Fatties eatin' cake!

I just read one of my classmates blogs on childhood obesity called A Healthy Choice. I do have to say I agree with her completely. I do think that Congress should pass the Child Nutrition Act because just through my experiences in my K-12 years, me and many others probably lived off of vending machines. Just the smell of the crap coming from the cafeteria was enough to make me want to vomit, and so I went straight to the machines. So if schools were to take out vending machines and offer healthier foods that also tasted decent enough to nourish children's bellies, I really do think that it would cut down on this childhood obesity epidemic. I have a son who loves to eat, so I can just imagine him seeing those yummy potato chips and thinking, "MMMMmmmm!" He's already on the higher side of his percentile in weight and I have done better with offering him healthier options at home. I would most definitely like to see it continue on while he is at school because it would defeat the purpose if they just feed him crap at school. Yes, most schools have replaced vending machines with water and Gatorade or just removed them completely, but I know the elementary school my niece goes to, they have separate stands set up so the kids can buy junk food after they have eaten their lunch. This also defeats the purpose of removing or replacing the vending machines. 

All in all, I agree with my classmate.  I think they should get rid of junk food all together. I don't know what I would eat but at least I'll know my son and everyone's kids would be healthier, which would mean less trips to the doctor. Although healthy foods are more expensive, I think everyone would save in the long run because of medical bills they won't have.

Keep the Murdering Bastards Alive?!?!

So there was a bill that was introduced to the 111th  U.S. Congress on March 19, 2009 called S.650:  Federal Death Penalty Abolition Act of 2009, sponsored by Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI).  It basically states that this act would repeal death penalty provisions for a wide range of homicide-related offenses under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the federal criminal code, the Controlled Substances Act, and other statutes relating to aircraft hijacking, espionage and treason, and offenses punished under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It would also prohibit the sentencing to death or execution of any person for any violation of federal law after the enactment of this Act and commutes death penalties imposed prior to the enactment of this Act to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

Luckily as far as I know and how it appears, this bill has been abandoned in the Committee. 

I say luckily because as far as the death penalty stands, even though I do see the pros and cons to the death penalty, if I had to choose whether I was for it or not, I would most definitely say, yes I am. I am ALL FOR IT! Now I know two wrongs don't make a right, but having the opportunity to witness a capital murder trial, I saw the toll it took on everyone involved (including the courtroom work group), whether it was a losing or benefiting outcome.

Say this bill were to pass, what then? Hmm, let's see. These killing fools stay in prison until they are old and croak anyway and in the meantime, taxpayers pay to house them and that includes giving them three meals a day, a bed, air conditioning, recreational activities, jobs, and a place where they are living and breathing just fine, all while everyone that the prisoner's crime affected mourns and lives with the pain and thoughts of their loved one(s) dying a brutal death. Now how does this sound fair? If it were up to me, I say torture them the way they did their victim(s) until they beg for mercy and then kill them the way they killed their victim(s), but since the Constitution protects the criminals, I'll just have to deal with lethal injection, although in a couple states they still use the firing squad which is close to pleasing me, but who cares what little ol' me thinks.  I'm just glad I live in Texas with the old, conservative, and 2nd Amendment lovin' geezers who love the death penalty.

Convicted criminals have all these protections granted to them in the Constitution such as protections from cruel and unusual punishment and It just doesn't make sense to me. The killers weren't thinking of that when they were killing people. I bet that if something horrid happened to a member of these congressmen's family, they would have a different opinion on the death penalty. Yes, the downside is the killers would die a "somewhat peaceful" death, but at least they're not breathing the same air and using up taxpayers money.  I would think it cost more to keep them alive than to just be done with it and put them down. Now we just have to work on moving their death dates along!

Hell No?

Robert L. Borosage posted a blog on the Huffington Post with the title of "Will Americans Reward the Party of Hell No?" As far as his credibility goes, he has a pretty lengthy background in politics and law. He is a graduate of Yale Law school and his biography also states that he is the president of the Institute for America’s Future and co-director of its sister organization, the Campaign for America’s Future. The organizations were launched by 100 prominent Americans to challenge the rightward drift in US politics, and to develop the policies, message and issue campaigns to help forge an enduring majority for progressive change in America.

Now I believe article in the Huffington Post that I am referring to is kind of hard for me to determine who exactly he is trying to target as an audience but if I had to guess, it would probably be the people who lean left. He states that, "if Democrats focus on creating jobs while pushing to curb the financial casino and protect consumers from abuses of credit card companies, payday lenders and mortgage brokers -- and Republicans continue their obstruction -- voters might just decide the election is a choice: between those struggling for change and those standing with the entrenched interests against it." He also states that, "If the jobs don't come back and Democrats decide its easier to cater to the banking lobby than to buck it, then, despite the historic achievement on health care, the Republican strategy of "hell no" might just work."  I think that I mostly agree with him.

Finally! Women in uniform get a little something...

So there has always been this controversy over the whole abortion issue, even more in the military. According to an editorial in The New York Times, the Pentagon began to make the morning-after emergency contraception pill available at military bases around the world. I think that this decision is well overdue, especially since the war has started. While Bush was still in office, they blocked a similar recommendation because all those Pro-life people think of this pill as a form of abortion. I personally am Pro-choice and do not think that this pill is a form of abortion. I agree with the author of this editorial when they say, "It is outrageous that politics is allowed to interfere with the health care decisions of women who wear the nation's uniform." I think that all these politicians need to stay out of the lives of the women who serve in the military. While most of the politicians are off receiving fellatio from a hooker in a hotel room, there are some women overseas serving their country and getting raped and knocked up while they're at it. Yes, currently the women are allowed to receive abortions in these cases and some others, but the women must pay for it and an abortion is not cheap. Not to mention the gossip that may get started. The decision to get an abortion is hard enough, so they really need other people humiliating them more? So now that the FDA approved the over-the-counter sale of this pill, I think that this is a more discrete and much cheaper way to prevent a pregnancy and an easier decision to live with. Where an abortion aborts the pregnancy, this morning-after pill, same as birth control, PREVENTS pregnancy and along with the author, I agree with this decision to be made.

Who's to blame for the economy? Bush or Obama?

So who is to blame for the way things are going for the U.S. economy now? I honestly couldn't tell you but according to a few surveys that were in an article on CNN's website, people are leaning towards George W. Bush. Now I am no expert in government and/or politics by any means, but I do believe the economy was crashing while he (Bush) was still in office. I am not a fan of either president, nor do I not, not like them. I am just simply stating what I see from my view and that is that, yea, Bush got us into a bit of a pickle but Obama being the new president, should be there to clean up the mess somewhat and get to that "Change" he was pressing so hard for during his campaign, not run us in the ground by bailing out all these banks and whatnot. That's a story for another day. I just need to get educated on it a bit more before I start rambling. I think this article is worth reading because it kind of gives you an idea of where people kind of stand. The comment section is rather more interesting than the article itself because you can see the difference of opinions from one person to the next. To me, that is interesting and quite funny as well. Enjoy.