Why Deny The Right to Adopt?

500,000 is quite large number wouldn't you agree? Did you know that the number 500,000 represents the number of children that are in foster homes across the country? So why would we keep qualified parents from giving some of those 500,000 kids a loving home?

I'm going to make a large assumption at the fact that those who are against gay couples adopting children just aren't well-informed about the "issue", or at least that's what I'm hoping is the case. Researching this debate opened my eyes to even more facts that I never knew about the suggested "statistics" that come from those who are against these adoptions. The one I hear over and over again is the whole idea that children raised in homosexual households are more likely to identify as homosexual or get involved in homosexual behavior than children raised in single-parent households. All available evidence actually shows that the sexual orientation of parents has no impact on the sexual orientation of their children and that children of lesbian and gay parents are no more likely than any other child to grow up to be gay.

A completely ignorant idea that comes up quite often is the idea that children whom are raised in homosexual households will be less successful than children that are raised in a heterosexual household. In fact, not a single study has found that children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged because of their parents' sexual orientation.

I came across this idea on a website, "Lesbians and gay men are more likely to molest children." I think that it is amazing that when I come across a completely ridiculous and absurd "fact", about 85% of the time there are no supporting facts or statistics that accompany it. Isn't that funny? I think it is! There is absolutely no connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. Facts that this site lists after include: "Ninety percent of child abuse is committed by heterosexual men. In one study of 269 cases of child sexual abuse, only two offenders were gay or lesbian. Of the cases studied involving molestation of a boy by a man, 74 percent of the men were or had been in a heterosexual relationship with the boy's mother or another female relative. The study concluded that "a child's risk of being molested by his or her relative's heterosexual partner is over 100 times greater than by someone who might be identifiable as being homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual."

I am just amazed at how people can simply want to deny qualified, loving parents the option to adopt a child who would otherwise be moving from foster home to foster home or possibly even on the streets. Heaven forbid we give a child a good home just because the parents are of the same sex. You would think that people would rather have a child in a home that has two parents, whether it be of the same sex or not, than be in a single-parent household. I mean after all, one of the main arguments against gay couples adopting is that children need a mother and a father figure to grow to become a successful part of society. We have never denied anyone from getting a divorce, which can quite often lead to single-parent households, have we? Didn't think so.

"Global What??" Response

When I read Jackson Corgey's editorial "Global What??", I was caught off guard by not only his opinion about the subject, but also the way he approached writing about it. If someone feels strongly about an issue that is debated day in and day out in this country; he/she better have an extremely strong argument and some supporting facts if they have any desire to inform or persuade.

Jackson made a good point when he states, "sure all these factory's and car company's might be trying to lessen the amount of emissions that are produced but its not going to halt the process of global warming." Many people may completely disagree with this statement because of the facts that they know about global warming, but someone like myself who only knows the main points about global warming, could possibly be persuaded with. The issue with the statements he makes such as this one is that there are no supporting facts or statistics.

Jackson has these extremely strong opinions about the global warming issue and the way "propaganda" is being used to express the consequences our actions are having on the world surrounding us. When he states, "The thing is that these advertisements are really exaggerated, its kind of like propaganda people are just filming polar bears adapting naturally in certain parts that looks horrible to us." I don't see anywhere in his editorial that says he did research to find out if the advertisements really are exaggerated or if that is really the situation throughout all of the land where the polar bears are found.

I am fully supportive of everyone having their opinions on issues, but I really think those who have such strong opinions on an something should have done some research or studied some aspects of the issue they feel so strongly about. I understand what Jackson is trying to convey, but there needs to be some more substance if he really wants to get his point across to the reader and especially if he wants to persuade or inform with his editorial.

The United States of America, under God, THE WAY IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN

The United States of America is a nation of evolution. While it may be true our beliefs of 233 years ago are still the foundation of whom and what we are today, I think it is safe to argue that we are wiser, more tolerant, and able to discern what is good versus what is bad more efficiently than our founding fathers ever could. What our minds are able to grasp today can be viewed as nothing short of brilliance compared to the minds of 233 years ago. And looking back, we are able to see that change has worked in our favor more often than not.

Yes, we Americans are brilliant. But also very stubborn and often times uniformed.

It only took us 143 years to allow women the right to vote. And only 189 years after the 1^st Independence Day were we to allow African Americans a voice in public elections. Why? Because why change what isn’t broken? Why change at all? This is THE WAY IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN.

“The way it has always been.” A phrase often used when hearing opposition to equal rights for women, homosexuals, minorities in general… A phrase often used when describing reluctance in electing an African American president.

Most recently I heard this phrase used in a discussion about The Pledge of Allegiance aka The Pledge. There are applications on the social networking site Facebook that ask users to vote on whether or not “Under God” should be taken out of The Pledge. I was not surprised to see that the majority of voters said that The Pledge should NOT be changed but was further shocked to read that most of their comments on the subject involved statements like, “It has always said Under God”. Really?

I decided to do a little research and get to the bottom of this Pledge issue and its origin.

Most people would be amazed to learn that The Pledge as we know it is not the original version written. Nor is it the 2^nd version we have come to know. But we are now pledging allegiance with the 5^th updated revision of those famous words instilled in us from a very early age.

The original Pledge was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy and reads as follows:

“I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.”

As you can see there is no mention of the word ‘God’ anywhere in the text. In fact, it took 4 revisions over 62 years to add “under God” to the famous oath. This brings into account a very important question to me- During the first 62 years of children reciting their pledge to America and its flag, were they in any way less “children of God” than we are today? Have we evolved into better Americans because of this addition of words?

And now there is an ever growing population who feel "under God" should be taken out of The Pledge- can that be viewed as evolution to correct mistakes of the past?

I will not touch on the criticism that The Pledge has received since it was adopted. I am not interested in delving into the possible first amendment violations of which The Pledge may be in objection. I am not going to sit here and convince readers that The Pledge should stay the way it is. There are strong arguments for both sides.

But I say stop being stubborn, America. Do research. If you are apposed to current aspects of politics then find out why. Don’t base your decisions on what you feel HAS ALWAYS BEEN. If “under God” is important to you then find out why. If time comes for our evolving nation to omit “under God” from the classroom pledges, you should know that it is not a change in the way things HAVE ALWAYS BEEN. We are a great country for many reasons which include our thirst for knowledge and change. We are not the Americans we have always been. And we will continue to change and improve ourselves in ways that today we are not able to comprehend.

What our minds are able to grasp now can be viewed as nothing short of brilliance compared to the minds of 233 years ago. No doubt our minds 233 years from now will be able to grasp concepts and ideas that are hard for us to understand today. And when we look back we will be able to see that these changes will have worked in our favor more often than not. In all aspects of politics, religion, equal rights, and culture- Do research. Support change. For the only thing we HAVE ALWAYS BEEN are Americans in a changing world.

If you would like to further your reading about this topic, please feel free to visit The United States of America, under God, THE WAY IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN

The United States of America is a nation of evolution. While it may be true our beliefs of 233 years ago are still the foundation of whom and what we are today, I think it is safe to argue that we are wiser, more tolerant, and able to discern what is good versus what is bad more efficiently than our founding fathers ever could. What our minds are able to grasp today can be viewed as nothing short of brilliance compared to the minds of 233 years ago. And looking back, we are able to see that change has worked in our favor more often than not.

Yes, we Americans are brilliant. But also very stubborn and often times uniformed.

It only took us 143 years to allow women the right to vote. And only 189 years after the 1^st Independence Day were we to allow African Americans a voice in public elections. Why? Because why change what isn’t broken? Why change at all? This is THE WAY IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN.

“The way it has always been.” A phrase often used when hearing opposition to equal rights for women, homosexuals, minorities in general… A phrase often used when describing reluctance in electing an African American president.

Most recently I heard this phrase used in a discussion about The Pledge of Allegiance aka The Pledge. There are applications on the social networking site Facebook that ask users to vote on whether or not “Under God” should be taken out of The Pledge. I was not surprised to see that the majority of voters said that The Pledge should NOT be changed but was further shocked to read that most of their comments on the subject involved statements like, “It has always said Under God”. Really?

I decided to do a little research and get to the bottom of this Pledge issue and its origin.

Most people would be amazed to learn that The Pledge as we know it is not the original version written. Nor is it the 2^nd version we have come to know. But we are now pledging allegiance with the 5^th updated revision of those famous words instilled in us from a very early age.

The original Pledge was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy and reads as follows:

“I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.”

As you can see there is no mention of the word ‘God’ anywhere in the text. In fact, it took 4 revisions over 62 years to add “under God” to the famous oath. This brings into account a very important question to me- During the first 62 years of children reciting their pledge to America and its flag, were they in any way less “children of God” than we are today? Have we evolved into better Americans because of this addition of words?

And now there is an ever growing population who feel "under God" should be taken out of The Pledge- can that be viewed as evolution to correct mistakes of the past?

I will not touch on the criticism that The Pledge has received since it was adopted. I am not interested in delving into the possible first amendment violations of which The Pledge may be in objection. I am not going to sit here and convince readers that The Pledge should stay the way it is. There are strong arguments for both sides.

But I say stop being stubborn, America. Do research. If you are apposed to current aspects of politics then find out why. Don’t base your decisions on what you feel HAS ALWAYS BEEN. If “under God” is important to you then find out why. If time comes for our evolving nation to omit “under God” from the classroom pledges, you should know that it is not a change in the way things HAVE ALWAYS BEEN. We are a great country for many reasons which include our thirst for knowledge and change. We are not the Americans we have always been. And we will continue to change and improve ourselves in ways that today we are not able to comprehend.

What our minds are able to grasp now can be viewed as nothing short of brilliance compared to the minds of 233 years ago. No doubt our minds 233 years from now will be able to grasp concepts and ideas that are hard for us to understand today. And when we look back we will be able to see that these changes will have worked in our favor more often than not. In all aspects of politics, religion, equal rights, and culture- Do research. Support change. For the only thing we HAVE ALWAYS BEEN are Americans in a changing world.

If you would like to further your reading about this topic, please feel free to visit this website:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance

The Unemployed Wait

I thought that the editorial The Unemployed Wait was perfectly written, not only because I am a Democrat, but because he took "mini jabs" at the way the Republican party is stepping in the way of the troubled American people getting some of the help they need. I completely agree with what this author is saying. It is very obvious that he is intending for this article to be read and taken seriously probably only by Democrats, but I wish that more people would look outside of their box and read articles that may not pertain to them but they read it anyways.

I was not aware of the way that the Republicans were handling themselves with the issue of extending insurance for the unemployed, but after reading this article, I am completely appalled at the way they would interfere with Americans receiving help from the people that should be helping them. I think that the way the author included many statistics about the unemployed of the United States and the facts about the bill and improved bill that the House and Senate have come up with is a huge factor in his credibility because he isn't just writing an editorial about his opinion; he is writing an editorial with facts and substance. He supports his findings with factual information which is the most credible tool to use in my eyes. I find it very hard to conjure up an opinion about a political topic from an article that has no factual or statistical information, but this article has it all and he helps the reader understand what is going on in the situation so clearly.

As I look down my street, I see a another family moving out of their new home that was built probably within the past year, so I see what these unemployment numbers are doing and it is so disgusting to me to even think that any person would stand in the way of our people receiving help financially to stay alive in this economy. I think that the way this author ends the article is so intelligent and moving; I don't know how anyone can stand behind the Republicans' opinion on this situation after reading this: "Every day that the Republicans continue to block an extension — fighting over amendments to the bill or delaying a vote — means thousands more Americans pushed closer to the edge of despair." Read the article for yourself and see what you think when you're done.

Don't Penalize the Seniors

When I visited USA Today, I wanted to read this article strictly because of the title, but the further I got into the article, I was almost greatly disappointed with the author's lack of power in his argument. I agree with most of the things he is speaking of when it comes to opposing cutting back on the Medicare coverage seniors get, but I don't think that he supported his argument with any factual information to get his point across. The main facts he brought to the table were about the proposals that have been brought forth to Congress that show that many seniors with Medicare Advantage would be experiencing higher costs and fewer substantive benefits. I think the most important part, and maybe the only important part of his editorial was when he stated, "In fact, they'd be the only ones guaranteed to lose out." I think with this statement, he finally gets his point across and links the entire editorial with the title of the article. The logic that this author used to conjure up his ideas about the healthcare reform issues was definitely there, I just think he need to put some more emphasis on the facts and statistics and so forth in order to give himself a higher credibility to the readers. Many of the people that commented on his editorial were very ignorant it seemed like, either that or they just think Democrats are the worst. One guy commented about how he's just another Democrat who loves give-a-ways. I think that if this author would have put some more credibility into his work, some of these pushy Republicans may have kept their comments to themselves, or possibly not knowing them. I honestly think that the author may not have thought thoroughly about his intended audience, because his editorial was just too bland and didn't have any structure to it, in a lack of better words. I felt as if he just threw his ideas onto a computer screen without any facts to back it up or even more emphasis on his opinion about the issues being brought to the surface in the news. I think that he could have gone further with his first paragraph speaking about how it's not the extras, its more about the out-of-pocket expenses. He needed to make it more of an argument that the seniors should continue to be receiving the coverage they have been receiving, and they need to not be put in more economic troubles due to getting coverage taken away from them. I do agree with what this author is trying to get across, but if I were to write an editorial on this issue, I would put more power into it to try and show those strong-willed Republicans that I know what I am talking about, and it's not just about give-a-ways!

Obama's Overexposure on Healthcare May Be Exaggerated

When I saw the title of this article, I tried not to get frustrated with the fact that people would even think that Obama is overexposing his thoughts and plans to the country. I understand that Republicans are getting upset with the fact that the person they did not choose for President is all over the media, but if it were Senator McCain speaking on all the talkshows there would be no complaints from them. I'm not trying to sound like an angry Democrat, but it's somewhat annoying that people are getting annoyed that our President is trying to communicate to all of the American people using different sources. So what if he is going on several different talkshows, he is speaking about thoughts and plans that can benefit the people of our country. We don't seem to mind if John and Kate from "John and Kate Plus 8" are on every talkshow on every channel every day. This article talks about how many people are saying that the more the public hears about Obama's healthcare plan, the more things they don't like about it. This article proves that statement to be very wrong because it states, "A CBS poll after Obama's healthcare speech to Congress showed the highest approval ratings of the year on the issue, with 52 percent approving and 38 percent disapproving. His ratings were particularly high among Democrats, with 85 percent approving." This article, in my eyes, is pretty much letting everyone know that Obama is not overexposing the healthcare issue. He wants the American people to know that he is trying to help those who do not have and severely need healthcare. I think everyone who sees this article or sees my blog absolutely needs to read the article because it shows that people are not getting tired of hearing Obama speak about issues that need to be spoken about. We all knew many Republicans were going to be against listening to him whether it be on a talkshow or through CNN, so it shouldn't shock us that they went through with it. I just wish they might look outside of their box and see that he is trying to expose his thoughts and plans because he is the PRESIDENT not a CELEBRITY! I think that the article argues the annoyance of the "overexposure" that the Republicans are feeling with this quote, "Obama is considered one of the most gifted communicators in recent Democratic Party history, with his campaign for the presidency praised as an almost perfect communications effort." With that said, this article completely fires back at the statements being made about Obama's overexposure on healthcare.

Please read this article!
http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-HealthcareReform/idustre58H5MI20090918

Thanks!
Alicia