Response to, Equality but not really

I valued Kristen’s article, Equality but not really. She addressed many of the arguments that people use when they oppose gay rights. In response to the paragraph that starts, “Homosexuality is against God's word”. I think most religious people are hypocritical. I doubt there are very many if any people that oppose gay marriage and are free from sin. While looking through articles for my last project I found this one. It says, “The Journal of Economic Perspectives found that subscriptions to online pornography sites are more prevalent in states where surveys indicate conservative positions on religion, gender roles, and sexuality.” They preach sex is supposed to be something sacred between a man and his wife but that’s not what they’re practicing.
She also addressed the argument that same sex marriage is destroying the sanctity of marriage. I feel she made a very good point when she talked about how interracial marriage was once illegal. I love how she quoted the judge as saying, “Their relationship is essentially different from that of man and wife joined in wedlock.” When I read that I thought the judge was talking about a same sex couple. It shows how our views have evolved over the years and I feel that hopefully someday we will stop discriminating against same sex couples.
I think it’s funny that those who oppose gay marriage say it will destroy the strong family system. When same sex couples are raising our children because of how irresponsible straight people are, shouldn’t these children have the same protections that children have in a straight couple’s family.

Check the Box Rules

President Barack Obama recently proposed to withdraw a rule that allows corporations, which have subsidiaries outside of the country, to avoid paying taxes on income. The check the box rules were created by former President Bill Clinton’s administration and written into law by congress after Clinton tried to have it withdrawn. The check the box rules were intended to help American corporations reduce paperwork. Since the rules went into effect companies have used them as a loop hole to hide income in tax havens overseas. Obama’s overhaul of the tax policy could help raise an extra $210 billion dollars in tax revenues for the government in the next ten years.
Opponents of the proposal say this will be really hard on corporations that already have to pay a high tax rate compared to countries like Ireland were corporations are flourishing. The say that if corporations had a lower tax rate companies would be more likely to move to the U.S and bring jobs to Americans and keep their income in the U.S. They also say if corporations have to pay these taxes it will give them an unfair disadvantage in the global marketplace. All of this may be true but it is not faire that corporations residing only in the U.S. should have to pay more taxes then companies that are sending jobs overseas. If it will help our economy to have lower taxes for corporations then we should lower taxes, but I don’t think companies should have the ability to weasel around paying their income taxes.

Response to, Where's my money, man?

I agree with you. I like how you pointed out how much money could have gone to each American household if it were given to the taxpayers instead of corporations. I think it’s funny how rich people complain about redistribution of wealth to the needy. The government just redistributed our money to the rich. In 2007, the median annual household income was $50,233.00 according to the Census Bureau. That means that most Americans don’t make $80,000.00 in a year. If people lost their jobs because these corporations closed they would have $80,000.00 to live on until they found another income. New companies with more responsible people could have taken the place of the failed corporations. People could have used the money to help keep their homes.

No marriage should be recognized by the Government

Our president was right when he said, “we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation”. We are a country of many religions and people without any religion. The first amendment in the bill of rights states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” Which means they shall make no law that is based on one groups religious beliefs. Christians argue that they own the word marriage and that they are protecting the sanctity of marriage. If marriage is a religious institution the Government should stay out of it. Therefore, I think that the Government should not recognize any marriage. Instead they should recognize the union of a couple to share property, responsibility, and rights granted to, what we now call, married couples. They should grant these rights to any consenting adult couple and call it anything but marriage. Couples could then have a ceremony recognized by their religion or customs. This way everyone will have equal rights, there will be a separation between church and state and marriage will be a personal commitment.
Even though this sounds like a good compromise, I think that this will not resolve the argument. That is because I don’t believe this argument is about the sanctity of a word. I believe it is about one group of people forcing there religious views on the rest of us, in order to deny another group of people from having equal rights. That is exactly what the first part of the first amendment is trying to protect us from.

Stem cell research

I have always found peoples arguments about stem cell research confusing and since President Obama just lifted limits on stem cell research I decided to make it the topic of my next blog entree. I found this article by Maggie Fox a Health and Science Correspondent for Reuters. She has been with Reuters for 16 years. Before that she was a correspondent in Hong Kong for U.S.
Most of the stem cell lines used are taken from embryos created during the process of in vitro fertilization. These embryos will either be frozen or destroyed if they are not used. Maggie Fox quotes Oklahoma politician Mike Reynolds as saying, “"I believe the federal government has infringed on several states' rights. The right to protect lives is one." What I find confusing is why he is attacking stem cell research and not in vitro fertilization. If he considers the embryos as living people isn’t it worse to keep them frozen or destroy them for no reason. Why is it morally wrong to use these embryos to help people but its ok to create them choose the ones you want to use and throw the rest away. One thing I always find missing in articles about stem cell research is how people that are ok with in vitro fertilization feel about stem cell research.
Maggie Fox says, “While most embryonic stem cell lines are now made from unused embryos from fertility clinics, there are some fears the NIH may allow or even encourage the use of cloning technology to make embryos as a source of cells.” She latter states, “The Georgia state senate passed a bill last week outlawing the use of cloning technology to make a human embryo, and the bill specifically notes that stem cells from other sources, including stem-like cells called iPS cells, are not affected.” With laws in place to stop the cloning of human embryos this is not really an argument.

Who should the Government help out?

One of the biggest topics that people are discussing right now is the stimulus plan. Who should the Government help out? I find it funny that so many people are complaining about the Government helping people to keep their homes when they should be more upset about them pouring more of our money into bailing out Wall Street bankers. While reading articles I came across this one. Read. It’s by Maureen Dowd a columnist on The New York Times Op-Ed page since 1995 and winner of the 1999 Pulitzer Prize for distinguished commentary.
It’s hard to believe that we are giving Wall Street bankers more money after they have shown that they don’t know how to manage it. In her column Maureen Dowd reveals some of the irresponsible ways that they used the money from the first bailout. For example, when A.I.G. executives were caught taking an expensive retreat right after receiving money from the Government.
Maureen quotes Rudy Giuliani defending the bonuses, “telling CNN that cutting them would mean less spending in restaurants and stores.” Then she says, “Even without bonuses, these gazillionaires can still eat out.” I completely agree with her. It’s not like they aren’t going to still be living well without the bonuses. They shouldn’t have used our money to give out ridiculous bonuses. Shouldn’t companies give bonuses for a job well done, not for running a company into the ground?
I think Maureen Dowd is trying to speak to an audience that may be resentful towards these companies that are mismanaging our money. It’s kind of like trying to help out a drug addict by giving them rent money and being disappointed by them when they use it to buy more drugs and then being stupid enough to give them more money. They haven’t changed any of the habits that got them in trouble in the first place.

Should abortion be illegal?

One of the arguments that pro choice supporters make is that a woman should have the right to abort an unwanted baby because, “it’s there body”. This is just ridiculous. No one has the right to do whatever they want with their body. For example, you can’t have unprotected sex with people when you have tested positive for aids. Even though, “it’s you body”, you are putting someone else at risk of contracting aids. We don’t even have the right to end our own life, why do we think we should have the right to end a life just because it’s in our body? Some people say that a young person should not have to raise a child and ruin their chances at a decent future if they accidentally get pregnant. There is the option of adoption and if you accidentally get pregnant you should have to take some of the responsibility. If you accidentally hit someone with your car you are still held accountable.

There are people that think a teenager should be able to get an abortion without their parent’s knowledge. Any teenage girl would rather do anything then tell their parents that they are pregnant. How are you supposed to parent your child when you don’t have the right to know what is going on in their life. I hear all the time that women have emotional and physical consequences from abortions and the thought of having a teenage girl go through this alone is horrible. There is also the argument that it’s for the teen’s protection. They may not be able to go to their parents because they are afraid that their parents will act out violently or it could be a case of incest. I think if they can just go get an abortion then these problems that should be addressed will just be swept under the rug.

Then there is the argument that if abortion is illegal then women will seek out unlicensed doctors or abandoned their baby’s. Women still abandon their baby’s and there are still issues with licensed doctors. Please read attached article. While this article seems absolutely horrible and I am sure this sort of thing doesn’t happen all the time, one thing that made me stop for a second is when the article said, "She came face to face with a human being," Pennekamp said. "And that changed everything." The reason this article reads so ghoulish is because they threw away a baby that had been born alive. A minute earlier it would have been perfectly ok to kill and throw away the same baby.

https://acconline.austincc.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_id=_2_1&url=%2fwebapps%2fblackboard%2fexecute%2flauncher%3ftype%3dCourse%26id%3d_9472_1%26url%3d