Write Wing?

In Dave Lindorff’s article “Don’t Act, Don’t Lead: Obama Stiffs Gays in the Military Yet Again,” the author indulges into the world of gay rights and activism as well as the political query regarding whether or not President Barack Obama is working towards honest policy or trying to be people friendly. When the question coming to whether or not Obama is “stiffing the gays,” I’d say he isn’t. It’s not Obama or his singular position that is promoting or demoting gay rights and support that is directly affecting the “don’t ask, don’t tell” legislature. In my opinion, it is the American public as a majority. Enter stage: gay rights marriage, gay rights to adopt children, gay families being able to be artificially inseminated, and on goes the list. Sad thing is, there is more active legislative action on the idea of whether or not homosexual men and women are apt and capable – God forbid brave and courageous enough- to serve and protect our country, rights and freedom. I agree with Lindorff’s outrage that the simplicity of President Obama’s attempts for short term compromise, but to me it fails him in the right that millions of Americans hoped him to make his promised change that we unfortunately aren’t seeing in the horizon.

Dave Lindorff’s blog, being leaned towards the left winged Democrats, surely doesn’t seem so confident in our President. He is undoubtedly trying to reach like-minded left wingers, but his - implicit – but halfhearted- insults of the issue at hand isn’t as strong as it should have come across. This may pique the interest of some gay activists passing through, but in my opinion, Mr. Lindorff missed the boat in a substantial argument that could have concreted an amazing structure of a debate.

That’s my PoV

 

And my source:

Lindorff, Dave. Weblog post. Don’t Act, Don’t Lead: Obama Stiffs Gays in the
     Military Yet Again. Can This Be Happening, 14 Oct. 2010. Web. 15 Oct. 2010.
     <http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/node/252>.

Ruth Marcus on Stephen Colbert's Congressional Appearance

When I first saw the title for the Washington Post opinion article "Stephen Colbert becomes another circus of Congress's making," I assumed it was going to be some Republican with a hot head complaining about Colbert's humor. After I started reading the article, I was surprised to see that Colbert was invited to testify in front of Congress regarding immigration issues. Of all people I'd invite if I were having a party, it surely wouldn't be one that was notorious for picking on and making a mockery of my friends and myself. But maybe that's just me...

Ruth Marcus writes about what she seems to think are mistakes made by Congress of having celebrities come in to testify, or simply to peak the interest of the Representatives on various issues. She gives a few other examples of these instances, and one that I found particularly hilarious was Elmo from Sesame Street coming in to talk about music education. She makes a valid point that although bringing in celebrities in hopes of piquing interest and raising ratings or coverage, it doesn't do much good for political interests in the end.

Through subtlety and lingering hints throughout the article, it is obvious to me that Ruth Marcus is no rookie in the game of politics, and probably wrote it in hopes of reaching not only the common public, but probably some of the members of Congress as well. If things in our government are going to change for the better, then inviting a guest speaker in that you know is going to be overly satirical and obnoxious for the setting, probably isn't going to help. From the article, the author reports Colbert saying "Maybe this ag jobs bill would help, I don't know. Like most members of Congress, I haven't read it." Although this is funny, I’d agree with Ruth that this kind of presentation and mockery probably doesn’t need to be included in our law making process.

Source:
Marcus, Ruth. "Stephen Colbert becomes another circus of Congress's making."
     Editorial. The Washington Post 29 Sept. 2010: n. pag. The Washington Post.
     Web. 30 Sept. 2010. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/
     article/2010/09/28/AR2010092804802.html?nav=hcmoduletmv>.

Many U.S. States are Palms Up for Internet Sales Tax Dollars

In an article on MSNBC's website, I read that many states are cracking down on collecting tax dollars on items sold on the internet. Many adults regularly purchase items online, and to me, it's always been sort of an extra 8% discount on top of what online retailers offer versus local retail stores. I’ve always been under the impression that if you are purchasing something from across state lines, then sales tax is not applicable. Apparently, that’s not the case. The article stated that if the retailer doesn’t add the tax onto the transaction, then the consumer is responsible for filing a form with the revenue office and paying the percentage on top of the transaction amount. How likely would we really be to buck up and pay that extra 8+%? Not very. That is unless the crackdown issues more strict mandates or punishments for nonpayment.
This article is worth reading if you too are confused about the sales tax payment requirements, or if you would like to find out how to report your purchases and pay up.

Source:
Johnson, Alex. "States working harder to collect online sales tax."
     www.msnbc.com. N.p., 17 Sept. 2010. Web. 30 Sept. 2010.
     <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39159604/ns/business-personal_finance/>.