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.

"Labor" Laws in Travis County

Some Texas women think it's okay to induce labor before full term, and some of their doctors disagree. Seton Hospitals of Austin declared it risky and unsafe to perform early inductions (delivery before 39 weeks) and stopped the practice some 4 years ago. Since then, Seton has lost many pregnant women (and millions of dollars, concurrently) to other hospitals that perform early deliveries. Now, Seton is hoping that state legislatures pass a measure to award incentives to hospitals that adhere more closely to Mother Nature's law. While most women would argue that the state doesn't belong in the delivery room, and I, for the most part, agree, the argument here is why would women want to risk the safety of their babies? And why should the state have to get involved when medical experts can prove the benefits of carrying to term in uncomplicated pregnancies?

I know, I am a man. And honestly, I don't even think I have much right saying what is and what isn't considered fair relating to women's privacy rights. But that doesn't mean I don't have an opinion. To be a bit more informed in my opinion, I Googled "How early is too early to induce labor?" and "Why do women induce labor/plan cesarean delivery?" The answers ranged anywhere from "Doctor scheduled it around his vacation or other planned deliveries" to "I'm scared it's gunna get too big and hurt, or rip me in two!" Aside from the few who said they were not fit to deliver naturally, answers to my question seemed kind of selfish or ignorant.

I myself was born at Seton, 29 years ago, through a planned cesarean delivery at 38 weeks. My mother had complications with my oldest brother, and had lost my baby brother Davy to suffocation due to an entangled umbilical cord, so she did not wish to risk another natural birth. In uncomplicated cases however, it proves beneficial to the development of the unborn child to carry it full term.

So to the women who wish to induce to ease personal discomfort or simply to fit their schedule...I just don't understand why.

I assume that women don't want the state telling them what's best for their body's. I would also assume women consider what they do with their babies a private and closed-to-discussion matter. The issue of abortion comes to mind. It is a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy. That is understandable, and I would (were I a woman) rally the troops against any politician who tried to tell me otherwise. Without being graphic, that baby is no more. Sadly, for whatever reasons, it never happened. That baby doesn't need protection from the law, it needs protection from a life of being a mistake. While the laws are in place to help regulate the latest an abortion can take place, they are there mostly for the protection of the woman. That said, it makes total sense that if a baby is to be born, some wiser, more knowledgeable entity needs to be there to tell a woman what is the safest route to a healthy pregnancy.

I think if people don't want government to be involved in such decisions, then people need to start making better choices. The facts presented by the hospital's findings (millions of dollars in reduced post-natal and trauma care and reduced percentages of newborn sickness by the week) should be enough to deter women from supporting hospitals that allow doctors to schedule births like they were oil changes. But sadly, it isn't. People always have the right to govern what happens to their person, even if it may be a costly mistake.

I applaud Seton, and St. David for making a risky business move themselves. Companies doing the right thing, to the tune of trying to save individual's precious money and quite possibly lives, should probably be rewarded. But where should these rewards come from? If a law is passed to offer these incentives, are my tax dollars yet again going to support a cause I may believe in but don't wish to pay for? I'm sorry. I just never thought of hospitals as a struggling industry. If government awarded subsidies to hospitals for doing the public a service, are they then allowed to overstep their boundaries and micromanage labors from above?

These issues are kinda scary to me. A money machine tries to do something ethical, that could very well lose itself dollars, and they lose more business because the people want what the people want. It'll be the day that something awful (and likely preventable) happens to a baby during a voluntary early induction that the same mother who supports convenience over safety wishes to sue the hospital for damages. In that case, she will come crying to the justice system to take her defense and make right (financially, anyway) her and the doctor's wrong. Then you have unhappy baby, unhappy mommy, unhappy doctors, unhappy hospital. Were I a lawmaker right now, I'd figure out a way to keep all hospitals doing the right thing, and all women trying to follow suit.

If widely available education and the admonishing of professional medical associations against unnecessary induced labor doesn't help these women chose wisely, what will? An Early Birth Tax? I'm not opposed.

Supporting the Whistle Blower

In Mary Shaw's "Smirking Chimp" submission Tuesday, July 27th titled "With Wikileaks, they want to shoot the messenger", she states that the recently leaked military information was not so secret anyway, and that Obama needs to use this opportunity to keep his promise of a more transparent government. She backs these claims with a link to an NBC News investigative report, that finds no real smoking gun or threat to our national security or the safety of our troops within the leaked documents. She also adds a summarized excerpt from the UK's The Guardian of the details revealed within the infamous leak. In contrast, she does add that U.S. National Security Advisor General James Jones released a public statement claiming the dangers of the now public information on the 6 year war in Afghanistan.

Her audience is easily the American citizenry as a whole, yet she rallies more towards those Democrats who believe in Obama (and possibly even voted for him) but have yet to be satisfied with his performance. As this is her personal stance, she finishes that hiding the truth about war's costs and casualties will not undo the damage we've caused overseas.

I do believe her opinions to be valid, quite simple, and to the point. She states her knowledge easily, and backs up her facts with several bona fide links. She even goes as far as posting the link to the White House's web page which contains a very official and convincing-looking argument against the rest of her own post. This only further shows the reader that she is convinced that the information "leak" was hardly blowing the cover off of unknown troubles overseas. She helps to convince us that, although war is ugly and the numbers and individual failed attacks are hard to hear, this is just the facts; "everyday war stuff" that, if we are expected to support and fund, we have the right to hear about. Kind of like a "Okay, Mr. President: We know more than we wanted to know...Now how the heck are you gunna fix it?"

She brings up another good point about how governing bodies need to think before they speak as well, especially when making official statements that could scare the general public. We hear "security breach" or "classified info leak" and we already start to think the worst. It doesn't help that the U.S. Advisor of National Security's response to it is "Oh, Boy. This could be bad!" This appears, as in the Shirley Sherrod case she refers to, to be a government "finger pointing" type of tactic to remove negative attention from itself in the light of a public failure. A knee-jerk reaction to a highly publicized issue indeed. Their hope, I think me and Mary Shaw both feel, is to pretend like they're taking action against the wrong-doer (Sherrod or the founder of Wikileaks, Julian Assange) in an attempt to placate the American people's feelings about who is causing the real injustice.

Meanwhile, we can only hope, they are rushing to take the proper steps toward cleaning their now-public dirty laundry, and not just pushing it under the bed.

Immigration Law "Reform"?

The Editorial Board for the Austin American Statesman laid out a good point in its July 15th article, "We Should Make a Federal Case Over Immigration." I have to say, I learned a lot from the opinions expressed herein, and couldn't agree more. Essentially, they are speaking to all Americans in the piece, but border states that feel the effects of illegal immigrants are especially targeted. The AAS Board states that our (America's) general feeling of Obama's opposition to Arizona's self-mandated law is a negative one. Obama wants to see to it that there is a universal, fair, and just way to collect from and penalize immigrants to the US; a heavy issue already, recently complicated by Arizona's new law to check suspicious character's "papers". Meanwhile, Americans favor by a 17 point margin leaving the matter to the individual state.

If Arizona gets to make it's own laws about how to deal with illegal-looking characters, things can and will easily get out of hand. Brownish, yellowish, reddish, or funny-sounding people the states over would almost assuredly be unfairly profiled, and that is exactly what the Obama administration is trying to avoid. Imagine every border town and state in a state of siege. It can not likely be easy to identify each of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants living free in the US already, and it will not get any easier if they are sent into further hiding their identity, forging papers, or worse, creating strongly knit gangs (or modern day factions).

We have to face it, people who face discrimination have tendencies to revolt. I'm not saying Mexicans and Haitians and Canadians all form gangs, but they do usually keep close packs once they arrive, and we need to recognize them as a threat if they are to be rounded up and mistreated by some zealous state troopers on the border (and you know there's no shortage of those).

I was most pleased to hear that Obama has indeed identified the problem that currently faces Americans due to declining federal interest and funds at the nation's borders. In all honesty, I believe that this should be the land of the free, but Nothing here comes free to Americans, so why should it come free to foreigners? I have to admit, in my 10 plus years as a server/bartender/valet, you name it in the hospitality industry, I have befriended, met or known of 100s of illegals, usually hard-working, and just lucky to be out of dreary Mexico border towns. They typically reside in cramped apartments for years, and send much needed money back home as they can. Its actually heart-warming, a single, displaced man risking All just to provide for a family he cannot see, and may honestly never see again unless they make the cross too.

That said, before 2008, I never thought about how many resources they abuse, and jobs they take from honest Americans. If there was an abundance in jobs needing workers here, I would say "Welcome, Todos!" But it's just not the case anymore, and so I can see why states are feeling the need to create there own means of protecting their jobs, funds, educational institutions, and yes, even our national language.

I am a Mexican American. As of 3 generations ago, I couldn't call myself American. I love my heritage, and enjoy studying my language (I was not raised to speak Spanish). However, I believe my predecessors had to do it the hard, or "honest" way. Marrying in, becoming citizens, paying taxes, then working hard and contributing to our great nation's diversity. I wish, especially considering how troubled Mexico has become in recent drug-war-ridden years, that each and every immigrant to the states could have an opportunity to make it here, and prosper as the Rodriguez' and Gonzalez' have. But, I think they need to wait it line, pay the toll, and then do it right, especially if they don't wish to be profiled everywhere they go.

It doesn't seem fair for refugees to be constantly on the run and afraid of their new governmental system; but it is only fair that they adhere to all of America's rules when they arrive. We will be a stronger integrated nation of immigrants if the federal courts rule on stricter border control and standardized means for citizenship.

The 100K waiter? In what world?

So, BP saved the Gulf, and Obama swept up Wall Street this week. And all I'm concerned with is server wages? Not really. I love the Gulf of Mexico; I grew up vacationing on Galveston Island. But I am still trying to grasp why I should care about Big Finance when the last thing I invested in was an $80 pair of shoes (that I saved up for over a year to buy). Lemme tell ya, the only thing poorer than a service industry worker is an out of work one. So it struck me as important to lend proof that old, rich, white America is out of touch with its struggling youth.

When Minnesota GOP* hopeful Tom Emmer said in a press meeting last week that "some (servers are) earning over $100,000 a year," you can bet your crappy tips that the servers came out in droves, and they weren't smiling. I served and bar tended in San Antonio and Austin for about 6 years, 3 of those years as a middle manager, and probably just cracked that figure.

Now, I tried to study up and become a "wages and taxation" buff by midnite tonight, but nothing doing. Instead, I will learn through continued reading of the subject at hand. And, as are so popularly played upon in forums, posting questions to you, the readers, and welcoming back any and all responses via comments. I am directly affected (or at least I will be once I regain employment) by our state's rate of pay for tip-based positions; Are you?

*Learn Politics: What Does "GOP" Stand For?

Some Questions For Discussion:

ARE YOU FOR RAISING ALLOWANCES FOR PEOPLE WHOSE INCOME IS HIGHLY SENSITIVE TO ECONOMIC DOWNTURN, AND NOT STEADILY GUARANTEED?

HOW DO WE KEEP SERVERS HEALTHY, HAPPY, AND MEDICATED IF THEY DON'T RECEIVE BENEFITS AFTER SEVERAL YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT?

WILL THE NEW HEALTH CARE BILL AND MANDATORY REGULATIONS BURDEN OR SAVE PART TIME SERVERS?

IS IT UNFAIR TO RESTAURANT OWNERS/MANAGERS THAT THEY ARE MAKING MORE HOURLY, AND THEREFOR PAYING OUT MORE TAXES THAN SERVERS?

FINALLY, TOM EMMER SEEMS OUT OF TOUCH, SURE, BUT DIDN'T HE JUST KIND OF MISSPEAK? I MEAN, YES, HIS HEAD IS A BIT UP HIS REPUBLICAN ASS, BUT AREN'T WE ALL A LITTLE OUT OF TOUCH ON POLICIES THAT DON'T EFFECT US?

I actually thought it was respectable that he retracted his faulty statement, flipped his opinion, and went to work at a restaurant for a day when he was confronted by angry servers. Sure, you could look at it as a mere attempt to save his ass, but it's nice to know that he listened to the people. And that a couple of hard-working, forgotten servers made a difference. I know I would never readily part with 2010 pennies if it wasn't going to feed me or my dogs.

"Change is good" or "Not as Stubborn as I Sound"

I realized 3 things after I first blogged:

1. That I meant to call my Blog Links "Blogs of Interest" and not "Favorite Blogs," because in all honesty, I don't know enough of their content to side with them wholeheartedly (I know, just a pseudonym for my political views all together). I only picked them because I've run across them or heard of them before. My News Sources on the other hand are my genuine sources of current events. I think Reuters tops them for speed, clarity, and unbiased reporting. Just my opinion.

2. That I probably sound a lot dumber and more bull-headed than I am, as if "I just don't care what happens to us." Believe me, I was offended by how "ignorant" the supplementary reading says we are, I just don't yet have the answers as to who I should support and why. I am always up for enlightenment.

3. That I didn't include insight as to why I'm taking the class, aside from it being a necessity. I do love to learn about things around me, and be better prepared for whatever obstacle may come my way. But some things are far more interesting when observed from afar. To me, politics has always fascinated me, but to such a soap-operaesque point, that I always feel it is unnecessarily dramatic, and I am out of the loop because I haven't been following it from the beginning. Kinda like I came into a losing baseball game too late, and now I feel I could never contribute enough to make a difference and bring my team out from behind in the last inning.

I know that sounds dismal, but I also know I can't be alone in this perspective. I bet several "younger" folks just don't like to get involved because they fear they can't change things, not because they don't want to. So, during this shortest of semesters, I would hope to learn a new way of thinking that my opinion does matter, and that I can make a difference. And maybe have a little more faith that somebody up there, in their lofty position of power is doing something right.