gedert, director of Solid Waste Services,  on July 25th proposed a ban on plastic bags throughout the city of Austin.  The motion is to be considered in this November's City Council legislation.  Though it sounds rather drastic, we wouldn't be the first city to do so in Texas.  Brownsville, the 3rd largest of Texas' border towns, enacted the ban earlier this year.  If Brownsville (a city of 175,000) officials think plastic bag use is wasteful and excessive enough to ban them altogether, imagine how many millions of plastic bags Austin (a city of 1.7 million) consumers are pumping into our landfills.  Apparently, too many!  Leffingwell says that our estimated 263 million discarded plastic bags cost the city over $800,000 per year in pollution and disposal costs!  Recent efforts by many plastic bag contributors (like HEB and Wal-Mart) to sway consumers over to paper and recycle their old plastic bags at storefront receptacles have proved almost fruitless.  The number of plastic bags used annually just keeps growing along with our city, and now that it's costing damn near 1 million dollars to city tax payers, Leffingwell is ready to do something about it.  The Plastic Bag Ban Report says he has until September 23rd this year to figure out how much it'll cost Austin tax payers to include plastic trash bags in the Single Stream Program, and report it to City Council .  

     I will be the first to admit, I use plastic bags.  As I usually ride a bike to HEB, I'm even known to double bag (a practice that I do not feel too bad about, considering I reuse all of the plastic bags that I don't recycle as small trash can liners.)  For this reason, I cannot agree with the term environmentalists have come up with: "single-use" bags.  Out of occasional guilt, I have purchased maybe 10 of those reusable cloth bags that most chains sell for 99 cents at the register, but have probably only thought ahead enough times to pack them with me a handful of times.  Oh I use 'em, but more often to carry food and frisbees to the park, not to bring home groceries.  This is likely the problem across the state of Texas.  It's not that we don't care about the costs and damages involved in using plastic bags; it's just that they are more versatile and more convenient.  I mean, who lines a kitchen or bathroom trash can with a paper bag?

     Being a natural born cynic, I think it's funny that the Mayor gets behind the cause when he has been alerted that it costs his taxpayers about 17 cents a bag.  I mean, do you really think he sits up at night thinking about how he can save the environment?  Is it just in an effort to get in the Green Party's good graces?  Does he have plans to take Perry's office when he makes the move to President in 2012?  What plans specifically does he have for the newly freed-up funds?  I dunno.  But honestly, though it would inconvenience me if Austin decides to go all paper at the stores, I stand behind the Mayor's proposal no matter what his initial motives.  I'll just have to learn to adjust.  I don't see the harm in reducing non-biodegradable filler in our landfills and freeing up taxpayer money for more tactful expenditures, that's for sure.  Maybe he's just smart enough to take a hint from San Fransisco's plastic-free success.  *The city of San Fran proper went from an estimated 180 million plastic bags used in 2005 to...well, fewer in 2007 when they became the first municipality in America to enact the plastic bag-free law.

     With the state already in troubles with the EPA to get it's pollutin' in order, I think it's a measure we Texans can afford to explore.  But can small local businesses afford the cost of goin' paper?  Some people think it's too expensive, and even more harmful to produce recycled paper bags strong enough to hold mixed goods.  Read here for a much different opinion on the issue than Leffingwell and I share.  The Save the Bag Coalition website claims that "...(they've) discovered that paper bags were worse for the environment, especially regarding energy consumption and CO2 and methane emissions."  If this information is true, and "Paper Bags are even worse for humanity than Plastic Bags!"...in all honestly, by then, I'm bored with the subject.  I've just got too much going on to research bags all day.  Let's call it a draw, and take the grassroots approach to cleaning up Texas' streams and coastlines.  Take your reusable bags (you know, the ones you already own) to the store with you next time; save yourself a few wasteful tax dollars in the end.  


     Maybe the Single Stream Recycling Program, until the measure is passed, could just include "single-use" plastic bags on the list in the meantime.  Perhaps, even if the law is passed in November, it'll be an effortless way to recollect the 200 Million (my personal estimate based on the 300 bags that I keep thoughout the house waiting to be used or recycled) plastic bags that Austinites hoard away in their kitchen cupboards and drawers.  At least this way, while we prepare for Plastigeddon, the effort is minimal on our part, and booming Austin can remain the utopia of the south it prides itself on being.  

Creationism Shmershmashionism (or "Texas to Preach, err, TEACH Religious Theory in Public Schools")

     Have you heard the news?!  We know exactly where we came from, and have enough proof, we're going to put it in the textbooks!  As long as the liberals keep their 'Evolution Theory' to themselves, one day Texas public schools will TEACH KIDS TO BELIEVE IN GOD!  Yay!  No more lost, wayward or undeclared teens!  No more refugees persecuted for their silly beliefs!  No more terrorists killing in the name of their make-believe Gods!  No more War!  (Did you catch the sarcasm yet?)  Maybe I surmise or digress a bit, but what are we really doing by continuing to let self-proclaimed religious Zealots lead as Chairperson to the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE for short)?

     A little article by "Off the Kuff" author Charles Kuffner released on July 20th 2011 brought to my attention that the SBOE is meeting tomorrow (10 am, Thursday the 21st) to decide whether schools should include "supplementary reading" material that, as Kuff puts it, aims "to force mainstream publishers to rewrite their supplements to de-emphasize or undermine evolution education."  Other than that, the article is cut and dry (unopinionated), but it left me wanting more; so I continued a search through my links' links to find out what Texas bloggers have to say on the subject of teaching Creationism in our schools.  It turns out, they are more opinionated than I, but not as well spoken.  


     Richard Connelly of the Houston Press's Editorial Blog "HairBalls" writes on the issue in his July 19th 2011 article titled "Texas Science Textbook Wars: Ed Board Slashes Time for Public Comment."  Supposedly reporting on the cut backs in time allotted for public arguments during the hearing, he stays clear away from arguing for or against Creationism being taught in our schools.  Rather, Connelly starts off by mocking Barbara Cargill's ideals, and goes on to say that Christian fundamentalists are "entertaining at best" in their arguments against Evolution.  While I  can see the entertainment value in his article, I think he misuses an excellent opportunity in a public forum to get across a very simple joke instead of bringing more credibility to himself or trying to inform the reader of things we don't already know (what I thought was the very point of reading political blogs).  In my honest opinion (is there any other kind?), you lose the reader immediately if you focus on cheap attacks on one side, and fail to explain why you, the author, know any better.  


     Maybe a better way to approach this issue would have been imagining the future of our youth if the SBOE decides to pass the addition of Creationism supplements in our textbooks, as I so graciously did for you "in the beginning." Get it?  While I claim no religious affiliation whatsoever (Hell, I even just recently learned I'm not an atheist, but technically an agnostic), I do understand the need for texts to be revised from time to time, and don't exactly think we should be "force-feeding" Evolutionary ideals down 8th graders throats when it clearly undermines some students religious beliefs.  


     Perhaps it's better that students begin to choose their classes (as in college) earlier in life if they have a specific "agenda of theory" in which they choose to follow.  Or, if it's the parents who have the issue with what their kids learn in Biology, then maybe they should put them in a private academy that teaches according to their belief in God.  All these "maybes" sound silly, I'm sure, when the ultimate goal of the SBOE should just be to teach fact over unproven theory.  Simple as that.  If it can't be proven, why are we teaching it as fact?  If a theory is just that, and especially if it's faith based, it belongs in a Theology class, or in the dusty Book in the nightstand drawer.  


     I'm not saying that Evolution takes the cake, but I also don't remember my science teacher ever saying "You KNOW we came from monkeys, right?" I made that assumption all on my own soon after I started dating.  Let's keep religion and education as separate as oil and water, and not be completely terrified when our kids decide to explore their own origins and form their own beliefs.  


** The YouTube video above is from the National Center for Science Education's page which can be viewed by clicking This Link.  It's quite addicting (and mildly informative) so make some popcorn, and be ready to be enthralled.  

Texas! You dirty, dirty boy.

  You learn something new everyday.  In all honesty, I had no idea that we were So Filthy of a state when it comes to air and water pollution.  The Dallas Morning News Editorial team brought this to light for me in their July 13th, 2011 article entitled "With new pollution rules, EPA tries to save Texas from itself".  In a clear argument, DMN identifies the way that Texas Republicans are trying to dodge responsibility for spending the funds necessary to bring Texas' aging, sulfur/mercury emitting power plants to the EPA's new standards of compliance.  They even offer some estimates on the annual cost of pollution control/compliance vs. the anticipated annual health benefits.  

While the benefits seem to outweigh the costs, not to mention we're talking about saving lives and keeping our kids' air breathable, it seems Gov. Perry just can't come to terms with the EPA's rules if it's gunna cost money.  The article claims he says "Unfair!".  As if maybe he was Just handed a 24 hour notice, and hadn't a chance in Hell to comply by the deadline.  But a quick Google search of "Texas Pollution Ranking" brings up a September of 2009 article

from the El Paso Paper online that proves the EPA's been on Texas' butt about it's insufficient pollution standards.  In the article, they even say that were Texas an independent nation (as I'm sure some if not most residents consider it to be) it would rank 7th in the world for deadly toxic emissions!  Now, 2 Years later, Perry hasn't made a move to comply, or attempted to pay up?

I agree with the DMN, that if Texas has long been the leader in polluting our air, that we should also set a better example by putting our money into a cause that will benefit our lungs for years to come.  I understand that observing these rules will undoubtedly cause some shutdowns, heartache, and lost wages for plant workers in the Texas Panhandle and coasts.  But everything comes with a cost.  What happens when we can no longer hike in the Rolling Hills of the Greenbelt, fish in our Beautiful Lakes, or dip in the Guadalupe River on a 105* summer day?  I tell you what:  Texas will be just another hot state.

(A commentor on the DMA article stated the following: "More U.S. waters are closed to fishing because of mercury contamination than because of any other toxic contamination problem. In Texas, 361,433 acres of lakes and the entire Texas Gulf Coast are under fish consumption advisories.")  It was the motivation for me to look into how I can help comply, and make my state a little cleaner.  

Austin #1 on Forbes' List of American Boomtowns

      It's no secret that Austin is Booming.  Anyone driving through downtown, up SoCo, or taking IH35 in recent years has seen the many new additions.  The energy of resurgence is palpable in the light of the near 5 year recession that spared no county or state.  But did you know we're projected to have the greatest rate of industry and population growth in the next 10 years?  Can this mean the end to our financial woes is in sight?

      Brandon Luedtke of "The Daily Texan" reports in his July 11th article entitled
"Job creation, growth seat Austin atop Forbes’ boomtown list" that Austin's history of job creation and healthy population growth were the main factors in deciding the title. He goes on to interview an economic developer for the city, and found that the continued diversification of jobs since the late 80's (going from an education/government career base to a progressive information technologies hub) has helped propel Austin into a future-friendly job market.  

      One UT corporate communication and business major says people choose to stay in Austin after completing their formal education (possibly more-so than in other cities) because there are unique opportunities opening for people of all career interests.  Essentially, Austin is the New Frontier of the South.  

      This is nothing I haven't been sayin' since I arrived here from San Antonio 7 years ago.  Austin truly does have a niche for everybody.  And if you can't make it here...You're an ass!  And maybe you should move on.  Now a reporter from The Daily Texan is backing me up on this.  If you're planning on settling down here after college, buying property, or even starting a small business in Travis County (as I am), it's important to know where we stand as a city.  

    While it is kinda scary to think that cozy, "small-town feel" Austin will "BOOM" in our faces by 2020, and competition will rise (along with rent, taxes, parking prices) I think it's exciting to know that we have a secure footing as America's most promising region.  It would behoove any hopeful Austin "Lifer"to read this article.    

Back in the Swang of Thangs.

      Funny, just a year after taking US GOVT 2305, my Typology has changed from Libertarian to Post-Modern.  Does this mean I changed my political views drastically since last July?  Hmmmm.  Kinda.  I now follow some political arguments, and even care to vote!  Even locally.  As I struggle to juggle life, school, and work in this great state, my ignorance is waning, and I'm realizing (yes, at 30 years old) that I can make my own future, not only financially, but politically.

      I have a few projects in the works this year:  raising my GPA, paying off some loans, getting more fit, starting a small business and charity-based advertising firm, and the ultimate, near impossible goal: Getting My TX Driver's License back!  This will require paying off thousands in surcharges, appealing a DWI conviction, much time, money, influence and research.

      I'll be starting a local movement aimed at Taking Down the Driver "Responsibility" Surcharge Program; a horrible, financially debilitating, recurring tax implemented on certain Texas drivers for (sometimes) minor offenses.  Maybe, with a little shared knowledge and a lot of backing, You, my followers, can help...

Here's to a great semester!

-rzeker

Puttin' Some Green Back into the Economy

**The Video Above Best Explains the Arguments for and Against Legalizing Marijuana.

I agree a little with Andrea and with Doug in his Friday, August the 13th post entitled "Money Does Grow if it's Marijuana." Legalizing marijuana is obviously gunna save a lot of otherwise law-abiding Americans from a few Class A and B Misdemeanors. And Hell, probably leave a lot more smiles on our faces too. But, while I don't have any personal issues with its recreational use, I do fear that any liberal rights given to Americans are bound to be taken advantage of sooner or later.

Ever since we came out of the dark ages (what my ancestors would have referred to as "Prohibition," attempts to curb drinking and driving practices have proved futile. Yes, more cops on the watch means more people being arrested and supposedly learning their lessons, but the intoxication-related death rates remain steady and overwhelmingly in your face. Now, everybody knows alcohol and weed are different animals. But is it any better for one mind-altering substance to be allowed in a fast moving vehicle over the other? Not really. You can legalize it and say that it is for "residential or registered venue use only," but people are gunna get high and drive. Obviously, they do already. And their driving skills are sometimes inhibited enough to be pulled over and ticketed for. Is it as dangerous as drunk driving? Studies say no. But, well...let's put it this way: "The good weed" can do a number on your reaction time. A friend of mine says the reason American's are irresponsible when it comes to drinking is because we are exposed to it too late in life (whereas most of the world's legal drinking age is 16-18, or even a customary glass of wine with dinner at any age). I say, American's take certain freedoms for granted until they are yanked from them. If a 21 year old in the free country can't handle himself under the influence, how is an American 16 year old just learning to driving going to fare?

Also, I would have assumed (before researching of course) that state law enforcement agencies are wasting precious funds on arresting, processing, and jailing so many harmless stoners every year. Rather, in Travis county anyway (which some might call the weed-smoking capitol of Texas), the penalty for a POM charge has been downgraded from arrest with jail time to a mere ticket (a fine from $200-400 for paraphernalia and/or any amount of marijuana under an ounce). This is actually saving the county time and money, and freeing up cells and police to handle the other more dangerous crimes occurring in our city. Did you know that car burglary and theft has risen along with Texas' unemployment rates? I fear homes and small businesses are next, we need our peace officers on the hunt, doing just that: "keeping the peace."

It is also important to note that some counties, like Shasta County in California, are having troubles keeping a relatively strapped police force in business. While the rest of the state of Cali wants to legalize pot, Shasta county might be thriving on it illegality. They can receive up to half a million dollars in federal anti-drug funding annually if they step up their pursuit of illegal growers. When results produce enough money to save several at risk jobs and keep their benefits rolling, you can bet the department will jump at the opportunity, and rightly so. Who's gunna let a prosperous Govt job slip through their fingers on a technicality? Personal beliefs of the dangerousness or moral use of recreational weed have always divided people not really "affected" by the occasional pot smoker. Even Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko admits it's not their most pressing concern, but "it's where the money is." In this unstable economy, where I'm living on Financial Aid, and ready to take the first job that calls back, who can argue with him?

I know, I'm confusing you. Am I against or for the legalization of marijuana? If you've been following my blog, you already know my stance on job loss and the necessity to change the way America spends (or should I say wastes) its tax dollars. But the law is the law, and until weed is legalized, our law enforcement departments have the right to collect. We may not all agree, or want to pay, but do we all agree or want to pay for a parking or a speeding ticket? No. But these are the funds that keep our protection forces in business. I'm against legalization if jobs are immediately cut, and taxes on weed (although I do support sin taxes) become exorbitant. People living the high life should have to pay out a bit more, if only for the future affordable health care in the U.S. Smoking anything after all is clearly not as healthy as not smoking. However, I'm for it people can learn that it's not all fun and games. Well, "fun," yes. And "games"? A-plenty! Smoke with your friends. Play hide and seek. Laugh at the news, or a dumb movie. Play a video game, or get out and play some disc golf. Go swimming at the Springs on a 103 degree day. But please, Walk, Don't drive if you really care to preserve the liberal-republican citizenry that makes up Austin, Texas.

U.S. to its military: "Can I borrow some cash?"

So, Obama is reeling in the troops this month, and now the Pentagon has decided to cut several (around 6,000!) homeland military jobs and close U.S. Joint Forces Command bases in an effort to show Congress that they are mindful of wasteful spending in hard economic times. While it is always a sad thing to hear that more Americans, military and civilian alike, are being tossed into the unemployment pile, I think it is probably a smart move. Reductions in flagrant spending have got to start somewhere if America ever wants to pull itself up out of the trenches of debt. I have got to say, U.S. troops have overstayed their welcome in almost every country they have gone to fight in (especially those they've gone to fight for, in the case of those countries who don't even want us there).

Why is it so important that our military keeps bases in Germany, South Korea, and Japan?? Are there even conflicts in those countries right now? More importantly, how do they involve us? Are we really concerned with keeping our allies feeling like we've got their backs? Or are we more concerned that they remain our friends, so we can continue to consider them an extension of our own defense team (everything's gotta be done bigger and better in America, right?)? Do we really need to have a naval fleet comparable to China's? They're almost 4 times as large as us in terms of citizenry! And who's fighting in the middle of the sea or attacking our shores? Do we really just keep pissing countries off so that we can turn around and beat them in an arm wrestling match?

A lot of questions, I know. But of the last one, I think the answer is "yes". I think we like to show off and intimidate, flex and release our guns, so we continue to spend monies we don't have in an effort to prove to other countries, that already know, that we are a world power. It is a very sophomore move if you ask me. While all the reading in the world may never explain this twisted phenomenon to me, and I may never have the answer to remedy all forms of wasteful spending, i do have quite an opinion on it...Imagine that.

Do you have 1.41 trillion that the U.S. can borrow? That was the budget gap at the end of fiscal year 2009, and it is steadily climbing. Even if I had 100 times that amount in my own account, and the U.S. asked to borrow it, I'm not too sure (okay, absolutely negatively doubtful) that I would lend it to them. I just can't imagine they would ever be able to get it back to me within my lifetime. And if it weren't about the repayment of the money (hey, I'm all about doing someone a solid now and then) I wouldn't do it because I can't trust that they would learn to spend their newfound funds wisely, and would be back in the same boat within 20 years.

What's most jarring to the viewing public, I'm sure, is the fact that even government jobs (positions highly sought after probably due to their great pay, staying power, and benefits) are being scrapped...stealing jobs and slimming national security to make America more fiscally sound...a conundrum in itself. I'm not really sure how we are going to put money back into the economy and smash steadily standing unemployment rates, but won't the recivilization of more than 200,000 individuals back into the daily American grind boost things noticeably? I mean, these people get to come back home, continue to grow their families, get paid to go to school, support their causes on a local level, pay their taxes, put the jobs and the need for growth right back where they belong. Won't it make some amount of difference for politically active and aware troops to come home and realize that what they've been fighting for was all worth it, and now they get to stand down and pursue the American dream themselves?

If unnecessarily overstaffed military positions and exorbitant costs of war are keeping 100's of billions of dollars from reaching depleted American pockets, shouldn't we all support the Pentagon's decision to reduce misappropriated funds and bring back our troops safely to fight their own battles? It won't solve everything, but it will be a very noble message to other departments that 2010 is just not the time to throw money to the wind. I now understand the famous question: "Why do senators make as much as some doctors and 4-5 times as much as our nation's teachers?"

Somebody said joshingly in a comment: "What are we gunna do with all these layed off officers? Have them staff the Obamacare doc-in-a-box clinics?" I see your challenging comment, sir. And I raise you an "It's a living. Why not?" War, turmoil, crisis, or the constant uncertainty that "you could be next" are not healthy ways to live.

The reason we separate church and state.

Hey Kaya. I'm Zeke, fellow classmate and blogger. I'm supposed to critique your blog for a grade, so please don't take offense.

For starters, I appreciate your admission of being generally unexposed to the wacky world of politics. Your blog title alone tells me we have something in common; we are trying to better our understanding of the complexities of the government (you've got 2 on me by voting twice). Similar to you, I didn't know many specifics about DADT. However, it seems that this is where our similarities end. I wouldn't claim to be the expert on anything, but I did learn a lot just clicking around on the internet.

It appears your main concerns about gays serving openly is the comfort level of the heterosexual soldier and the fact that homosexuality goes against God. While I also recognize you're trying to be open-minded to the fact that everybody "needs love," your concerns about gays don't appear to be without discrimination, or religious fervor. While I don't even think it is the best idea that gays are allowed or encouraged to serve openly, it is for an entirely different reason; one that most staunch supporters of DADT don't like to admit. Now, I'm typically a very wordy guy, so I am gunna try and remedy that by writing a concise list of short arguments.

The Real Reason it is more of a popular decision among Americans and our lawmakers to keep DADT in place is the fear of further, possibly violent, acts of discrimination. No, not everybody opposed to serving with open gays is going to kill them, but allowing open discrimination is said to breed hate. Rest in peace Barry Winchell and Allen Schindler, Jr.

On Religion and the Military, people of all religions are allowed to join the military. It wouldn't seem fair otherwise, would it, persecuting an entire people merely based on a nominal set of their personal beliefs? A lot of gay men and women have some sort of religion, God, or path they follow, just as heterosexuals do. They just have a harder time finding one to accept them.

On sinning and choosing, most would argue that it is not a choice to be gay (or even all that harmful really). Killing is a sin, and a conscious decision. Yet we are overseas killing for what most think is an unnecessary war. While killing isn't always the goal in combat, it sure is used when someone wants to get their message across. Plus, the Bible was written a long time ago. With all the changes we've seen since then, even God is likely to have changed some of his views as he learned more about the human condition. And I'd say he's probably not a huge supporter of the war.

Allowing continued, public, and institutionalized discrimination of any sub-group (especially one so non-threatening, benevolent and open minded itself) needs to be frowned upon already.

Making a generalization or conclusion that gays in the military are distractions to people who are trying to concentrate on the fight makes it seem like they (gays) went to war to annoy or tease or try to recruit heterosexuals. It is my humble opinion that gays go to war for the same reasons as heteros, and not to try and hook-up with uninterested guys in the desert. Some even suggested (*scroll down on this link to 'hope not") they're only in it for the money and will want out as soon as the economy picks back up.

Gays are looking for love, but not just from members of the same sex. They long to be a part of a group or a whole, just like anyone else does. They should be allowed to speak freely, but with discretion, such as straight soldiers should; especially in a setting where everyone has volunteered to risk theirs lives.

It's mostly the hiding from the stigma assigned to homosexuality that creates so much backlash upon "coming out."

As with any minority group, open gays on duty would cluster together with other open gays (or openly female officers), just like they do back home as civilians. The only catastrophe that could result from sexual orientation as public information is hate and intolerance, and that's not something that most gays stand for.

The possibility of secrets among heterosexuals, or dudes on the "down low" is just as scary, maybe less?, than soldiers hiring prostitutes. Without getting too detailed, people stuck together in close quarters (jail, often work) sometimes end up having sex outside of their preferred palate to fulfill carnal desires. What seems more morally wrong, paying to sleep with the enemy's girl, or laying with a trusted friend that's on your side?

I'm not telling you your views don't have any merit, or that mine are %100 right. I'm not expecting you to swing over to the left. I'm not telling you anything I've learned from experience. I've never personally dealt with too much discrimination for being gay, but I took a lot of my notes from the sad, avoidable events that helped spark the DADT debate. I guess I am mainly just hoping that, as you are continuing to learn and adapt your views and ideals about other previously unknown subjects, you also learn to accept all types of people; most of which probably have the best of intentions (I mean, they went to the Army, right? A pretty selfless act where I'm from).

Even were I not gay, I would like to think I was just raised to do good and to follow my heart. My heart of hearts tell me that war is bad, and we don't need to be losing precious American lives over there. However, in such a world, I've come to terms with the fact that war is near inevitable. But the battle at home against gay's rights to marry, adopt, and fight for their country is sadder because it's felt by millions of Americans on a daily basis.

I remain optimistic, however, that one day we won't have to specify in a "Don't Harass" policy to otherwise grown, responsible men that they don't have to harass comrades for differences beyond their control, and that don't inhibit their job performance. Wouldn't it be nice to know that our gun-wielding, 17-25 year old, still developing, hormonal and confused troops are getting along and trust each other enough to push aside petty differences and truly play for the same team?

Thanks for your time. And sorry if it became preachy. Your response is welcome.