Confessions of a Princess

I debated whether or not to write my Blog 7 assignment on the Obama birth certificate madness or the McDonald's lawsuit, in light of our exam 4 topic I chose the McDonald's lawsuit. With the Blog 8 assignment of critiquing a classmate's blog I was excited too see many of my fellow bloggers chose to blog of the Obama birth certificate debate, it was all over the news at the time our assignment was due. Out of the many options to critique I chose "Confessions of an Elf" from the Caught in the Middle blog. It was honestly the only one I actually read, it might of been the clever title or just the others looked bland. 

I remember being younger and asking my dad for help on writing a paper and he said "pretend that your reader is blind and you need to explain everything to them, assume they don't know anything." I bring this up because although I agree with the stand the blogger took, that the whole situation is pretty ridiculous and "idiotic" to question our president's birth place. I feel he could of gave more details. For example, What were the headlines that he scanned? Who was his birth certificate being questioned by? How did this person go about questioning? How and why did Obama finally reveal his birth certificate? The answer to these questions will display just how dumb the whole situation is. Had he told us it was Donald Trump heading the mission to discredit the birth certificate, and who Donald Trump is, and how he gave countless TV interviews publicly doubting the president's citizenship. All these answers would have painted a better picture of what has been going on. He could have also told his reader Obama not only released his birth certificate but he made a live statement to the country, “We’re not going to solve our problems if we get distracted by carnival barkers and sideshows,” said Obama, “We do not have time for this kind of silliness, we’ve got big stuff to do, I’ve got big stuff to do,” he also stated. Including Obama's words would have displayed for us the readers how awesome Obama is and how he ended the "silliness." 

I liked how the blogger put links but I don't have time to read them, a quick summary of what the links taught him would have been nice as well. Here are some of the theories, these are the qualifications to be president..etc. It was pretty cool how he had his own envelope from his birth certificate on the blog, it connects the blog on a personal . I enjoyed the blog all around but would have left it with more knowledge of the issue had he included a more information to the events that caused and ended the debate.

Don't Toy with Mickey D's!

McDonald's was recently sued by a mother of two, Monet Parham. Along with nutrition and healthy food safety advocate, The Center for Science in the Public Interest. They demand McDonald's remove toys from Happy Meals, CSPI  claims it violates California law, making  meals too appealing to kids, causing overeating and life long obesity. I ask, What do the toys have to do with obesity? McDonald's now offers substitutes for Happy Meals, apples for fries, milk for soda. Happy Meals do not equal obesity. Parham also claims her childern's persistance for the meal causes her to spend money she wasn't intending to spend and causes her children to pout. She states, "We have to say no to our kids so many times and McDonald's makes that so much harder to do. I object to the fact that McDonald's is getting into my kids' heads without my permission and actually changing what my kids want to eat." Michael Jacobson, CSPI's executive director compared the tactics to tobacco companies marketing to kids with things like Joe Camel. This suit is ridiculous to say the least. Parents are the authority, with the means to purchase what their childeren consume. There are far better and more significant issues to sue a company over.

Why McDonald's?  Its not  the only fast food chain who provide a toy with their kid's meal. Chickfila, Dairy Queen, Sonic, Burger King, Whataburger, also offer toys, just to name a few.Where are their lawsuits? Toys aren't just "toys" some toys offered are educational, some are story books and some promote current movies.. A toy in the kid's meal should be a postive for parents, you can feed your child and offer them a toy for under 4 bucks. When I was younger I recall collecting the Barbies given in my Happy Meals, and the small Disney Princess figures like Snow White and Cinderella, would be used as decoration in the huge hair bows my mom would make me as a child. I have very found memories of McDonald's toys growing up. McDonald's says it is proud of its Happy Meals and will defend the company's brand, its reputation and its food. "We stand on our 30-year track record of providing a fun experience for kids and families at McDonald's," said Bridget Coffing, a company spokesperson.  Now being a parent myself I don't share the same attitude toward happy Meal toys as the Parham. If my daughter wants McDonald's and its not something I am willing to buy that day, I wont, period. She can throw a fit, and she will forget about it 5 minutes later, very simple.

If this case were to rule in the favor of the Parham it would set precedent that would allow too many silly lawsuits that will waste the court's time and money. For example, a wife could now sue a strip club and say, "Strip club X has half and sometime fully naked women advertised to my husband, and well he can't help himself to go in there. Thus spending his paycheck, leaving us in debt. Now I want to sue Strip club X for millons of dollars and demand the entertainers to be fully clothed." Or a husaband can sue Lancome or Estee Lauder (leading cosmetic comapnies) for advertising  "free gifts with purchase" because "My wife spends all her money on cosmetics when the "free gift" is being offered, and she is being lured by Beauty Consultants as she walk by the counters. Lancome and Estee Lauder should discontinue this free gift event and stop the Beauty Consulants from talking to my wife." Sound silly right? This Happy Meal Lawsuit is just as silly and is clearly a way of blaming someone else for bad parenting. The court system is designed to protect the people and our rights, not as a place to make a quick million, or to point the finger to avoid their short comings as a parents.

Wheres the "Deets"?

 

In search for a topic for our Blog 6 assignment to critique a classmate's Blog I came across Government for the People 2011's  "No guns on campus!" article. I agree- strongly agree with my classmate's stand on the debate, its not a good idea. As I read the opening paragraph, I wondered ...Who is debating? Congress? ACC? Texas? UT? As well as, What would the outcome be, if those for guns on campus would win this debate? I would have liked there to be a source of the debate to better understand the extent of the debate. I just now Googled  "guns on campus" and discovered Arizona has approved, guns to be carried on "public right aways" roads and sidewalks. The proposal originally allowed guns  to be carried in campus buildings as well. But if a person with a gun is going from "a" to "b" on a sidewalk and "b" is a classroom, are they going to drop off their weapon before entering the classroom?  7 states are debating on allowing guns on campus, including Texas. Knowing the debate is a national occurrence and could be approved in Texas, has now emotionally has heightened my stand against the debate. 

Cho Seung-Hui was the shooter of the Virginia Tech Masacare.

      My classmate made valid points on why he is against guns on campus. More guns, more casualties, gun related violence causes post traumatic stress syndrome, stray bullets can injure bystanders, officers on campus are trained to be diplomatic and rarely if ever resort to weapon use. All true, but where are the examples of these points? Sadly within in the past 20 years there are countless examples of why guns on campus should be avoided. April 2007, 32 killed  at Virgina Tech, and the shooter killing himself.  April 1999 Columbine High School, 12 students and 1 teacher dead and 21 wounded, these are just two infamous events that I can recall vividly watching unfold on CNN, many young lives lost. Guns do

n't just kill others,they are also a self endangerment as well just last week a 15 year old student took her own life with a gun in a Leander High School bathroom. Even if the gun carrier has no bad intentions there are still chances of accidents. 

       My classmate chose a great subject to blog about, we in this class can all relate since we are all college students who will be on campus and could be directly effected if Texas were to pass the gun proposal.The points given by my classmate i feel could have been stronger by using concrete examples similar to  the ones I just gave. Its a serious subject, with fatal consequences and could have better been defended. 

Got Milk?

This week in Spokane, Washington and San Luis Obispo County, California there were  traces of radioactive iodine 131 found in milk. It sounds dangerous but according to the Food and Drug Administration and Environmental Protection Agency the amount of iodine 131 found in the samples are 5,000 times below the level of action or concern. Earlier this month Japan experienced an earthquake that caused a horrific tsunami that not only caused destruction of towns and lives but has caused a Japan power plant to leak radiation. It seems that very diluted levels of Iodine 131 entered the air and landed on the grass, hay, feed that the cows in the west are consuming. The primary risk of high exposure to iodine 131 is radiogenic thyroid cancer later on in life. 

This man has a case of Iodine 131 Cancer.

People should have no worries about the current level of iodine 131 in milk. Iodine 131 has a half-life of eight day, pretty much every 8 days it loses  half it's strength, it was been through at least 2 half lives since the Fukushima reactors in Japan shut down.  Washington Governor Christine Gregoire said "both the EPA and the FDA confirmed that these levels are minuscule and are far below levels of public health concern, including for infants and children," All in all The FDA and EPA are confident that the levels of iodine 131 found in milk levels are consumable without any harm. They will continue to monitor  radiation in milk, precipitation, drinking water, and other outlets. These are the times when it is great to live in a country with regulation in food and with an agency designed to protect us and our environment.   There is now a ban by he FDA on food, vegetable, and dairy imports from area near Fukushima nuclear plant.The FDA and our government is doing a good job keeping the American people informed and secure about what is and isn't safe for us to consume. 

They love Him, they love Him NOT...

I wanted to find a blog that sparked my interest, had a clear position in its topic and came from an educated source. Amazingly I found exactly that, in my bio I stated I was a Christian, which is a fairly new statement I've begun to make. I call myself a Christian because I believe in God's word, and I want to follow His ways. I'm not perfect, the world is extremely tempting and its a difficult walk, I have and will step off the path but will always try to stay on and get back on. That being said, "Why Evangelicals Hate Jesus" is the blog that caught my eye.  

Evangelicals share the gospel, are followers of the bible and don't "hate Jesus." But the author makes points that are hard to argue. Phil Zuckerman co authored this article, he is an associate professor of sociology at Pitzer College in California, his blog is found in The Hufftington Post's religion section. 

In the article his reasons that Evangelicals hate Jesus are because their political positions contradict the teachings of Jesus and the bible, he comes to this conclusions based on a poll published by the Pew Forum on Religion and Life, Mr. Zuckerman says Jesus teaches on forgiveness and mercy (true) yet Evangelicals are most supportive of death penalty, government torture and draconian sentencing. He says Jesus teaches on peacefulness (true) and Evangelicals support easy access to weapons and no regulation of hand guns. He also says Jesus was very clear of the pursuit of wealth was inimical to the Kingdom of God, and that Evangelicals oppose food stamps and support corporate greed. Zuckerman's theory to how Evangelicals who love Jesus, hate Him, is that they love Him is because He gets them into heaven. They are only thanking Him and ignoring His teachings and commandments by picking and choosing what suits their secular needs.

So as I read this I was in a sense confused by his logic and by the teachings I've received in church. Do my beliefs contradict his logic? I don't think so, yet I don't think Evangelicals "hate" Jesus or completely love Him. If you love Jesus you follow His ways, because you love Him not so He can love you. In Christ or out of Christ we are humans and will never be perfect. Evangelicals are human too but if they believe in all these political policies that do contradict the doctrine of Jesus, then they should stop calling themselves Evangelicals. The goal of spreading the gospel is to draw people to Jesus so they can follow Him and His ways. But when their political views are opposite of the word of God, they are doing the exact opposite.  

Zuckerman ends by stating this "Of course, conservative Americans have every right to support corporate greed, militarism, gun possession, and the death penalty, and to oppose welfare, food stamps, health care for those in need, etc. -- it is just strange and contradictory when they claim these positions as somehow "Christian." They aren't." 

Agreed. Don't label these positions Christians or yourself an Evangelical when they and you are far from.

Plates for Forrest

I came across the article "The South lost-get over it" , its about Nathan Bedford Forrest. Forrest founded the Ku Klux Klan, prior to The Civil War he was a wealthy cotton planter and a slave trader. The state of Mississippi is considering to honor Forrest with a vanity plate, the request was made by the Sons of Confederate Veterans. The author of the article feels Forrest is unworthy of honor due to all the violence towards blacks. He also feels that the South fought The Civil War in defense of slavery and racism and that they need to accept that they lost the war and wants them to stop trying to hold on to it. "It did so first through the expedient of lynch mob violence and Jim Crow laws. Now it clings to discredited 19th century symbols like driftwood, obsessively reworks history trying to make the facts other than what they are." I researched the author of the article Leonard Pitts Jr., he works for the Miami Hearld, is a best selling author and has won a Pulitzer Prize. One of his books is "Becoming Dad, Black Men and the Journey to Fatherhood. Mr. Pitts is also black, he recently spoke on February 17th at ongoing tribute to Black History Month "he called for self-examination and critical reasoning about society and race in his lecture titled "The Water in the Glass." After learning a bit of Mr. Pitts, I believe he is well credited in what he speaks of. 

As I was reading the article I understood where Pitts was coming from and completely saw his point how can you "honor" a man who was slave trader and formed a vigilante group whose goal was to harm black people, people who had families who were some one's dad, mom, child just because they were black. I myself do not get how you can hate someone simply because of their race. I also think that when Mr. Pitts says for the South to "get over it", it is hard for them not because of race but due to economics. The Civil War ended slavery yes, but it also killed Forrest's and the South's source of money. Forrest was a cotton planter, slaves were the fuel of his business and as a slave trader, slaves were his business. I don't approve of slavery but place yourself in Forrest's shoes slavery was the norm  it was around before he was born so its what he knew to be okay. The Civil War was fought because  the country's decisions were in favor of the industrial  growth of the North and was not considering the South. Losing the war and their main economic resource was a blow to the South. I am sure the South wouldn't be as poor now had The Civil War turned out differently. I don't think Mr. Pitts would like it if someone said to him "So we had blacks as slaves 150 years ago- get over it" I agree there shouldn't be vanity plates of Nathan Bedford Forrest, he is the founder of a group who have made violent acts towards people. The Civil War and the aftermath the South faced was not all racial it was also economical and i think the South is still enduring the economical fall out of The Civil War.

Mexico's Drug War..America's Guns

There is a proposal for 4 Southwest states to require gun sellers to report any multiple purchases of semiautomatic riffles and other long arms. Currently dealers are required to report when an individual buys 2 or more handguns with in a 5 day period. Mexico's Ambassador to the U.S wants our help to stop the flow of gun trafficking to Mexico. When the arms reach the hands of the drug cartels many lives are loss. Just this week three teenagers were caught in a gunfire while car shopping.

The bodies of two young boys lie next to cars at the site where three teenage boys were shot to death outside of a car dealership.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), an arm of the Justice Department were trying to have this proposal go into effect January 5, but after lobbying campaign by the National Rifle Association, White House budget officials decided to postpone this rule 2 more months. ATF had tried to adopt the rule under a provision of federal rules that allows for expedited procedures in the case of an “emergency.” According to the White House emeregency refers to things like natural disasters, not drug violence. Chris W. Cox, the NRA’s chief lobbyist, in an email, had this to say “Had this measure gone into effect, it would have resulted in a registry of law-abiding gun owners and it would also have placed unnecessary burdens on law-abiding firearms retailers.” Reporting a person's multiple purchase of long rifle could make it easier to find gun traffickers and save lives. The rule isn't thrown out the window but just might take more months to go in effect.

 On Jan 25, in Phoenix 20 people were indicted who were apart of a ring whose goal was to smuggle 700 guns to Mexico for use by drug cartels.

 It is U.S guns being used to kill  in the drug war of Mexico. Though we aren't the ones pulling the trigger it is our weapons being used.Its important for people to read this because Mexico is our neighbor and thousands of people are dying. Men,women and children, many innocent. By pushing to put this rule into effect we can help reduce Mexico's fatal violence and maybe even here in America. 34,000 people have been killed in the cartel drug war over the past several years , but if we take into consideration the unreported deaths, the fatalities would be much higher. 

Mexican police stand near a skull discovered in what is thought to be a large grave in the desert containing the remains of victims of recent drug violence

If we Americans have a way to help this problem on our side of the border by simpling reporting the multiple rifle purchases, why is there delay and even a question whether we should do it. 


original article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41495274/ns/us_news-security/