Should controversial speakers (on whatever subject) be allowed on college campuses?

For the most part yes, however, I think it is appropriate for the school to decide whether or not the speaker will add something to the discussion. It does not necessarily need to be what those selecting the speaker agree with, it may present another side. I think it is important though, if we are going to ask faculty and students to take time out of their busy schedules, that the speaker have something to add to thought and discussion. I think if the speaker is to be paid that it may be relevant to consider additional elements such as moral or social implications. For example, it may be interesting to hear the head of the KKK speak even though he is highly controversial but I think it would be fair for students to demand that their college money not be used to bring him to campus. They would have a right to demand that their money not go even indirectly to support this organization.

What place should "creationism" have in the public education system?

I believe creationism should have whatever scientific place it deserves in the education system. In other words it should not be taught in schools other than in a historical context. We should want students exposed to the most current scientific knowledge we have available. Those that want creationism taught in public schools want it taught, if they are honest, because of their religious beliefs. We have a separation of church and state. Religion should not be a test for scientific thought, theory, or knowledge. I consider myself religious but I believe that much of the bible is full of beautiful imagery, parables, and ways to present ideas through symbolism. This does not mean that everything in the bible is meant to be taken literally. On top of that, we live in an ever increasingly diverse society and don’t necessarily share each other’s religious beliefs. Therefore, school should be a place where facts rule and ideas must stand up to scrutiny.

Should sex and violence on television or in the movies be restricted?

In many ways this is a free speech issue. I think as a society we should always error on the side of allowing too much speech before we limit speech. That said I think it is ok to allow some rules for over the air television broadcasting during daytime hours since it is freely available and such a part of our society. I think cable or satelite television should be free of these restrictions because they are a product purchased by a consumer with the choice as to whether or not to purchase them. I think movies fall into this category as well. With rating systems and parental controls there are additional tools to help parents choose what their children can watch.

Should public servants (like school teachers, hospital workers, trash collectors) have the right to strike?

I believe they should. Workers should have the right to negotiate for salaries, benefits, and working conditions. If they choose to do so as a group for better leverage, that should be their right. A strike is sometimes necessary to force solutions and agreements. A single person does not stand much of a chance when standing up to a large corporation or government. There are power in numbers and it evens the playing field. Of course, there may need to be some limitations or modifications for life critical functions such as in a hospital but in general the right to strike should be protected. This is especially timely right now with the events with public workers and the governor of Wisconsin. Often times labor becomes a political issue but it shouldn't be. People just want to be treated fairly.

Have the large salaries of professional athletes had a negative impact on the athletes or the sports?

The short answer is that it depends on the person. Some people are able to handle the wealth and some people change and give in to its’ temptations. In athletics there are plenty of stories of athletes who have behaved badly once they become rich and forget what is really important in life. Tiger Woods even gave in to the temptations and lived the fast pace party life even cheating on his wife (and family). The sports themselves can be affected too. Sadly, sometimes it can attract more attention as people live through the excitement and day to day news of the latest scandal. “To whom much is given, much is expected” and there are plenty of stories of athletes helping their community and many different causes as well.

Should homosexuals be permitted to serve in the armed forces?

Yes.  Who people love to me is irrelevant to how they will perform as a soldier or frankly how they will perform in any job. The President has just recently lifted the ban on allowing gays to serve and the military has completed a study that it will not affect morale or military operation. Discrimination against gays is one of the last discriminations still allowed and sanctioned by U.S. Law and it is time for those laws to be changed. Have we not learned our lesson as a Country? Treating all people equal means treating ALL people equal. It is who we are as a nation and it is time that we live up to that.

Should mandatory (or voluntary) prayer be permitted in public schools?

This question touches on 3 constitutional issues. First, we clearly have to look at the separation of church and state. Second, we need to consider freedom of speech. Finally, we need to look at freedom of religion.

I think mandatory prayer would clearly violate the separation of church and state. Our government and public institutions need to not be in the business of religion. This is not to say that people should not be religious or able to practice their religion. Not everyone shares the same religion so in order to have freedom of religion you also must have freedom to choose your religion or choose none at all. Mandatory prayer in school clearly violates that.

Voluntary prayer in public schools to me is different as long as it is not directed by school employees in the classroom. Voluntary prayer between students themselves is freedom of speech and should be protected. It must not be disruptive or attempt to force one religion on another. I know I have prayed many times in school (usually before tests).

8.Should laws regarding minimum wage (or the forty-hour work week) be revised?

Yes the laws regarding minimum wage should be updated. The minimum wage is not updated. It is not updated nearly enough. It becomes a political issue whenever an increase is attempted, pitting free market purists against those fighting for a living wage. I believe the minimum wage should be indexed either with inflation or with the poverty rate. That way it removes it from the political realm and keeps the effective rate the same while adjusting to meet the current environment. I believe the forty-hour work week used should remain the same.

Where and how, if at all, should sex education be conducted?

I think Sex Education should be taught at three different places: the home, the school, and the religious institution.

First and foremost parents should teach their children at home about the birds and the bees. Parents are ultimately responsible for raising their children and the best way to know they are educated properly about sex is to teach them yourself and at a young age.

The school, however, also serves a role. Parent's can teach their kids the basics and what they expect form them. The school can have professionals with sex ed training teach kids on the details and health risks. Sometimes parents are not comfortible going into detail and kids may be embarassed to have to talk with their parents. The school can step in and play a role.

I think it may also be important for religious institutions to also have a role. They can teach what their particular religious institution expects and the moral implications.

All three of these institutions must be involved in the process.

Should parents and other interested citizens censor textbooks and other literature for children in schools?

Short answer, NO!

I think we tread dangerous waters when we begin censoring anything. Textbooks and books in general are speech and freedom of speech is protected in our Country.

If we censor, who does the censoring? Who determines what is "o.k."? It is a recipe for silencing opposition, imposing particular religious beliefs, and limiting expression. Many great works have at one time been censored including: The Catcher in the Rye, A Clockwork Orange, The Color Purple, The Grapes of Wrath, and others. These are considered by many people as some of the greatest works ever written. We shouldn't be afraid of ideas even if we disagree with them or how they are expressed.

For textbooks the only goal should be that they are factually accurate as determined by the experts in the subject discussed. Whether or not these facts support or work against your personal beliefs. The content should not be determined by those with ulterior motives.

Right now textbooks are being re-written with more of a conservative political slant to appease the state of Texas who is one of the largest purchasers of textbooks. They are downplaying the civil rights movement and playing Reagon's time as President. This is a dangerous thing because these textbooks are used by many states but because of the clout that Texas has, they are being skewed towards a political bent.

We must be ever vigilant of efforts to ban or censor books. What are we afraid of? The more educated we are and the more exposed we are to viewpoints different than our own, the more knowledgable we will be.

Should newspaper reporters be required to reveal their sources?

We are guaranteed freedom of the press and freedom of speech in this country but are these rights absolute? Perhaps not but I think we should error on the side of protecting them.

There is a reason that reporters should not be required to reveal their sources. The reason is that the press plays a necessary role in our society to reveal wrongs, corruption, and society problems. Many sources will not provide the information needed if they feel they may be revealed and suffer reprisal. Sources may fear losing their job, suffering physical harm, and in some cases even death. Therefore, protecting them is sometimes necessary to get the story.

There is another side of the story though. What if a story is written quoting a source that says they know where a terrorist bomb that is set to cause great destruction is being built and about to be placed. Of course, in this scenario it is in society's interest for law inforcement to be able to talk to this person. Another less dramatic situation might be where someone is liabled, they should have the right to defend against that liable and hold the person accountible.

The bottom line is reporters should under most cases not be required to reveal their sources. When it is in society's interest that they are required to reveal them it should be done in the most protective way possible. For example, only to law enforcement, only with court order, and only to the fewest people necessary.

What is the impact of automation on American culture and lifestyles?

Automation has made our lives easier, or has it? In many ways automation has made our lives easier. We can access information with ease, things that normally took time and labor can now be done for us, we can travel further, we can connect with each other instantly, we have more leisure time, and life is generally easier.

Americans have taken advantage of this automation perhaps more than anyone else. We have created a society of interconnected people with unlimited information and unlimited potential. Have we lost something in the process?

I can't help think of my grandparents. How they worked hard growing their food, how they relied on each other for living, how just having a radio or a book or a meal prepared for them was a highly valued prize. Have we lost our ability to communicate face to face, to appreciate hard labor and the results of that work? Is there a certain boredom that can come with too much leisure time and ease in life? Are we lazy?

With the good comes the bad I suppose. Knowledge, production, communication, and opportunities are advancing at exponential rates. The value and necessity of family, the honor of hard work, and the appreciation for all that we have may be the cost.

Should pornography be restricted by law?

Although this is a tough question for many. I feel pornography should not be restriced by law as it is protected as free speech. However, I am going to parse the question by saying that "access" to pornography should in some cases be restricted. For example I don't think children should be exposed to or have access to it. I don't think that adults who choose not to view it should be forced to. An example of this as argued before the Supreme Court is should someone be able to send you an ad in the mail with pornographic images? The courts ruled no and I agree. I think pornography other than involving children should be available to anyone adult who wishes to view it but should not be forced upon anyone who does not.

Political Cartoon

Sarah Palin rose to promenance in the last election and is, appropriately in my opinion, the subject of a lot of political cartoons. I love when a cartoon pokes fun at a person without that person or their name even being mentioned and yes I would be afraid for us all.

Political Cartoon

Here is another political cartoon which points out the toxic environment of the tea party. If your views differ so be it. This is America and the Constitution doesn't belong to you alone. Isn't freedom of speech great ;)

Political Cartoon

I love this political cartoon. It speaks for itself better than any words I could put here.

Political Cartoon

This is one of the first political cartoons in the U.S. It was by Benjamin Franklin and illustrated that the states could could survive together or die separately. This was at a time in our history when there was a great debate about a strong federal government or weak federal government with individual states having the power.

Smoking Kid From Indonesia

How sad is this? This kid from Indonesia is addicted to cigarettes and smokes 40 a day. This would clearly be considered child abuse in our Country. Since he obviously can't obtain cigarettes on his own there are some adults that are helping (hurting) him. To me that is pretty unacceptible. The photo is shocking to me.

Ted Williams Link

Man With the Golden Voice

We all love an American rags to riches story. We all want that to be Ted Williams story. Ted was a homeless man who was "discovered" in a youtube video to have an amazing made for radio voice. It turns out he worked in radio before he fell on bad times. He had some issues in his past which lead him on a downhill spiral out of society. His new found notariety may be his ticket back. The reunion with his mother was extremely touching. You could see the love they had for each other. She told him to not disappoint her and he assured her he wouldn't. Unfortunately, he has already had trouble with the law since. As a new celebrity he is under a lot of stress. The recent manipulation by major television networks for the exclusive have highlighted this. Nonetheless, I think all of America is pulling for him.

MLK

Hope everyone enjoyed their holiday and had a chance to reflect on the words and deeds of Dr. King. Many lessons for us all still today.

New Blog

This is my first posting for the new blog.