Tax-payer money used for a research project in Argentina...

The National Institution of Health is spending more than $400,000 of tax-payer's money for a research project studying the sexual behavior of gay men who get drunk in bars. Since the rates of HIV/AIDS are greater in Washington DC, it would be reasonably to assume they were performing this study in this city, or, at least, one would assume it would be in ANY city in the U.S. However, this study is in Buenos Aires, Argentina. What? The NIH is using our tax dollars for a study based in a foreign country. Is it too unreasonable to ask that the government only use money for projects like this if they are conducted in the U.S.? As well, I don't think I could condone spending government money-tax-payers ultimately paying the price-on such projects even if they were in the U.S. Government must stop wasting our money on useless projects, especially when we are going through an economic crisis. The heavy burden on the tax-payer would be lessened if we forsake such projects and would have an obvious, positive effect on the economy.

Evolution and "Intelligent design"

This is an excellent article-very well written and thought out. I could not agree with you more. Evolution is JUST a theory and yet many teachers and schools promote it as fact. One argument I've heard is that since Creation cannot be tested in a lab, there is no proof of it occurring...but then, there isn't a way to disprove it, either. In addition, evolution also cannot be recreated in a lab. I think it's wrong that schools should teach it as fact. If anything, they should at least admit it is simply a theory; although, I don't think it has much ground at all.
It saddens me to see how easily we have forgotten what America was founded on. The first book ever printed by the government, I believe, was the Bible. And, in schools, they taught the Ten Commandments and the values of the Bible, which of course is the source of "intelligent design". All throughout our nation's history it is evident that our Forefathers believed in God and creationism. Evolution isn't even an American concept.
If we must have evolution taught in schools, than it should be hand in hand with "intelligent design".

Socialism is all fun and games till you wake up and realize...you're not in America anymore, Todo

Obama recently forced Gm CEO Rick Wagnor to quit-well really, that's just a nice way of saying he fired him. I didn't know firing an executive of a company part of the presidential job description? It's not, and it never should be. Perhaps it is in line with the stewardship theory of the Presidency, but I would go so far as to claim to you this act is, quite simply, illegal. The powers of the president are seemingly expanding to degrees once considered impossible, and who will be there to stop it? Congress? There didn't seem so much as a hiccup of protest against Obama's firing Wagnor. It's hard to say if a same-party Congress rallied behind their leader would do anything but eagerly support whatever the president feds them. Hey, but at least Europe will applause.

There has been talk of nationalizing the banks, instead of bailing them out. That's a terrible idea. Bailouts can create problems all by itself, but we don't need to add nationalization of corporations to our desperate far-reaching list of ideas. Our government was not intended to control business of any kind, and if they did nationalize the banks, it would be in violation of our capitalist system. To do so would be another step in the country's move toward socialism. It may be argued, that once this crisis is averted, we could return the banks to private owners. However, since when has any president, or Congress, given up a power once it was granted them?

Maybe socialism wouldn't be so bad, though , after all nearly 20% of Americans believe socialism would be a better system than capitalism. Come on...are we really that naive? Have we forgotten our history and are now doomed to repeat it? For one, we have the great and ominous example of the Soviet Union. Also, it is interesting to note, that our forefathers already tested socialism and found it a poor system. At Plymouth everyone was supposed to work for the common good and so each would get an equal share of food. Some soon discovered, however, that they would still receive food even if they didn't work, or worked the minimum. Thus, those few hard workers had to carry the weight of the irresponsible freeloaders. The pilgrims realized this was a poor plan, and soon made it so that if someone didn't work they didn't eat. Sound wisdom-maybe we should live by their example. Socialism didn't work, and doesn't work. Plus, it's just plain not American.

'Hope' and 'Change'

In Ann Coulter's article "Are 'Hope' and 'Change' Still Tax-Deductible?" she makes an interesting point to her conservative, right-wing, audience. The Democrats, the party lower-income families usually associate with, are not so poor as they pretend to be. Though some of them may be poor in comparison to the rest of the political players, but they are still in the top percentage of highest incomes in America. It's ridiculous, then, for them to boast in being poor and even pretend to understand the plight of the poor. Ann considers the percentage of donations to charities between Obama and Bush. It's interesting, though there's not many left who really like Bush, you can deny him the admirable quality of giving to those less fortunate.
Overall, I think she makes a fairly good, and logical, arguement.

What will become of our consumer-oriented society?

Phil Karpen makes some interesting points considering the stimulus package President Obama. Boiling down the argument, he's basically saying that this bailout will only postpone the inevitable. I think one of the key point is that Americans should stop buying what we can't afford. It seems like simple logic to live by; however, the concept must be more complicated, because most Americans don't realize the problem with our consumer-oriented society. Another thing he mentions is that it's those who've been smart with their finances who apparently have to pay to "bailout" those who were irresponsible. I'm not really seeing where this is "fair."
On the downside, Karpen could have mentioned an alternative solution to the economic crisis. Instead, he seemingly criticized without offering any way out. His argument, I think, is valid, but things aren't accomplished through only well-grounded criticize. We need a solution. A way to ease the effects of the crisis.


"When will we say 'enough' to the world's biggest ponzi scheme?"

truth or political appeasement?

One of Obama's first acts as president was to lift the "ban on federal funding for international groups that promote or perform abortion." He claims the middle ground territory on this issue and even to help reduce the number of abortions. Actions speak louder than words, however, especially when words are a facade to placate opposition. He says his for women's rights, that's great! But, what about the babies? Do they get a choice when their mother decides to get an abortion? This act, to lift the ban, will only serve to increase the number of abortions. You should read the articles and consider whether Obama is actually doing what he said he'll do, or if maybe, just maybe, he's saying what people want to hear, and not what he's really doing.