The Whole World is Watching

"The whole world is watching! The whole world is watching!"

This chant became famous (or infamous, depending on which side of the story you were on) during the 1968 Democratic National Convention, in which demonstrators clashed with the police, resulting in violent upheaval. In an unprecedented moment, anti-war action was televised and for the first time, Americans (and even the world) saw what was going on around them. (Useless Trivia Moment: this chant came from a Bob Dylan song "When the Ship Comes In", remembering, of course, that the Weather Underground also took its name from a Bob Dylan Song, "Subterranean Homesick Blues").

Of course, I am not really discussing protests in this post (although, I could because daily throughout the world, even in America there is a protest of some sort), so I want you to realize that I prefaced my intended dialogue with this opening to discuss what it really means when the "whole world is watching".

The truth behind the words is often that even though the world is watching, the world is not necessarily willing or able to get involved. Let's be honest, this day and age, we know what is going on in the world around us. We have an unprecedented ability to ascertain certain knowledge, via a variety of media sources, which puts us at an advantage to our ancestors. We can, at a moment's notice, have the entire world at our fingertips.

Given this advantage, one might assume that it would make us more likely to both understand and even intervene in the world around us. If it's broke, we should be the one to fix it, right? It's our world, we need to take responsibility for it, right? (Disclaimer: by our world, I mean that it is owned by the population of the world, not by America, just for clarification).

The truth of the matter is that we do not do so. We may know what is going on, but we have a certain reluctance to want to get involved. The bystander effect* offers some insight into the phenomenon, but can we apply this to entire countries? 

America, for it's part has always been an isolationist state. While it has been known to stick it's nose into conflict, generally speaking the people of the United States do not want to go around poking their noses where they don't belong (I'm paraphrasing, of course). Before WWI, Woodrow Wilson was able to run on a platform of "He Kept Us Out of War". America, as you know, then resumed it's isolationist attitude until December 7, 1941. During his address following Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt said that the Japanese empire had "awakened a sleeping giant". (Just an FYI, in case you missed it, Pearl Harbor opened the door for FDR to intervene in Europe and take on Hitler's plan for extermination). America, for it's past endeavors, has boasted in it's isolationism.

Now, of course, there have been some exceptions since the WWII era-- the Korean War, Vietnam, meddling in the Iranian- Iraqi Conflict, assisting Afghanistan when they were invaded by Russia, two wars in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan and the list could continue. That being said, as demonstrated by my opening statement, the popularity for these actions has not always been stellar. Americans for their part in the world, want to remain isolationist. They want to focus on problems at home and let abroad fix itself.

But, what happens when incidents arise in which someone should act? We know that the Holocaust was one such incident, but what about others. For this I want to highlight one such instance as a warning of caution for why we should be careful in letting the bystander effect dictate foreign policy. What I am speaking about of course, is the Bosnian Civil War (also called the Serbian Civil War, the Yugoslav Wars, etc.), which ran from 1991-1995. During this civil war-- a war in which the whole world was watching as it unfolded every night on television-- an estimated hundred thousand people were killed via systematic massacre, or genocide (Srebrenica, for example), via sniper fire (Sarajevo, etc.), or taken hostage, while millions more were displaced from their homes. With all of these atrocities being televised, it may come as a shock to realize that it took approximately 3 years for outside forces to intervene on behalf of the victims. It has taken many more years for these war criminals to be brought to justice.

So, why is this important now? Because once again, we have a conflict playing out on our televisions (now on our computer screens as well) and we continue to do nothing. I am, of course, talking about the conflict in Syria. With bombings, allegations of genocide and other war crimes being thrown around on a daily basis, it's a wonder as to why we have not done more to bring an end to the violence. Now, don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the Syrians need us (we are not American liberators to be greeted with flowers, candy and a ticker tape parade), but that the world, in a collective action should do more to investigate these allegations and stop any war crimes, making sure that they bring those who may be responsible to justice. It is not enough for the world to be watching, the world must some how learn to act, in order to save lives. After all, if we were in a similar situation, wouldn't we want someone to do the same?

*Bystander effect: a psychological phenomenon in which those who are watching do not intervene in situations because they feel that it is not their responsibility to get involved, that others may do it for them, or have a greater responsibility, or that if others are not getting involved, then they will some how be penalized for doing so.

Think Twice: Reflections on the Kandahar Massacre

On March 11th, 17 Afghan civilians were gunned down in their homes, while they slept in their beds. No one was spared. Men, women and children were massacred at will, without discrimination. The perpetrator of these atrocities? U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Robert Bales, a 38 year old from Norwood, Ohio.

In the weeks that have passed, the United States government has apologized for the heinous crimes a member of our armed forces has committed, as it should. They cut a check for $50,000 for each relative slain (cause that's somehow suppose to make them feel better?). They promised to seek justice for the victims. Case closed, right? Of course not. Two things in particular concern me about this incident. 

First, new information is being released internationally that suggests that there is more to this story than one rogue officer losing it in the middle of the night. A couple things that are coming out of this late breaking version of events is that there are reports that the U.S. was alerted by Afghan soldiers about an American soldier who was leaving the base, acting suspicious and could be up to no good (they were alerted more than once and Bales left, came back and left again, without anyone doing anything to stop him). Secondly, eye witness accounts suggest that Bales may not have been acting alone. Children who are interviewed often refer to American soldierS (notice the S) who participated in the massacre.

You can go anywhere and hear this news, but if you follow this link, you'll get a transcript of one of the victims' accounts: http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1637849/%27US-alerted-over-Bales-behaviour%27

My second concern is that there are too many instances of atrocities committed by our armed forces have come to light since this round of wars began in 2001. One is one too many, but to have several very serious incidents, shows an unfortunate pattern.

The three major instances (before this one) that I am thinking of are:

1. Abu Ghraib (not in Afghanistan, but as with most Americans, in my mind, this multifront war is one in the same.) I don't really need to explain this one, because EVERYONE knows this story.

2. SS- Scout Snipers- Basic information here: a sniper group working inside of Afghanistan used the SS symbol (Uh, that's a WWII, German, Hitler reference, for those of you who slept through your history classes). For more information: http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/exclusive-marines-nazi-flag-whistleblower-talks

3. Soldiers urinating on dead Taliban fighters (once again, a reference you won't even need to google, because you've heard it before).

These were the big three, until Staff Sergeant Bales went for a walk.

As with most Americans, I do spend a great deal of time worried about the U.S. image overseas. I could blame George Bush for the way the world sees us, but the truth is, our reputation has been a long time coming. We spend so much time "defending the world" and "defending ourselves" that we tend to lose certain inalienable truths in translation.

This was not the first time a U.S. soldier lost his sanity and massacred civilians in the middle of a war. I am, of course, referring to the My Lai Massacre on March 16, 1968, during the Vietnam War, in which U.S. soldiers of Charlie company massacred hundreds of My Lai residents, including women, children, babies, the elderly, etc. The only assumed difference between these two actions is the number of victims and the number of accused perpetrators.

My greatest concern with the mission being lost in translation is that if we continue down the current course of destructive behavior, our reputation will be the least of our worries. This type of behavior shows a disintegration of true American values and ideals and poses a greater threat to our nation than any terrorist plot. It is imperative that we get down to the truth of what happened in Kandahar Province, that we hold all those involved accountable and that we make provisions to make sure that it does not happen again. We need to teach tolerance and only allow those who are of sound mind to enter combat.

Once again, I caution you to realize that this is not an inherent truth of the armed forces. I am not blaming the armed forces as a whole and I believe that the majority of the men and women who serve are upstanding citizens answering their nation's call admirably. I will say that these events mentioned above concern me, as they should concern not only members of the armed forces, but all Americans.

We cannot truly know what was going through Staff Sgt. Bales' head. Is he legally insane? Possibly. Could there be more like him? Definitely. And we need to find those individuals and get them the help they need before tragedy strikes.

The New Emmett Till?

So, it's been while since my last post. As I told my sister this morning, I've been lacking the motivation necessary to sit and write. Not lacking the topics, just lacking the urge to put my thoughts out there. That changes today.

This story is true. If you haven't heard it already, you might want to change your cable or internet provider. You might want to renew your lease with civilization and crawl out from underneath the rock in which you live.

The story I'm talking about, of course, is that of the murder of Trayvon Martin. Yes, I know, it's awfully loaded of me to call it a murder right out of the gate, but hey, if I can't be honest to myself and the world on my own blog, then well, where's that rock of yours? Move over.

Why does my opinion on this matter? Because, I live in Seminole County, Florida. Check your maps, that's where this whole thing took place. As a taxpayer of this community, I have the right to demand justice for the sons and daughters of MY community.

First, the facts (for you cave dwellers):

On February 26th, 2012, 17 year old Trayvon Martin was walking home from a convenience store (Arizona tea and skittles in hand, wearing the now infamous hoodie). George Zimmerman, a resident of this community, saw Trayvon and made the decision to end his life. These are the only facts that we know, aside from a few eye witness statements (which I frequently disregard, because as an aspiring Sociologist, I know that humans see what they want to see). 

The rest of the blanks, those on either side of the argument consistently fill in with whatever they choose. That's fine. We see this all the time. I, for one, have gotten so used to reading in between the lines, that I do it automatically (sometimes when there is nothing to see).

Here's my conjecture. I say conjecture, because I, unlike everyone else, am willing to admit that I was not present the night that Trayvon died. George Zimmerman saw Trayvon, assumed the worst, fulfilling every stereotype about young black men in America (one perpetuated by every race, not just whites), let a racism that is still deeply embedded in American culture get the best of him and he pulled the trigger. On George Zimmerman's 9-1-1 call, he tells the dispatcher that Trayvon was "walking around looking at all the houses". Of course, the last time I did that, no one called me suspicious, or called the police, but who am I to assume anything on that one. After the dispatcher tells him not to pursue Trayvon, Zimmerman does so anyway. The end result is the death of a 17 year old. 

As this story continues to unfold, I am forever reminded of another story that shook America to its core nearly 57 years ago. The story I am referring to is, of course, that of 14 year old Emmett Till. On August 28th, 1955, Emmett Till, a Chicago native, visiting relatives in Mississippi, was beaten to death and disposed of in the Tallahatchie River. His crime? Whistling at a pretty white woman. Trayvon's crime? Looking at pretty houses.

Both of these stories are tragic, both could have been prevented and both have yet to see justice. Emmett Till's murders were acquitted of their crime and Trayvon's murderer has yet to even see the inside of a jail cell. Now, we could blame the law for Zimmerman walking,  but to be honest, the law in this case is being misused to undermine justice and to avoid having the discussion. By the discussion, I mean the one where we discuss where civil rights stand, right now, actually in this country. 

I don't want to get into a debate on Florida's stand your ground law, but I will say this: this law doesn't apply here. No where in the law does it say that you have the right to pursue, apprehend, or pull the trigger when your life is NOT in danger (hint: if you're having to pursue, your life IS NOT in danger). Zimmerman's life was not in danger. As one of my friends said, "What was Trayvon gonna do, make him taste the rainbow?". Seriously, what was a 17 year old, even one who played football and probably lifted weights, gonna do against a 28 year old man? Especially, when Zimmerman even told the dispatcher that Trayvon was "getting away". Zimmerman was adamant that Trayvon was not going to get away. And, unfortunately, Zimmerman made good on his promise.

What have we learned from all this? So far, nothing. We will not learn from this until Zimmerman is arrested and convicted for his crimes. I whole heartedly believe that. I am reminded of a quote from the movie Ghosts of Mississippi: "No man is above the law... When that kind of murder happens, no matter who the victim, no matter what their race, there is a gaping wound laid open on society as a whole. Justice has sometimes been referred to the soothing balm to be applied to the wounds inflicted on society, but when there is no justice, those wounds can never be cleansed". This applies here. We need to see justice prevail. We need to let society heal.

Now, I should mention, for those of you who have never been to the south, that racism is not rampant. Not every white person in the south is a racist and it should be noted that most of Central Florida is outraged by this situation. I for one, have not met someone around here who actually defends Zimmerman. What this situation does show us is that we have spent so much time sweeping racism under the rug, so afraid to talk about it for so long, so afraid that discussing race is seeing race and seeing race is racist, that now we have found ourselves in the midst of  an emblazoned battle in which race and race relations has to be discussed. Wouldn't it have been easier to discuss it openly, to embrace our differences in order to understand them better and remove the racial xenophobia? Perhaps.

This topic could go on forever. In fact, it seems like it has, but I won't dwell on it for the sake of dwelling. If there is one thought that I would like to leave you with, it's the following: there is one thing that we can all agree on coming out of this situation-- love your children. Treat your neighbor's child like you would your own. Love everyone for who they are: black/white/Hispanic/ etc., gay/ straight/ other. Learn to celebrate the differences, get to know the differences and embrace them. 

Separation of Church and State: You Can't Have it Both Ways

Remember when you were a kid and your mother told you that "you can't have it both ways" (often cited as "you can't have your cake and eat it too)? Of course you do, because it's one of those cliche sayings that made you angry. Kind of like "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" and "If your friends jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?", or my least favorite "God only gives you what you can handle". We hate these sayings. Some of us hate them with a passion (and by some I mean me). Why do we hate them? Because they are horribly true and we don't like our parents to be right (no matter how old we get).

So, let's go back to the original statement that irks us all so, "you can't have it both ways", which brings me to my point of the day...  Either we want a nation that separates the church and the government, or we don't. We can't have it both ways. Once the connection is made and the partnership is formed, there is no going back. 

For years, churches, including the Catholic Church has been doing business with the government and in a BIG way. First, the church gets tax breaks from the government (in return they provide services to citizens that the government cannot provide adequately). In addition, the church and the state in many cases have voucher programs that help the church educate students (in return the state, although they could, does not dictate what the schools taught regarding religion). These are just two of the ways that the two are intertwined. 

Now, let's be honest with ourselves. The Federal Government has had this uncanny ability to force states, businesses and individuals alike to do their will. It started with the Commerce Clause of the Constitution (see Gibbons v. Ogden, which allowed the Federal Government to regulate interstate commerce, which it interestingly enough managed to do a lot, even if it wasn't really interstate commerce) and it expanded from there. Nowadays, the Federal Government uses the power of the purse (withholds funding) to get us to pass everything from drinking ages to seat belt laws. Essentially, the government telling others what to do is not all that unusual.

This brings us to the current battle. President Obama has spent a great deal of time fighting for health insurance companies to cover the cost of contraceptives for women who need them, as many companies either do not pay for them, or do not cover the complete cost. Considering the alarming rate of women who have children they cannot afford, the lack of financial stability of the economy and the host of illnesses birth control helps, most people would support this measure, right?

The truth of the matter is, that the measure would call for even those organizations with religious affiliations to provide birth control free of charge. The problem with this is that many religious organizations do not allow the use of birth control in the modern sense, but advocate natural family planning. So, many religious leaders are suggesting that their rights are being violated (in a nutshell). 

Here's the problem: the Church itself (and here, I can adequately lump all of Christianity together) does not support abortion. Okay, I get it. Fine. We can agree, at the very least, why you feel the way you do. But, that being said, why would you not support a measure that prevents the unwanted pregnancy to begin with? And, many Catholics actually support the use of birth control and some even use it. (Now, here we could insert a whole discussion about the Right to Life Acts creeping up all over the South, but I won't). 

What I will say is this: Conservatives (which is all so often synonymous with the religious right) loves to insert themselves in moral debate when it comes to issues like gay marriage, or abortion. They love to talk about us doing right and that this is a sin or that is an abomination. This is when they are okay with ignoring the dichotomy that is supposed to separate our country's government from those who lead us religiously.

Now, we could go back to the days in which the Church got nothing from the government, but let's be honest, doing so wouldn't work out for anybody, not even atheists (believe it or not). Or, the church can make an exception. Here's the thing about people. Just because something is available, doesn't mean that people will take advantage of it. I could drink and do drugs, everyday, easily, but I don't. Why? Because I am a moral human being, granted autonomy in order for me to make my own decisions. Isn't this enough. The job as a religious leader is to teach and guide, not terrify and stonewall. Religious leaders should simply trust that their congregation will make the decisions that they've guided them to make.

In the end, we are really in this together. We can't have it both ways wanting the two to be separate when it's convenient for us and together when we feel the need. It's imperative that we as a nation make decisions that will benefit the whole of society. Asking insurance companies to pay for something that deters a variety of social problems and is used more often than not in preventative care is something that we must do as a nation. Do those who disagree with it for religious reasons have to use them? No, of course not. Do we ask that this measure be supported for those who need to use them for one reason or another? Yes and it is the duty of an American to support it for that reason alone.

President Roseanna Barr? Implications of Third Party Candidacy

Earlier this week, Roseanne Barr announced via twitter that she would be running for President of the United States on the Green Party ticket. Seriously. She did. Now, get past the theatrics of the announcement and understand the greater implications of a Third Party candidate (which by the way, we have every year, but they don't usually get enough votes to gain notoriety).

Now, let's be honest. Third party candidates do not win U.S. Presidential elections. To be honest, they typically do not win on a national stage at all. Through some metamorphosis of American politics, or perhaps sheer dumb luck, the American system of government is generally run by two parties. Most people agree that this limits the possibilities. Many advocate that we have a multiple party system, or a no party system. The truth of the matter is, in a world ruled by majorities, it is incredibly impossible for a multiple party system to work. 

The result of such an election would usually lead to either a series of run off elections, or someone becoming president who did not get the majority of the vote (happens all the time anyway because of the electoral college, but that's another post on another day). This makes it incredibly unfeasible and unlikely.

So, why have third party candidates at all?

Here's what third party candidates can do: set the tone for the election. Outside of the hooting and hollering of a campaign debate, third party candidates can respond to the front runners and are even in position to ask questions, or make statements forcing the front runner candidates to take a stance on a particular issue. This often becomes crucial. Not because the third party candidate will some how overpower the campaign trail, but because in many instances the answers will change the dynamics of the campaign and maybe even sway some voters.

In addition, if the third party candidate gains any level of traction, they will likely steal votes away from one of the front runners. Now, I know it's a bit far back for any of you to have voted in the election, but the election of 1860 gives us a prime example of how this can happen. In the election of 1860, Abraham Lincoln (R) won the election with just 40% of the vote, beating out Stephen Douglas (D) who had about 30% of the vote. Do the math: that's only 70% of the vote!! What happened to the other 30%? The Southern Democrat and Constitutional Union Parties took the rest of the vote. Southern Dems made up 18% of the vote, which when combined with Douglas' would have been 48% of the vote and a loss for Abraham Lincoln. This would have changed the course of American History entirely.

While it is clear that having third party candidates can allow for the free flow of discourse and perhaps for argument's sake an interesting level of candidness among the candidates. It becomes put up or shut up, which can make the race refreshing. On the other hand, it can have an adverse effect. We know that a party divided will implode and will certainly fail. While this will likely be a good thing for the incumbent, it's bad for the idea of politics and of the best candidate always prevailing (not referring to Obama, Romney, or Gingrich being the best candidate here, just speaking in general about all elections). This becomes a dangerous game to play. My recommendation? When the third candidate gets to a point in the election (and can admit to themselves that defeat is imminent), they should concede the election and throw their support behind the candidate that most resembles their views and will likely provide their supporters with the proper guidance and leadership.

While I will not be voting for Roseanne Barr, I do applaud her for her bold effort to change the dialogue and shake up the game.

The State of the Union 2012

Well, it took me a moment to decide to write on the State of the Union. Mostly because I wanted to absorb the information before I started to pick it apart. Of course, it was not the only reason I decided to wait. By the time I heard the Republican response to the SOTU, I was livid. So angry, in fact, that I called my best friend to rant about the nonsense. Don't get me wrong, I liked the SOTU. I think it had a lot of ideas with a lot of potential, given the right circumstances, but let's not get ahead of ourselves here. First, we must discuss the key points of the SOTU. 


The first section of the SOTU that I'd like to discuss is the one that resonated with me the most-- Education. Now, you may remember from my earlier post that I regard education as being the cornerstone of America. Without the free flow of ideas and the passing of information, we cannot begin to be the advanced society that we claim to be. Obama's Education section had a couple of key points: "education should not be a luxury", colleges that receive Federal funding should be forced to keep costs low, a proposed new law that would insist that students remain in school until the age of 18, teachers should be given adequate pay and should be rewarded for actually teaching, etc.


I completely agree that education should not be a luxury. The truth of the matter is that the majority of college students cannot afford college. Many drop out because of costs, but most accrue insane amounts of debt. Costs of an education at a private university are virtually unattainable, while even those at public universities are astronomical. The costs continue to rise each year and universities continue to give out just enough in scholarship money to get you there before revealing the truth that your education is going to cost you a fortune. And, as if this problem weren't bad enough, we have a whole host of Americans who will not even have the opportunity to experience college at all because they never graduate high school, as part of a combination of poor teaching and poor parenting.


But, how could all of this happen? Could we actually lower costs of schools through the Federal Government? Yes. As with most laws, if you tie the bill to funding they have no choice but to comply. The thought of keeping costs low would work, as long as Congress manages to take the concept seriously. Raising the drop out of high school age to 18 is a little bit different. Now, don't get me wrong, I think it would be great for the age to be raised (especially because I know so many people who made the life altering decision at 16 to drop out of school, when they couldn't possibly understand the consequences of the action). The problem with the policy is enforcement. While you can raise the age legally, you will never be able to enforce it. Those students who want to drop out will simply not go. Try to hold them and their parents accountable and they'll claim homeschooling. The truth of the matter is raising the drop out age is not going to fix the problem. We need to find out why students drop out.


The second part of the SOTU that should have resonated with any American was the creation of the Financial Crimes Unit, which would basically allow for holding Wall Street accountable. Let's be honest, if there is one thing that we can all agree on, it's that our current financial crisis was created by corporate greed. Obama stressed that all Americans should be playing on a level playing field. Wall Street has spent a great deal of time making sure that this doesn't happen. The creation of this unit would ensure that those who habitually break laws are held accountable. My favorite part of the wall street discussion? Proposing that Congress can no longer make laws governing businesses in which they have a financial stake. It's a step in moving money out of politics. Of course, my concern with this is that Congress will never allow this to happen. They are too happy making sure they have money in their pockets while the rest of America struggles.


Next up? Clean Energy. Now, assuming you read my Keystone Pipeline installment, you know how I feel about this already. It appears as though President Obama feels the same way. We should not sacrifice our nation for a quick fix to our nation's energy problems. We should be focusing our efforts on developing every clean energy source possible. Problem: Washington doesn't want to. Don't believe me? Just look at Gingrich and Romney attack Obama's rejection of the Keystone Pipeline provision. Congress doesn't want clean air, clean energy, clean drinking water, etc. because they can't make nearly enough money off of it. Those of us who want these things are called radicals and socialists, hippies and crazies. My question: when did wanting to breathe easier and drink water that wasn't poisonous qualify you as being crazy? 


The last section (not the last section of the SOTU, but the last section I intend to talk about) that particularly hit home for me was the section on immigration reform. I don't know if it has something to do with my current quest to understand my lineage, or that I know immigrants and I know people who want to be immigrants, but have been denied by the U.S. government, but I have a special place in my heart for the immigration issue. For one, I recognize that I am the descendant of both Irish and English immigrants. Secondly, my best friend's husband recently received his citizenship (and is very excited that his first Presidential election is nearing). Last, but not least, a very, very dear friend of mine is in the exact same situation that Obama was discussing. Obama mentioned the anomaly that America has created in that we allow individuals to become educated here and then after they graduate, we send them packing. Doesn't it make sense to allow those who are educated and can become productive members of society the opportunity to stay in this country and become U.S. citizens? Now, I recognize that Obama's section on immigration included more than that, but the truth of the matter is, it mainly spoke to an underlying issue. We are so quick to want to lock people out of this country for whatever reason that we fail to realize that we are denying this country the principles in which it was founded. We are preventing amazing Americans from being American.


Regardless of how you feel about the SOTU address, regardless of whether or not you think it was empty promises, or the kick-off to Obama's campaign, you cannot deny certain truths. Obama's right in his analysis of everything from immigration, to taxes, to education, to the environment. The problem with the SOTU is that the President does not have the power to change the country. He has to work in conjunction with Congress to make things happen. When Congress avoids working, or stonewalls every possible plan for America, it becomes next to impossible for any of these policies to actually be actualized. Many people who saw the SOTU criticized Obama because he hasn't been successful in overcoming the challenges of his presidency and he hasn't been able to put many of the policies he has suggested in past SOTUs into place. That being said, who is really to blame for that? Obama? or Congress?

Keystone Pipeline

I was watching television late last night, which ironically enough, I do shortly before I go to sleep on most nights and I came across the most entertaining commercial ever. Yeah, I like the one with the piggy Maxwell, going weeeeeee wee wee weeeee, too, but that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about a commerical in support of America's oil and essentially in so many words the Keystone Pipeline. (I tried to find the commercial on youtube, but I couldn't find it. I'm guessing it's that new. If I find it, you will be the first to know).


Don't know what the Keystone Pipeline is? Well, then, you're probably right up there with most Americans. The truth of the matter is a hot button issue is mounting ever so quietly as the GOP makes fools of themselves and Obama tries to hold onto his hat. The issue, which was "inadvertently" voted on recently (embedded deep inside a payroll tax bill) was recently blocked by President Obama.


I would argue that this is the best Obama has done for this country, but I'll let you decide that for yourself.


What is the Keystone pipeline? Essentially, the Keystone Pipeline is a proposed pipeline that would allow for the free flow of oil from Canada, through the heart of America, ending in Houston, TX. The problem with it is that it would bring some of the dirtiest crude oil straight through our backyard.


(Want to see the map? go to http://www.transcanada.com/keystone_pipeline_map.html)


Republicans... Yeah, the good 'ole GOP has spent a great deal of their time blasting President Obama for blocking the initiative, saying that he's a job killer and that this would be a good boost to the economy.. Blah, blah, blah. The truth is actually much different. Would it create jobs? Yeah, of course. Would it create lots of jobs? A considerable amount. Is it worth it? No. The Keystone Pipeline would not only pose a threat to the environment, but to the people who live in the areas that the pipeline would be laid. It is dirty oil. It is going through the backyard where your children play. It has a high chance of poisoning the ground water, health of particular people/ regions, etc. (not to mention the risk to people, wildlife, etc. if there was an oil spill... remember those?) Who could possibly support this initiative?


The answer is: someone who wants a quick fix. People who want to temporarily solve two problems: energy and jobs. Now, I'm all for solving these problems, but I want real solutions. Call me crazy, call me rogue, call me what you will, but I would prefer to stitch a wound before I wrap it in gauze. 


Jobs- You want to create jobs? Stop assuming the government is there just to sit pretty and be a figure head. I know, I know, no one wants to admit we need government, but whether you like it or not, our government is what binds us. It serves a purpose, fulfills a need. Yes, it takes money from us sometimes to fill those needs, but it still has a purpose. The way to create more jobs is to focus on internal improvements. It's not a new idea. FDR thought of it once (during a time we fondly call the Great Depression). We cannot rely on the private sector to create jobs all by itself (we have not seen nearly the growth necessary to pull us out of the economic slump) and it is time the public sector get involved. It's about funneling the right amount of resources into the right place to spur the right improvements at the right time.


Energy- I tweeted not that long ago that we should have used the sun for our powering needs and waited to use oil when the sun burns out (yeah, that's supposed to happen at some point, if you don't believe me, call NASA). Now, it was meant as a joke, but it's not that funny. The truth of the matter is that we cannot continue to consume our natural resources without some unintended consequences. We need to develop other forms of energy. I do not want to sound like one of those environmentalist types. My air conditioner is running right now (don't hate, I live in Florida and it's hot). I'm merely saying that putting pipes into the ground to drain dirty oil, spilling oil in the Gulf of Mexico (yeah, I'm talking to you, BP), nuclear power plants that can have a melt down at any moment (Do I need to mention names here?) and all other forms of energy that are unclean and unsafe should be our last resort. Why can't we take five minutes and try some of those cleaner forms of energy? What's the harm?


Keystone is a bad idea. No matter how you view it. It is a way for big oil to dig their grubby little hands into our backyards and risk the youth of America for temporary dividends. Remember to call your Congress person to voice your opinion on Keystone... Or, use the number posted by The American Petroleum Institute to tell President Obama- 202-456-1111