Stand Up and Speak Out

Stand Up and Speak Out Has MOVED!

2006-07-16T15:55:00.000-07:00

I apologize for the lack of posts recently. I have been working on moving Stand Up and Speak Out to my own website. The new website at www.standupandspeakoutblog.com.

This site change is mostly because I was unhappy with the Blogger platform. I originally chose to use Blogger because it seemed to the easiest, but I soon discovered that there were many things that I could not do in Blogger. For example, I was unable to change most of my Blogger profile. Other factors included Blogger’s server repeatedly going down, and the lack of tools that I wanted to use on my blog. For instance, I liked the idea of having categories, but Blogger doesn’t easily allow that. So, I began researching other blogging software, and stumbled across a free one called Wordpress. With Wordpress, the options are unlimited. It is Open Source, which means that people all over the world are working on it. I used Wordpress when I made the American Conservative Youth Union, and it worked fantastically.

For Blogger users who plan to expand their site, I would strongly recommend buying a domain name (websites are surprisingly cheap) and installing the Wordpress software. For those of you who are just starting a blog, or may not be interested in anything that isn’t free, you can get a hosted blog using Wordpress at Wordpress.com.

Anyways, please check out my new blog. I plan to keep my old blog as is for a few days, then I will close the comments and redirect anyone who enters to the corresponding page at my new blog.

Feedback is greatly appreciated!

Assisted Suicide Bill Defeated

2006-06-27T21:47:00.000-07:00

Today, a bill intended to legalize physician assisted suicide was defeated in the Senate Judiciary Committee. From what I can gather, the proponents of this bill fully expected it to be approved. This would probably have been the case, if not for the surprise negative vote of Democratic senator Joe Dunn.

For more information, you can read The Mercury News story, or read California High School Conservative's indepth account.

"Can I Live"

2006-06-11T22:10:00.000-07:00

I recently came across the song "Can I live" by Nick Cannon, who is a relatively well-known rapper, comedian, music producer, and actor.

His song, "Can I live", tells the story of how his mother was going to abort him, but changed her mind.

Click here to view the music video in a pop-up screen.

I have to admit, I actually started crying when I saw this, both times too. ;)

Here are some of the lyrics near the end of the song:

I am a child of the king
Ain't no need to go fear me
And I see the flowing tears so know that you hear me
When I move in your womb that's me being scary
Cause who knows what my future holds
Yo the truth be told you ain't told a soul
Yo you ain't even showing I'm just 2 months old
Through your clothes try to hide me deny me
Went up 3 sizes
Your pride got you lying saying ain't nothing but a migraine
It ain't surprising you not trying to be in Wic food lines
Your friends will look at you funny but look at you mommy
That's a life inside you look at your tummy
What is becoming ma I am Oprah bound
You can tell he's a star from the Ultrasound
Our Spirits Connected Doors Open Now
Nothing But Love And Respect Thanks For Holding Me Down She Let Me Live...

[Chorus]
I'll Always Be a part of you
Trust Your Soul Know it's always true
If I Could Talk I'd Say To You
CAN I LIVE
CAN I LIVE
I'll Always Be apart of you
Trust Your Soul Know it's always true
If I Could Talk I'd Say To You
CAN I LIVE
CAN I LIVE
[Repeat 2]

[Nick Talking]

It's uplifting foreal yall
I ain't passing no judgement
Ain't making no decisions
I am just telling ya'll my story
I love life
I love my mother for giving me life
We all need to appreciate life
A strong woman that had to make a sacrifice
Thanks for listening
Thanks for listening
Mama thanks for listening

You can click here for all the lyrics.

Generosity of "Red" states

2006-06-05T22:38:00.000-07:00

Since I have been interacting recently with bloggers of diverse political beliefs and ideologies, I thought this would be of interest.

"the Catalogue For Philanthropy recently released their 2004 Generosity Index with some rather stunning findings. What this directory of non-profit organizations does every year is compare the average adjusted gross income of each state to the average itemized charitable deduction, and derive a ranking based upon the differences in these statistics.

According to their calculations, for the eighth year in a row, Mississippi is the most generous state in our nation, followed by Arkansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Alabama -- all red states that Mr. Bush won by an average margin of 25%. In fact, the top 25 most philanthropic states according to this study all voted for Mr. Bush. This means that all the states that Mr. Kerry won in November fall into the bottom half of charitable contributions as related to income in our nation. Moreover, the worst seven states in this study also all voted for Mr. Kerry, including number 49 (Massachusetts), which Mr. Kerry won by a comfortable 25% margin. "

Coincidence?

Operation Completion

2006-05-21T13:59:00.000-07:00

Last Friday, I attended an Operation Completion rally at the Sacramento capitol with my sister and dad. Operation Completion’s mission is “to provide constructive support for our troops and reinforce the mentality that we need to defend America and to support the War on Terror to Victory.” All of the rallies were planned by teens and youth.

At the rally, my family listened to songs performed by the Right Brothers, who have been promoted by Hugh Hewitt, and who play what they describe as “political, issue-based country music.” The speakers included a man who spoke about his service in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a Californian politician, among others. Also, fellow Western Alliance member Craig DeLuz acted as the MC.

But anyways, Operation Completion will hold a series of rallies all over the country, so please click here to see if there is one near you to support our armed forces and conservative youth.

Reflections on the Day of Silence

2006-05-19T19:44:00.000-07:00

(All right, I realize that this is very late. However, I’ve been working on school projects and finishing up the year, so if you could please just think of it as extra early for next year, I would appreciate it. : ) Also, if you have not yet heard about the Day of Silence in Sacramento high schools, please click here, or scroll down to read my first post on this subject.)

I believe that the reactions to the Day of Silence and following events were based on miscalculations and misunderstandings among all parties involved.

First, let me voice what I believe to be the miscalculations among the anti-gay students and community. They misjudged the reaction to their shirts. As Christians, they are called to love their enemies, but also explain sin when they see it, in order that it won’t happen again. If their intent is for others to change their opinion, and “sin no more”, it was not reached by having the word ‘gay’ with a circle and a line through it. Even though I don’t believe the students to be “gay-haters”, since as Christians they are against the sin, not the sinner, the shirts let people label this effort as such. Thus, every effort should have been made to differentiate between the sin and the sinner, so that people would be able to understand.

A better alternative would be through the Day of Truth. The Day of Truth is a day that presents an alternate, Christian viewpoint. In all fairness, I did see students at Mira Loma wearing Day of Truth shirts while protesting. However, because there can be nothing objectionable about these shirts, those who oppose the Day of Silence need to wear them in school, and attempt to clarify their opinions to those who presuppose and misinterpret them as intolerant.

Secondly, the San Juan School District has misunderstood student rights. These rights are already clearly spelled out under California Educational Code Section 48907. Why a school district would try to create a policy with differing regulations is a mystery to me. It is a direct set-up to a major lawsuit, either now or sometime in the future. It would benefit the school district and students to simply follow the rules that are already laid down. That way, there are no conflicting regulations, and the school district would be much less likely of losing in court.

Thirdly, the pro-gay section is very ignorant of Christianity, as evidenced by their handout (here). Anyone who thinks that the Bible might be possibly against inter-racial marriage or fun on a Saturday needs a refresher course. And, contrary to popular opinion, there is no such commandment as, “Thou shalt not judge”. Jesus’ comment (Judge not, that you may not be judged… Hypocrites, cast out first the beam out of thine eye, and then thou shall see clearly, that thou mayest pull out the straw from they brother's eye.) is clearly against hypocrites, not against thinking that actions are wrong or right (judging). In fact, the Bible frequently encourages speaking out against sin (or in liberal terms, being judgmental): “Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them...” (Eph 5:11).

Fourthly, I think there is a major misunderstanding today in our society. People are simply unable to understand the difference between tolerance and acceptance. Tolerance means simply recognizing and respecting the beliefs and practices of others. Acceptance involves approval. We are not required to approve of everything, but we must tolerate other opinions in the public realm. Thus, one can tolerate gays, but can still say that homosexuality is wrong. Yet, in our society today, if someone disapproves, that person is automatically intolerant or hateful. Now, that is not to say that some people who disapprove are not hateful. However, in this incident, every single person that I interviewed was unable to list any times when they saw a instance of abuse against gays at school. They only spoke of a general disapproval, yet believed that it equaled “intolerance” or “hate”. Thus, strangely enough, because they wanted to exclude an disagreeing opinion that they mistakenly viewed as intolerant, they are actually being intolerant themselves (thus my t-shirt, mentioned in the previous Day of Silence post).

In my opinion, you learn more than math and science in high school, because it is the time period in which a child transitions into an adult. However, that learning cannot be taught- it comes only from experience. If we as a school community do not allow any disapproval or disagreement to be shown, we as students will be unable to deal with it when we do come across it later in life. I know, personally, that everyday that I spend in an environment where 99% of the people are outspokenly liberal, I learn much more about dealing with people than I normally would. Therefore, intellectual diversity is essential to a teenage learning environment.

So, in summary, the California Educational Code Section 48907 makes it very clear that a student has the right to express their opinion in their public high school. This provides an intellectual diversity that is essential to an environment where people learn to be adults.
However, these rights, like any, have certain conditions. In this case, no opinion may be stated that is “obscene, libelous, or slanderous... [or] incites students as to create a clear and present danger of the commission of unlawful acts on school premises or the violation of lawful school regulations, or the substantial disruption of the orderly operation of the school.” Schools need to stick by this to the best of their ability, which will save them from most lawsuits. On the other hand, students need to be aware of these restrictions and do as much as is possible to clarify their intent and message to those who are inclined to misinterpret them. Lastly, our country as a whole needs to recognize there is a difference between acceptance and tolerance. Tolerance is allowing differing beliefs, but acceptance involves agreement. We are required to be tolerant, but we are not required to accept or agree. And, when we are required to agree, that is intolerance towards us by definition.

"'Baby Killer' tells teacher's side in Loretto firing"

2006-05-05T17:01:00.000-07:00

Here's an item of interest:

Anita Creamer: 'Baby Killer' tells teacher's side in Loretto firing
By Anita Creamer -- Bee Columnist

Published 2:15 am PDT Friday, May 5, 2006
Story appeared in Scene section, Page J1

Marie Bain insists she's a private woman, the kind of person who keeps her opinions to herself. But she's also an entertainer.

Which is why, she says, she developed "Baby Killer," a one-woman show based on her experiences last fall being fired from teaching drama at Loretto High School because of her previous tenure as a Planned Parenthood volunteer.

Nothing like a shocking title to jump-start the controversy again. So much for a quiet, private life.

"I come from show business," says Bain. "You need to get people's attention. The title comes from ... what they scream at us at the clinics. Extremists say horrible things to everybody. People don't get that.

"The play is about one year in my life. It's about when and why and how I started volunteering, through my hiring and firing at Loretto. In the play, I sing and dance. It's entertainment. I'm not giving a speech."

On a cool morning, we're sitting in the Sacramento home that belonged to her late parents. The house is filled with Bain's quirky, frog-themed collectibles. Her cat sits at our feet.

Bain, 51, is a dancer and actress who's appeared in "Gilmore Girls" and several low-budget movies. For now, she's teaching cardio kickboxing at American River College. But she'd like to take "Baby Killer" on the road after its brief run (starting Saturday, continuing May 13 and 20) at Sacramento's downtown YWCA.

"This play is about the First Amendment," she says. "It's about how someone has the right to stand on a sidewalk screaming hate speech, but I'm not allowed to express my beliefs before I was even hired.

"I said nothing to anybody at Loretto - not to the kids, not to anybody - about my beliefs. Nobody knew my beliefs on anything because I kept my personal beliefs private. But I was fired, and it became a media event."

Hired Aug. 24, Bain was dismissed seven weeks later, after a student's mother - an anti-abortion activist who'd seen Bain escorting clients at a family-planning clinic months earlier - raised objections, first with Loretto administrators, then with the local diocese.

Bishop William K. Weigand ordered Bain fired, and Loretto's president complied. Subsequently, school administrators expelled the student from Loretto, and her family was banned from campus.

All in all, a mess. A public relations disaster for Loretto, certainly, but also a very public nightmare for a self-proclaimed private person.

Imagine, if you will, how weird it is for a private citizen to find herself the subject of strangers' vitriol, expressed in letters to the editor, on radio call-in shows and all over the Internet.

"I've never dealt with anything like this," Bain says. "The level of hate out there is surprising and shocking and disturbing."

After she sued Loretto, she received an undisclosed settlement.

But for a while, the debate continued. For some reason, it came as a surprise to a vast number of local parishioners that non-Catholics teach at Catholic schools - and that a well-regarded private Catholic high school such as Loretto prides itself on the tolerance and open-mindedness it instills in its students.

Strangest of all, decades after the passage of federal employment legislation, people also seemed surprised to learn that employers are barred by law from asking job candidates about their personal lives and religious and political beliefs.

On the other side, many people - including Bain herself - were surprised to learn that many Catholics are progressive rather than conservative.

"Since I was fired, I've run into a couple of my students' parents," she says. "They come up and say, 'We're so sorry.' "

It's the strictly conservative strain of Catholicism, of course, that's helped fuel the unfortunate rise of knee-jerk Catholic-bashing, which seems rampant in American society.

"Baby Killer," the title of Bain's play, seems to pander to the Catholic bashers among us.

"You can't not court controversy on this topic," she says.

Granted. Writing about anything related to abortion is like walking through a minefield: Danger lies in every direction.

In a sense, the extremists have already won the debate: They've polarized the nation. And they've largely shut the rest of us up, because we know quite well the toxicity that will spew in our direction if we don't agree word for word with their views.

And so the fringe rules, despite the fact that for decades polls have shown that Americans support reasonable access to abortion rights.

If nothing else, then, let's give Bain an A-plus for bravery.

"My story is bizarre," she says. "That's why this is entertainment. I have a play to put on, because I have a very weird life."

Mira Loma High School and the Day of Silence

2006-04-29T14:06:00.000-07:00

Some of you may have heard about the Day of Silence and the related events at Mira Loma High School here in Sacramento, CA. As a student there, I wanted to share the information I have gathered, and then, in a separate post, explain my opinion. In this post, I have tried to be as accurate and unbiased as possible, but if I have faltered in achieving either, please leave a comment.

The Day of Silence, according to the GLSEN (The Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network), is “an annual opportunity for students to tell their truths about anti-LGBT [Lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and transgender] bullying, violence and harassment.” This Wednesday, April 26, was the Day of Silence at my school, Mira Loma. As I entered school, I saw people wearing shirts like the ones above, or wearing rainbow colors.

Near the beginning of the day, students wearing the “Homosexuality is sin” shirts were told by the Mira Loma administration that they had the choice to either turn their shirts inside out, or accept a suspension for the rest of the day. According to one of my teachers, (see below), some members of the predominantly Eastern European Christian club had told Mira Loma’s administration about their future actions on the Day of Silence before it actually occurred. According to another of my teachers, the school administration had responded by warning the students about the possible consequences. Also, the school administration sent the teachers of Mira Loma an email with the following San Juan District regulation: “Clothing and other items worn or carried by students, including buttons and backpacks, may not: denigrate any group...”

Throughout the day, there was some discussion in my classes. One teacher called the “Homosexuality is sin” t-shirts “hateful”. A student in my English class stated that she felt like she wanted to throw tomatoes at those against the Day of Silence. However, nothing much happened (that I am aware of, at least) until the end of school.

After the bell rang, many students and faculty went to the front of the school, finding a line of protestors on the opposite side of the street whom I will call “anti-gay”; and a group on the school side, whom I will call “pro-gay”. (These labels may not be perfectly accurate, but they are as accurate as I can get without using a paragraph every time I try to reference each side.) (Note: Pictures were taken on Thursday, the day after the Day of Silence, where the same scenario was repeated.) The anti-gay group had posters such as, “One Nation Under God” and “School Bans Free Speech.” The pro-gay side had signs such as, “Gay is Okay” and “Thou shall not judge.” There was also an anti-gay van that had many signs on it, one being a picture of a male gay couple kissing with a circle and line through it, another saying “Stop the Insanity”, and more mentioning things like “Sodom and Gomorrah”. I overheard someone next to me in the pro-gay section who was looking at the signs on the van say, “Look! They forgot the ‘y’ in sodomy.” Now, on the actual Day of Silence (Wednesday), I simply observed both sides. But, on the next day (Thursday), with the same scenario continuing, outside and within school, I decided that I needed to start to interview and photograph.

The first girl I interviewed on Thursday (while still in class at this point) told me that she had participated in the Day of Silence because she had had friends that were targeted. When asked if she could share examples of incidences, she replied that she didn’t have any specific incidences, but just that there was a general hatred because gays were not accepted. She described the protesting as “hurtful” and said it was “targeting groups.” “They should be able to do it respectfully. Gays shouldn’t be treated any different than anyone else. They should be able to get married, and it’s their business what they do in bed.” When I asked if she would do anything differently if she were in the place of the school administration, she mentioned that she thought the school administration was handling things “really well”. Now, earlier, in this same class, our substitute teacher had given a student time to talk about the Stop the Hate day, which would occur on Friday. “If you disagree with what’s going on out there,” declared the student, gesturing towards the window, “then wear a t-shirt with Stop the Hate on it. You can even make it yourself.”

After school, I went out to the front of the school, just like the day before. There, I asked a nearby teacher if she thought it was all right for me to interview people for an article on my website. “On the opposite side of the street?” she asked. “Both sides,” I said. “Just be careful,” she answered. I tried to interview one of the actively protesting (for Day of Silence) students. The girl who volunteered to be interviewed explained that she was upset that those against the Day of Silence would bring in the Bible. She told me of a flyer that had been handed out, and I asked if I could have a copy. (Click here to view the flyer.)

I thought I should at least try to talk to one of the many police officers, but when I did, the officer (understandably) said that he needed to watch what was going on, but that I could call their media number. I also attempted to ask a school administrator if I could interview him, and he agreed. However, when I asked what his personal opinion was on this whole incident, he (in a rather frustrated manner, I thought) said that he was “just an administrator doing my job.” I thought it best to move on.

Thinking that I probably had enough viewpoints from that side of the street, I went to the other. There, I talked with one of the students who had been suspended for refusing to turn his t-shirt inside out. He told me that he had been suspended the day before after telling the principle “I have free speech and I will not remove the shirt.”, but today had stayed out of school to protest. He said that the police had taken away his megaphone, and that he and the others are just expressing their opinions. “The Bible says Adam and Eve,” he told me, “not Adam and Steve.” Another student at Mira Loma stated that there had been “fingers shown to us,” meaning that people had been flipping them off. “We harass, they say, but we are saying our opinion.” She said that they had had objects thrown at them, and that one girl had wrote an essay in a class at Mira Loma that mentioned God, but that the teacher had crossed out every mention. I knew they had attempted to pass out pamphlets, so I asked for one. (Click here to view the pamphlet.)

I went home, thought about what I had heard from both sides, and decided that I needed a t-shirt of my own, stating “Tolerance for all means everyone... even if you disagree.” When I wore it today (Friday) I think some people were unsure of what I meant, but I will explain that in my next post.

So, some people wore “Stop the Hate” shirts on Friday, as I earlier explained. This included some of the teachers. I then interviewed one of my teachers that had been wearing one of the shirts. She said that nothing like this (meaning the opposition) had happened before. Mira Loma had had the Day of Silence three or four times, she explained. “We were surprised.” When asked if she had perceived any discrimination against gays at Mira Loma, my teacher said that she had not noticed “any gay bashing”, but that there had been a gay student who had committed suicide a few years before. “I don’t know if that was from direct or indirect pressure,” she told me. Because she was wearing a “Stop the Hate” t-shirt, I asked (politely) what particularly she perceived to be hateful. She appeared slightly startled, but said that she was against any intolerance, “just like your shirt says.” Also, according to my teacher, the administration was “doing a fairly good job of it.” They had gotten police officers to keep the peace, and had tried to disperse the Day of Silence students on the school side of the sidewalk, she said. We then started talking about the email that the faculty had been sent about San Juan School District’s t-shirt policy, so I inquired as to how she felt the San Juan policy fit with the student expression section of the California Education Code (read here).

"48907. Students of the public schools shall have the right to exercise freedom of speech and of the press including, but not limited to, the use of bulletin boards, the distribution of printed materials or petitions, the wearing of buttons, badges, and other insignia, and the right of expression in official publications, whether or not such publications or other means of expression are supported financially by the school or by use of school facilities, except that expression shall be prohibited which is obscene, libelous, or slanderous. Also prohibited shall be material which so incites students as to create a clear and present danger of the commission of unlawful acts on school premises or the violation of lawful school regulations, or the substantial disruption of the orderly operation of the school."

She replied that the San Juan policy was more restrictive, but that someone “can’t incite problems at school.” The intent behind both is the same, she said.

You can view more pictures here.

As soon as possible, I plan to write a follow-up essay outlining the reasoning for my opinions.

(Linked at Basil's Blog, Cao's Blog, TMH’s Bacon Bits, Third World County, and Jo's Cafe.)

Tolerance and Choice? I think not.

2006-04-22T21:35:00.000-07:00

In two incidents, college pro-life displays were vandalized this month. The first occurred at Northern Kentucky University, when “British literature professor Sally Jacobsen and several of her students destroyed a display of hundreds of crosses pro-life students have put up in the grass outside the student center to talk about the 47 million unborn babies who have been killed via abortion.... Jacobson has admitted encouraging students in her class to engage in the vandalism but would not comment to the media about whether she was involved. However, a reporter from the student newspaper caught the professor on camera ripping up a sign set up next to the crosses... ‘I did, outside of class during the break, invite students to express their freedom of speech rights to destroy the display if they wished to,’ Jacobsen said last week after the incident.” (Photo: Dr. Sally Jacobson tears down main "Cemetery of Innocents" sign displayed by the campus pro-life group)

This is ridiculous. Destroying displays is most definitely not inviting freedom of expression. That is suppressing expression, by using criminal actions!

But this was not the sole incident. Another occurred when pro-life students at Princeton set up a “flag display in front of Frist Campus Center to remember the 347 students that the group estimates are not attending Princeton this year because of abortion... The pink and blue flags the group used to represent the men and women who are not a part of this year's freshman class were destroyed and abortion advocates replaced them with coat hangers, a pro-abortion symbol used to claim women will die form illegal abortions if it is prohibited. The sign in front of the display explaining its significance had been trampled and abortion advocates taped computer printouts over it with the message ‘support smaller class sizes: support abortion’ and ‘347 rusty coat hangers were saved from mangling and mutilation.’”

It should be obvious that destroying displays is not showing tolerance. It should also be obvious that when opposing views are suppressed, there is little choice in what views are heard or can be expressed. So why would groups that supposedly promote tolerance and choice deny both to anyone who disagrees?

Don't Buy Dubai Lies

2006-04-02T22:38:00.000-07:00

Over the past two months, there has been a frenzy of media attention over the takeover of P&O (a London-based company) by Dubai Ports World (a United Arab Emirates company). This was suddenly ended when the company agreed to sell their American operations to an American shipping company.

Both Republican and Democratic politicians have been outspoken in opposition to allowing Dubai Ports World to operate the former P&O terminals. In a poll of 1000 American adults, only 17% agreed with the Dubai Port deal. These 17% are the smart ones.

But let’s compare the opposing arguments with the facts. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said, “I don’t think any foreign government company should be running our ports, managing, leasing, owning, operating.” However, Dubai Ports (DP) World is what is called a terminal operator. This means that DP World would only operate a few terminals in each port. In no way does any company “own” a port. The port operator is responsible for “the area within the port that serves as a loading, unloading, or transfer point for the cargo. This includes storage and repair facilities and management offices.” (U.S. Department of Homeland Security). Furthermore, foreign companies already run nearly all the port terminals on the West Coast and about half of those on the East Coast. For example, Los Angeles alone has port operators from China, Taiwan, Japan, Singapore and Denmark.

Senator Dianne Feinstein asked, “Do we want our national security assets to be sold to foreign powers?” Never mind that U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Coast Guard are responsible for port security. Or that U.S. Customs and Border Protection screens 100% of all cargo before it arrives in the U.S. Or that “the workers handling security in U.S. ports are supplied by longshoremen's unions” (Washington Post, 2/22), meaning that the workers will remain the same no matter who the port operator is.

New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine began, “When Americans expressed concern about turning our ports over to the government of this country...” Governor Corzine should recognize that “Dubai Ports' top executives include two Indians, a Dutchman and several Americans, including a guy who went to the University of Maryland.” (Baltimore Sun, 2/26). These people are hardly terrorist-friendly Arab government executives.

“Why in the world should we let this rogue government control ports in the United States?”, asked Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., Again, no company is “controlling ports”. Yes, two of UAE's 1 million citizens became hijackers in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the terrorists did store money in UAE banks. However, it is also true that the hijackers were allowed to take piloting lessons in our own country. If we rule out every country that at one time unknowingly contained terrorists, we would rule out ourselves.

Another argument is that the UAE recognized the Taliban after they seized the Afghan capital Kabul in 1996. Yet, the UAE completely severed all ties with Afghanistan after the September 11, 2001 attacks. Now, UAE ports host more U.S. Navy ships than any port outside the United States. According to a government fact sheet, “[A] team of U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers is permanently stationed inside Dubai's ports, where they work closely with Dubai Customs to screen containers destined for the United States.” and “cooperation with Dubai officials has been outstanding and a model for other operations.” Also, “The UAE has provided significant monetary and materiel support to the Iraqi government, including a pledge of $215 million in economic and reconstruction assistance.”

So how can our politicians be so illogical, and how can so many people be wrong? The answer is that politicians are taking advantage of our own ignorance in an election year. I mean, somehow, our politicians failed to “protect” us from dangers of the Chinese, Japanese, Danish, British port operators. That they are only against Dubai Port World, now, is absolute proof that this is not a real issue. As I have shown above, having DP World as a port operator would not lessen security in any way. Instead, it would enhance it by strengthening our alliance with the UAE, who in turn are giving us needed resources and information. Our politicians are exploiting our concerns about security, while alienating one of our best allies just because they are Arab. If you don’t believe me, then look it up for yourself. But whatever you do, don’t buy the lies.

Growing Impatience and Unrealistic Expectations for Iraq

2006-03-26T23:19:00.000-08:00

It seems that one of the most currently debated points in politics is whether or not there is civil war in Iraq. To me, this seems to be a useless point. Yes, it is true that there is violence, but it is seemingly chaotic, without a full strategy. But whatever your opinion may be, hopefully everyone can agree that there is violence in Iraq that is best stopped as soon as possible. The question then remains- Will the violence decrease or increase, and what can we do to lower the amount of violence?

Firstly, the way I view the Iraqi people is this: They have just been freed from an oppressive government. It is unrealistic to expect a newly free society to be able to shift into a functional democracy smoothly and quickly. Let’s not forget our own origins. Although we declared our freedom in 1776, we did not have our constitution until 1787 (11 years later). We did not have our first President until 1789 (13 years later). And we also had our problems (Shay’s rebellion, etc.).

So, looking at what has been done in Iraq in such a short amount of time, and considering that we are facing violent groups with absolutely no apparent self-control, morality, or value of life, the progress is amazing. It is completely unwarranted to say that Iraq is hopeless, or that it can only get worse. After all, who are we to say so? Even when we thought our problems had been solved, we had a complete civil war that almost destroyed our country, and killed nearly 700,000 Americans.

But what can be done to discourage this violence? The problem will be solved when all can learn to bring ideas to the table, instead of the rooftops. They need a form of government that will allow all people an equal voice. Basically, they need to learn democracy.

South Dakota and Roe vs. Wade

2006-03-11T17:33:00.000-08:00

South Dakota recently passed a bill outlawing abortion, except when the life of the mother is at stake. Many people may not think that this is the right time for such a law, including some pro-lifers. (Case in point: Going With Your Brain Over Heart by Andy Nevis) However, I disagree. I will examine the possible outcomes and the advantages and disadvantages of such a law, in terms of overturning Roe vs. Wade, the number of abortions, and the average opinion of abortion.

The first outcome is that the issue will be taken to the Supreme Court. As Andy (see above) wrote, "At the present time, there are just not the votes on the court to overturn Roe vs. Wade. At best, it is probably 5 to 4 in affirmation." But if Roe vs. Wade is not overturned then, the issue may come to the Supreme Court again. All that is needed is 4 votes from the justices saying that the issue needs to be addressed.

The second outcome, and the most likely, is having a referendum. "A referendum would require 16,728 signatures. Those petitions would have to be filed within 90 days of the end of the Legislature, which is scheduled for a final veto day on March 20. If sufficient signatures were filed within the time allowed, the law wouldn’t take effect until after the November vote."

So what would these two outcomes mean? First, no matter what the outcome, having a such a law against abortion undermines the legality of the act. I've found that a common response when faced with the truths of abortion is to say, "Well, it's legal, isn't it?" When it is debatable as to whether abortion should be legal, people can no longer allow law to do their thinking for them. And, when people are forced think about abortion, many people become pro-life. When they know when the heart starts beating (21 days after conception), the percentage of abortions done for birth control purposes (about 95%), the number of abortions done in our country every day (4,000), the vast number of un-planned pregnancy resources, and the option of adoption (about 40 couples are still waiting to adopt per every baby put up for adoption), they have no choice but to change their position. When more people become pro-life, there are less abortions.

So as you can see, there really are many advantages to such a law. Therefore, we need to keep pushing the envelope, and keep abortion in the public view. Sooner or later, they will come to their senses.

Liberalism- Ignorance, Rumors, and Lies

2006-03-01T22:07:00.000-08:00

"It is my belief that liberalism, as understood today, is based on ignorance, rumors, and outright lies. But let me explain myself."

Read more at the American Conservative Youth Union. Dissenting opinions welcome.

The American Conservative Youth Union

2006-02-28T20:58:00.000-08:00

You may have noticed that I have not posted in awhile. Well, I have been designing and working with Andy Nevis on a new website called the American Conservative Youth Union, or ACYU.

The ACYU is a blog/website with content written entirely by conservative youth age 13-21. It is just getting started, but already we have over ten contributors waiting to post. So please, support your future conservative leaders, and give the ACYU a read.

If you are a conservative youth yourself, we would love to have you! Please click here to learn more about contributing.

Doctors Refuse to Assist Execution

2006-02-22T13:42:00.000-08:00

From the Times Online:

The execution of a Californian man was postponed at the last minute yesterday after two court-appointed doctors refused to help to administer the lethal injection, a move that reignited America’s death penalty debate.
Michael Morales, who has been on death row since 1983 for the rape and murder of a teenage girl, was scheduled to die at 12.01am. But the execution was suddenly put off after the two anaesthetists withdrew, claiming their involvement would violate their medical oath to preserve life.
The involvement of the doctors, which had been ordered by a judge, was the first such case in the US and stemmed directly from research in The Lancet, the British medical journal, last year. The article, published in April, has shaken up advocates on both sides of the death penalty issue in the US because it suggested that some prisoners executed by lethal injection suffered agonising deaths...

...But rather than stay the execution, the judge gave prison officials two options: bring in the doctors to ensure that Morales was properly anaesthetised, or forgo the paralysing and heart-stopping drugs and kill Morales with a huge dose of barbiturates. The state of California agreed to provide two unidentified anaesthetists.
Just hours before the execution time, everything appeared in order. Despite the fierce opposition to medical participation in executions by the American Society of Anaesthesiologists and the American Medical Association, on the ground that physicians take an oath to preserve life, the two doctors are understood to have volunteered to attend the lethal injection procedure.
Then, shortly before the execution was due to take place, the doctors withdrew. They appear to have become alarmed at the details of the judge’s order, in particular a requirement that they intervene in the event that Morales woke up or appeared to be in pain. “Any such intervention would clearly be medically unethical,” they said.
Morales was again due to be executed early today, this time by a fatal overdose of barbiturates. But the delays and confusion increased hopes among death penalty opponents that both public opinion, and that of the courts, was shifting against the death penalty.

Here's more from The Mercury News:

"the state said it could not find a licensed medical professional to give the lethal injection. Previously, prison employees have inserted the intravenous lines, and then the drugs were added by a machine."

Doctors are violating the Hippocratic oath when they assist in executions. As California Medical Association CEO Jack Lewin, M.D says, "Physicians should be treating people’s illnesses, not participating in their execution. Participation in an execution goes against longstanding principles of professional ethics and is a violation of the Hippocratic Oath: First, Do No Harm.” Therefore, I am glad that the medical community has decided to take a stand. I was surprised to find out that the California Medical Association (CMA) is also opposed to physician assisted suicide.

However, the CMA supports abortion, although this too is against the Hippocratic oath. I suppose getting 2 out of 3 right is better than most. But you would think that they would at least remain consistent.

Bryant Gumble Speaks Out

2006-02-18T09:59:00.000-08:00

In the show "Real Sports", Bryant Gumble ended the program with the following:

"Finally, tonight, the Winter Games. Count me among those who don’t care about them and won’t watch them. In fact, I figure that when Thomas Paine said that “these are the times that try men’s souls,” he must’ve been talking about the start of another Winter Olympics. Because they’re so trying, maybe over the next three weeks we should all try too. Like, try not to be incredulous when someone attempts to link these games to those of the ancient Greeks who never heard of skating or skiing. So try not to laugh when someone says these are the world’s greatest athletes, despite a paucity of blacks that makes the winter games look like a GOP convention. Try not to point out that something’s not really a sport if a pseudo-athlete waits in what’s called a kiss-and-cry area, while some panel of subjective judges decides who won. And try to blot out all logic when announcers and sportswriters pretend to care about the luge, the skeleton, the biathlon and all those other events they don’t understand and totally ignore for all but three weeks every four years. Face it — these Olympics are little more than a marketing plan to fill space and sell time during the dreary days of February. So if only to hasten the arrival of the day they’re done, when we can move on to March Madness — for God’s sake, let the games begin."

Let's see. So he doesn't care to watch the Winter Olympics because there are mostly white competitors?! He does not believe that these are the world's greatest athlete's, just becuase they are white? This comment would absolutely be viewed as racist if the speaker was white and conservative. If you change it to a comparable paragraph, you get this:

"Finally, tonight, the NBA. Count me among those who don't care about them and won't watch them... So try not to laugh when someone says these are the world's greatest athletes, despite a paucity of whites that makes the winter games look like a NAACP convention. "

Can you imagine anyone saying this? They would be out of a job, plain and simple. This shows that racist remarks are politically correct, but only as long as they come from an African American. However, all remarks such as this are racially divisive, and should not be codoned.

Bush's "Outreach"

2006-02-09T22:05:00.000-08:00

On Tuesday, February 7^th, we recognized the passing of Coretta Scott King. Now, I didn’t get to actually see the funeral, but I saw clips of it on the evening news. The theme seemed to be that Bush is attempting to “reach out to blacks.” The news report was very similar to this Washington Post article.

..."President Bush was where he should have been," said Bruce S. Gordon, the new president of the NAACP. "Coretta Scott King is a very important figure in black American history and American history. I thought it was appropriate for the president to be there to honor her."
Bush all but ignored many black civil rights and political leaders during his first four years in office. Instead, he focused on building inroads to African American leaders through the pastors of black evangelical churches and business leaders who were not identified with the traditional civil rights agenda.
Bush became the first president since Herbert Hoover to serve a full term without addressing the NAACP, which many acknowledge as the nation's leading civil rights organization. At the same time, Bush's relations with the Congressional Black Caucus were frosty, contributing to a growing gulf between the administration and black voters...

...While Bush was greeted respectfully at the funeral, the tension between him and some black leaders also was evident. The Rev. Joseph Lowery, former president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, drew a standing ovation when he criticized the war in Iraq, saying, "There were no weapons of mass destruction over there."
"For war, billions more, but no more for the poor," Lowery added as Bush sat behind him on the speaker's platform...

Ok, so let's see if I've got this right. The NAACP is angry because they have not been consulted with. Instead, Bush meets with black pastors and business leaders who are actually reasonable people. Now, these "civil rights leaders" that Bush "ignored" are using Coretta Scott King's own funeral to spread their propaganda. And Bush supposed to listen to these people?

Anyways, another issue (in the news, though not mentioned in the article) was the difference between Clinton and Bush in regards to their "outreach" to blacks. It seemed to be that Clinton had "made the connections" but that Bush was still "struggling". Yet, nowhere did I hear it mentioned that Bush has a more diverse set of top advisers than any president in history, even Clinton. Now why haven't we heard that as much before? The answer is quite simple: Bush doesn't go around doing things such as calling himself the "first black president." (BTW, I just found this little gem.) But, I believe the main difference is not the numbers or statistics, but the attitude. The reason that Bush isn't known for his relations with minorities is because he doesn't chose people based on their race. He chooses them based on how good they are at the job, unlike Clinton.

California High School Exit Exam

2006-02-08T20:49:00.000-08:00

In the past two days, I have been taking the California Exit Exam. On Tuesday, all sophomores (and the juniors and seniors who have not yet passed) took the English portion of the test. It was very, very easy. Most of it was reading a passage and answering questions on it, such as whether the passage is a biography, persuasive essay, or fiction. Earlier today, I took the math portion, which was also very easy. It dealt with fractions, percentages, exponents, and line graphs. Both of these tests were set up so that we took the test in the morning, then had our regular clases afterward.

However, I was wondering how anyone could possibly not pass it and why anyone would be against an exit exam. So I found this opinion article in The Mercury News. The article gives us this student's situation:

Liliana is a senior. She is an English learner. She has a 3.84 GPA and has made the honor roll every year. She passed the math portion of the exit exam on her first try, but she has not been able to pass the English part. Although she has made great strides in her language skills, she will not be given a high school diploma when her class graduates in June. Will California benefit from denying her a diploma, even though she ranks 12th in her class of 413 students?

Now, when I read this, I wonder what in the world the school is teaching (or even if this scenario is factual!). How could it even be possible that someone could be ranked 12th out of their whole class, but not know the difference, in English, between a fictional story and a persuasive essay? Also, how did Liliana fail all 7 opportunities given ? How did Liliana not improve with the "six months of instruction in reading, writing and comprehension in English during the first 24 months of enrollment in the California school system" that she must have completed? The real question here is not whether she will be denied a diploma, but how she managed to have passing grades in the first place.

The article goes on, saying,

"many of the students who are failing the test are being taught by teachers who are not certified to teach the subjects on the exit exam."

Firstly, I have been taught in the past by non-certified teachers. In actuality, the ones that I had are better than other certified teachers, in my opinion. Secondly, this test is so simple that a cashier at Walmart could probably help you.

What many people don't seem to understand is that these tests do actually help students. Simply passing students along is not a help at all. It will cause us to have students who are surprised that they are unprepared for the real world. However, the exit exam identifies those who are ready, and those who are not, as early as their sophomore year. This means that instead of finding out on their first day of work, students have two more years, and seven more tries to get up to par. Thus, if they are not willing to work for their diploma, these students shouldn't get one.

Politically Incorrect Science- "Virtue of Radiation"?

2006-02-02T22:47:00.000-08:00

My dad got "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science" for Christmas. I just read it, and I found it very interesting, so I thought I would start a series of posts on it. One particularly interesting section was on radiation, nuclear power, and hormesis. I will attempt to outline the argument.

Our nation's policies concerning radiation are based on linear theories. These state that either low doses of radiation are harmful or have no effect. However, there is another theory known as hormesis. Hormesis is "any stimulatory or beneficial effect, induced by low doses of an agent, that can not be predicted by the extrapolation of detrimental or lethal effects induced by high doses of the same agent. " This basically means that what is harmful in high doses may be beneficial in small doses.

This theory holds true for things such as alcohol, and caffeine, and is also the theory behind weight-building. According to the book, the biggest difference between these theories is that hormesis is experimentally observed, but the lower sections of the linear theories are simply continuations of the line, in which measurements have not been made, or have been ignored.

There have been studies that have shown that low doses of radiation may protect against cancer by activating cells' natural defense mechanisms. One study of tuberculosis patients who had multiple chest x-rays found that they had fewer cases of breast cancer than would have been expected. In 1997, the Washington Post said, "In Japan, site of the world's only nuclear attacks, radiation victims are outliving their peers... As expected, the people closest to ground zero have died in high numbers of cancers that began in a white hot flash of nuclear radiation. But as one moves further from the blast site, the death rate plunges until it actually dips below the baseline." Another study of 700,000 shipyard workers, including 108,00 who had been exposed to radiation when working with nuclear reactors in Navy vessels, found that the irradiated workers "had 24 percent lower death rates and 25 percent lower cancer mortality than the unexposed workers."

As an interesting side-note, Ralph Nader once said that a pound of plutonium could cause eight billion cancers. In response, Bernard L. Cohen, "an emeritus professor of physics at the University of Pittsburgh offered to eat as much plutonium as Nader would eat of caffeine. " However, no major TV networks were interested.

Using this questionable linear theory as the basis of our policies has had large consequences. It has derailed the switch to nuclear power, and has made us dependent on coal to produce energy, which is much more environmentally harmful.