I love President Obama. Yes, I know some people on my friends list will say "Why?" Well, I thought the same thing when President Bush was elected for two terms, and definitely before the 2004 election. This could be idealistic or even naive, but I truly believe he's trying to help the American people. I never got that feeling when Bush was in office. For instance, Iraq clearly didn't have anything to do with helping America. There's clear evidence of that fact. Anyway, enough with the negativity.

Despite being ridiculously unpopular politically, he's still pursuing health care. He wants to help the people who are losing their insurance for stupid "pre existing condition" reasons, like being a women. What is THAT about again? How is that a pre-existing condition? Someone please explain that to me because I really don't get it. I must be missing something. Anyway. He wants to create a better health care system for EVERYONE to benefit from, which could make being seriously ill a little bit easier to swallow. He's also trying to create jobs, and, granted, this is taking longer than people thought. However, we were left with one heck of a hole to dig out of. This is going to take time. I never understood why people believed this would be a simple, quick transition. No president could have made that happen, under any conditions. There's too many complex issues to be dealt with for that to be feasible, including health care, the economy and unemployment. I don't agree with every decision he's making, of course, but at least he seems to be putting the American people first. He's attempting this by doing the right things, even if they may not be easy or benefit his political career. He's trying to create a better America for everyone. What a novel, amazing concept for a President to do.

I don't believe any books were banned from my high school library, but then again, I definitely wouldn't put it past them. Personally, though, I don't believe in censorship. It makes no sense because even if books are burned or censored, there are still many other ways to be exposed to whatever it is. It doesn't solve the problem because the world is what it is. I think parents have a responsibility to reason with their children about alcohol, drugs, sex, etc and teach them to be mature about such matters. Trying to control their lives rarely does the job, but if the parents listen and give specific reasons they need to be careful, that will be more likely to work. Then, it just involves having faith they'll have the insight to make the right decisions. Ultimately, it comes down to them making the decisions that affect the course of their lives. Parents and society only guide them towards their decision.

Below are the lyrics to Scarborough Fair. The original songwriter is unknown, but this version was sung by Simon and Garfunkel. There have been many written versions of the song sung since medieval times. Steeped in medieval history, this beautiful song contrasts the harrowing costs of war with romantic love:

Scarborough fair / canticle

Are you going to scarborough fair?
Parsley, sage, rosemary & thyme
Remember me to one who lives there
She once was a true love of mine

Tell her to make me a cambric shirt
(on the side of a hill in the deep forest green)
Parsley, sage, rosemary & thyme
(tracing a sparrow on snow-crested ground)
Without no seams nor needlework
(blankets and bedclothes a child of the mountains)
Then shell be a true love of mine
(sleeps unaware of the clarion call)

Tell her to find me an acre of land
(on the side of a hill, a sprinkling of leaves)
Parsely, sage, rosemary, & thyme
(washes the grave with silvery tears)
Between the salt water and the sea strand
(a soldier cleans and polishes a gun)
Then shell be a true love of mine

Tell her to reap it in a sickle of leather
(war bellows, blazing in scarlet battalions)
Parsley, sage, rosemary & thyme
(generals order their soldiers to kill)
And to gather it all in a bunch of heather
(and to fight for a cause theyve long ago forgotten)
Then shell be a true love of mine

Are you going to scarborough fair?
Parsley, sage, rosemary & thyme
Remember me to one who lives there
She once was a true love of mine.

If you want to hear the song, it's here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVP4OE1X7XQ

The Republicans are big on touting the belief that a smaller government will "balance the federal budget and be less publicly invasive". Well, those are certainly popular beliefs, but they are not logical ones. If you do not believe me, history has proven my assertion at least five times in just the last 80 years:

Herbert Hoover-In 1929, Herbert Hoover was elected. His campaign promise was the ever popular "Let's balance the budget!" Everyone said "Great, fabulous! It's not going to do any harm, right?" Well, obviously anyone even remotely familiar with history knows what happened that year. Of course, Hoover was not entirely responsible for the stock market crashing or the proceeding Great Depression. He tried to stop it with federal programs, but when he stuck with his balancing the budget plan, it kept us in a persistent economic Depression, along with other impeding factors.

Ronald Reagan- Ah, yes, every Republican's best friend and hero, Ronald Reagan. He came into office with bold claims of "balancing the budget" and claiming "A new day has dawned in America". Well, maybe for the yuppies of the 1980's, but the fact is more people were unemployed in 1984 than during the Great Depression. Stores were closing by the boatload and probably thousands of homes were being foreclosed upon. Farmers who worked 18 hour days actually owed money, instead of the opposite. Reagan's unwavering pursuit of "balancing the budget" was a big part of the reason for all of this happening.

George H.W. Bush- The first Bush in office, he followed the beloved Reagan and actually managed to start an unjust war that was not approved by Congress, making it illegal. As a result, the economy continued to suffer. More businesses closed, people lost their jobs, then they were kicked out of their homes because they could not afford to pay their mortgages.

George H. Bush- For eight long years, he was in office continuing the illegal war his father started. There were two recessions during his term, one in 2001 and the still occurring recession. Of course, there were other people and decisions playing roles there, but he did not do much to stop either one. He also touted this belief of "balancing the budget", but the trillion dollar Iraq War certainly stands in the way of that. There's also the fact that Social Security has dwindled down to almost nothing partially because of Bush's decisions.

Someone wise once said, "Those who fail history are doomed to repeat it". I am not saying that a bigger government is a perfect system or we should not balance the budget, but we need to do that responsibly. People should not have to lose their jobs to achieve balancing the budget. No one could ever accuse bigger government of being responsible for causing a recession or depression. Obviously, the same can not be said for a smaller government.

I think it's important for every women to know how to protect themselves and their children against any form of abuse, so I decided to do a blog about it. I will try and provide you with tips that are helpful, along with a video on youtube and other links that refer to all forms of physical abuse.

Tips-

1. The first rule of war also applies to any fight or form of abuse: NEVER underestimate your opponent. You never know what they bring to the table, but your advantage is, they might underestimate you as well. Use this to your advantage.

2. There are four sensitive parts of the body. By aggressively taking advantage of these areas, you can at least get away from your attacker, if not knock them out for at least a few seconds:

-The throat: Hit it with your elbow or fist using enough force and you can probably knock your attacker down to the ground.

-The stomach: Again, thrust your elbow or fist firmly against the stomach, and the attacker will be forced backwards, giving you at least the chance to get away.

-The groin: Obviously, males are more sensitive in this area than females, so if your attacker is male, take full advantage of it. If you're facing him, slam your foot as aggressively as you can in the area. If he's in back of you, thrust your foot upwards and your heel will slam into the area.

-The foot: This is probably one of the more popular self-defense attempts because it's simple, whether you're facing backwards or forewards. If you hit it with enough exertion and force, you can probably escape quite easily and get help.

3. Anything around you could be a possible weapon if used properly. It helps if you quickly and aggressively aim it at one of the sensitive parts of the body. Speed and quickness is a big part of self-defense, not just strength. The physically and mentally quicker person usually wins the fight. You should also remember they could try and play mind games with you. Believe that you can take care of yourself, and you'll be halfway there.

4. Remember, if you do manage to knock out your attacker, you don't know how long they'll be out for. It could be seconds, minutes or hours, so get away quickly and ALWAYS go to the police or other authorities in this situation. They could be your biggest ally if you can give them the attacker's full discription. It's understandable you'd be overwhelmed and panicked, but it's important to have all the information for the authorities. That way, they'll never attack anyone again.

Video-



Links related to this topic-

http://helpguide.org/mental/domestic_violence_abuse_types_signs_causes_effects.htm

http://ncmbts.blogspot.com/

http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/abuse/a/aa990414.htm

http://www.healthieryou.com/wabuse.html

http://safety.amw.com/home/protect-yourself-against-violence-or-abuse/

If you're interested in learning more about how to protect animals from cruelty, here are a few websites for more information on the topic:

http://www.aspca.org/fight-animal-cruelty/
This is the ASPCA's website.

http://www.animalconcerns.org/topics.html?topicsku=2002133123741&topic=Violence%2C%20Abuse%20and%20Neglect&topictype=topic
This site provides more information about zoos and other places with animals. It also gives information on how to target and take care of the problem.

http://www.all-creatures.org/sof/animalabuse.html
This site has a history of animal abuse, what you can do about it and other valuable links about the topic.

http://www.pet-abuse.com/
This site gives you more information about animal cruelty cases in a certain area.

http://www.peteducation.com/article.cfm?c=0+1278+1495&aid=3120
This site talks about the link between human and animal abuse. It also discusses what can be done to prevent it.

If you want to learn more about the mysteries of the universe and physics, look at this site: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_theory.html It gives very interesting information about The Big Bang Theory. Two questions answered are what has helped to determine the theory and the evidence to back it up. It also attempts to answer many other questions in the astrophysics realm. I found it to be fascinating, what do you think?

I just watched a video from charity: water, in which Jennifer Connelly shows us the terrible plight of the hundreds of millions of people who live without access to clean water and sanitation. Water is more important than you might think. It dramatically affects the quality of people's lives and societies. It's far more important to have clean, healthy water to drink than food to eat because you can only survive days without water. Everyone deserves the right to have clean, healthy water.

Then I took action with ONE and asked my senators to cosponsor the Senator Paul Simon Water for the World Act of 2009 (S.624), which will help bring first-time, sustainable access to clean water and sanitation to a hundred million of the world's poorest people. Check out the video and then make that commitment, too, by adding your voice.

http://www.one.org/us/waterfortheworld/index.html?rc=wftwtaf

Together as ONE, we can make a difference!

It's a small concern of mine, but people are being crazy about this. There are many different things you can die from, not just this. You could die by getting hit by a truck or even getting a cold if your immune system is shot for whatever reason. I understand the panic in some respects, but people seem to be going too far with this. Some are acting like this is a defcon 5 situation or like they're about to be shot. Freaking out about things you have little control over makes no sense. Not to mention that freaking out can do a number to your system as well, depending on how seriously you panic, your current health situation and other factors. All any of us can do is protect ourselves by washing our hands and being as healthy as possible. If you come down with something, go see your doctor so they can determine how bad it is. That's the same thing you should always do, swine flu or not. I've heard some of the people who have died in Mexico were healthy and that it's come to the US, but still. Of course, it's only natural to worry about this sort of thing, so I get that at least, but the panic seems irrational and premature in some individuals.

This controversial issue has gotten a moderate amount of press coverage in the past few weeks because President Obama recently reversed Bush's stringent policies on stem cell research. Personally, I think it's the height of irresponsibility to simply say "That's wrong. You're killing a life". It's arguable whether or not an embryo is alive, of course. Either way, I that it's just as wrong and irresponsible to deny a MS patient a chance of living without pain or a taking away a quadraplagic's chance of ever walking independently again. According to the article I was reading on the National Institute of Health's website (http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics1.asp), there is still much research to be conducted to determine how these cells will treat the diseases. This could be a great benefit to humankind, though, and to be frank, I honestly don't even understand why this is a debate. Debates are important in every case, of course, but this seems simple to agree with. To all the critics of stem cell use, I have to ask you: "What if you had Parkinson's disease and this could cure you? What if your family member became parapalegic in a car accident? Would you still be so strongly opposed to it?" If you really think about this, it might help you to understand where we're coming from. There are numerous diseases that have the potential of being cured in a few years through stem cells. In my mind, it is simply too risky and dangerous to not pursue this for everyone's future.

Now for the scientific reasoning behind this theory: Adult stem cells wouldn't replicate as quickly, that's why they're not being used or considered. Embryotic stem cells replicate quickly because they have to create a whole human baby in about nine months. Most of the stem cell mitosis takes place in the embryotic stage, obviously, because much more of the body has to be created. Take Parkinson's, for example. Embryotic stem cells will cause dopamine, the neurotransmitter in the subtantia nigra and basal ganglia that is responsible for controlled body moments, to be replaced. Individuals with Parkinsons have lost over 80% of this invaluable neurotransmitter in these parts of the brain. Obviously, this will eventually cure the disease because the embryotic stem cells will have plenty of dopamine. Without this quick replication, any disease won't be resolved as quickly, or even at all. This has been strongly suggested by scientific research. Again, this is why embryotic stem cells have even been put on the table. Of course, this method has its stipulations: the DNA from the embryotic stem cells would have to be altered to at least work with the adult cells and body.

I was recently talking to one of my coworkers about the movie "Apocalypto", a Mel Gibson movie. I haven't actually seen this movie. I wanted to, but after the negative, deragatory remarks I've heard he's made towards the gays and Jews, I've decided to never watch another Mel Gibson movie. Anyway, it sounded interesting. Apparently, there were good Indians in the film who didn't really bother anyone and killer Indians who caused destruction, death and rape everywhere they went. The latter's description is probably what matches society's preconceived notions of Indians most closely, but they're just like every other culture: their skin color or heritage doesn't necessarily define who they are or become in time. Anyway, I've always been fascinated by experiencing different cultures. This, for some reason, is especially true of the Indian and Mexican cultures. The Indian culture in particular seems very devoted to spirtuality and achieving a certain degree of harmony with their surroundings. They also don't believe you can own land, which, according to my understanding, is what caused them to give up the land they lived on for a thousand of years so easily. This intrigues me because its so blatantly different from the American culture.

Moving on to the real inspiration and reason for this particular post. I was randomly clicking and found an interesting article related to the remains of the famous Indian Geronimo being stolen from its resting place by the Yale supposed "Secret Society" called "Skull and Bones" decades ago. His great-grandson has sued the Society to reclaim the remains. It also names the University and even the Federal Government in the Affidavit filed in Washington. I'm not sure if this case will hold up in a court of law simply because its statute of limitations may have expired by now. If you choose to, read the rest of the article here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29265600/?gt1=43001.

This is the whole incredible Inaugural Speech delivered by President Obama earlier today, just in case you missed it. Despite what some people believe, this was much bigger than one person and a once-every-four-years inaguration. It was an amazing moment that didn't seem real until today. It's broken up into two videos, both available on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrzkKRyOAc8.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02zOJEFfsug
</lj-embed>

I have decided to expound on what I've briefly touched upon in previous journal entries, my personal viewpoints of religion. My life experiences have determined my view of religion to be skeptical at times. I should probably mention at this juncture I view religion and God as two separate entities. God didn't create religion, humans did. Therefore, it's an imperfect concept, like everything else created by humanity. To cast away all doubts, I do actually believe in God, although not necessarily only one. My studies of various scientific disciplines have always given me more faith than any other religious belief ever has. I'm no expert on science, I should add, but I'm continuously learning about it. These personal ills of religion possibly could have derived from my Catholic upbringing. Of course, one might argue religious beliefs could make up for the unexplainable phenomena which sometimes occur and baffles scientists. I, however, firmly believe there are logical, rational reasons for everything so even these events could be explained by science. I respect people's religious views, but I struggle to remain as open minded about extremist beliefs. I am also indisposed to understand why dogmas continue to remain so prevalent in many religions. It seems to me that intelligent people who have both the anatomical and physical capabilities to experience thoughts don't need to be given such stringent beliefs and moral codes they must follow. Some of these people also seem to believe they can think less of those who don't follow the credo sent forth by their religious guidelines and leaders. This may be more attributed to human nature's flaws than religion or philosophy. It certainly doesn't stop these judgments from running rampant in our societies, though. Fortunately, of course, not everyone follows such militaristic, rigid sets of beliefs.

As for mystical experiences or visions, I've always viewed these as more hallucinations than actual true visions. Science has certainly expressed this theory about such involvements. I've never actually had such an experience, however, and that's always the best teacher. In other words, I could be wrong about all of this. I believe we all must exhibit the compassion and humility towards other philosophical and religious views to realize our philosophies could be mistaken.

KEITH OLBERMANN RULES! If you want to witness the reason why I'm making this statement, watch the video below:

Adding to my increasing amount of controversial journal entries, this entry will primarily focus on gay marriage and other rights of the LGBT community as a whole. There are two main reasons the LGBT community want this so passionately: the legal reasons, and the right to publicly celebrate their love. These reasons, of course, are the same as why straight people want to marry. I was reluctant to write this journal entry. I knew people would either be for or against it from the commencement of this entry due to the subject line. I may not change any minds, but people should know the facts and have a full spectrum of the reasons why it's so important. First off, people should understand the word "marriage" and, for some people, the conventionality of it, aren't the issues. Marriage automatically instills over 1,000 legal rights that aren't granted to any single individual, gay or straight. Oh, and as far as civil unions go? Uh, no. They offer less rights than an actual marriage does. These rights cover the gamet of everything from money and health care issues to housing of the spouse or children after the death of the partner. Obviously, these are extremely important issues that need effective, fair solutions. They're not exactly lightweight matters. Another major issue still being disputed is adoption, which will be discussed further in the last paragraph.

My arguments on this issue are: who's decision is it to say which people are entitled to these rights, and when? I suppose the government should be the taskmasters here because they have the power to make it legally binding; therefore, it will be taken more seriously. I still think many of these issues could be decided on an individual basis, but since this isn't a perfect world, that probably would cause some issues. As for the argument that the LGBT Californians fighting of this vote impedes on democracy, it doesn't. A judge, who is just as important to the democratic process as the voters are, ruled in favor of Gay Marraiges back in May, 2008. Besides, there was apparently a lot of negative campaigning and downright lies surrounding this controversial issue. A lot of them seemed to feed off of people's lack of knowledge and fears of the issue. All of this isn't an example of the same thing? No matter which way you roll the dice, it still comes to the same conclusion.

Every argument against the Gay Marriage issue has gaping holes in it. All the arguments thrown at it make little sense: "It's not natural". My response is, "Neither are glasses, makeup, air conditioners, cars, etc, but no one's protesting them." "Gay couples will only create gay children". "Right, just like straight couples never have gay children." According to what I've read in my Social Psychology book, statistics back me up there. "More than 90% of adult children of gay fathers or lesbian mothers develop a heterosexul orientation-a figure that is not significantly different from the percentages of heterosexuals raised by heterosexual parents". "They are not able to reproduce". "Actually, this isn't true. We CAN reproduce, although obviously not through conventional methods. Besides, consider the population of the world: 6.8 billion people we are currently struggling to care for, and it continues to grow." "A child needs a mother and father." "Yeah, that's why single parenting in our society is expressly forbidden." "Children would be better off in a orphanage than with a gay person/couple". "OK, here's the facts: there are over 100,000 children living in orphanages or group homes at the moment in the US alone, according to what I read. Half of those MIGHT be adopted, and possibly by parents who would abuse or neglect the child. They have an increased risk of becoming drug addicts or criminals if they grow up in an orphanage or group home, according to statistics. Homosexual couples have worked for decades trying to adopt children. These are the people who really want children and will treat them right, not just abuse or put the child in a dumpster, like some straight people. Being straight doesn't automatically mean you'll be a good parent. These children deserve loving parents who will treat them right, whether they're gay or straight, after all they've dealt with in their lives." This journal entry is bound to stir many sentiments in almost anyone who reads it. These, however, have been my experiences, which have both influenced and determined why I share these views.

Wow. This day was unbelievably amazing. It is important to note, of course, that John McCain made the day even better by so appreciatively and elegently conceding the race. He even kept stopping those frustrated fans of his who booed every time Obama was mentioned. I can understand to a degree, of course, I'd feel the same way if Obama didn't win. It was definitely a day for equality across the board. Just a little over a hundred years ago, I read there was a federal law prohibiting anyone from helping slaves escape. I know that was a long time ago, but it's also important to note, since it illustrates just how far we've come as a humans and more specifically, as a country. I've always tried to recognize race as just a color. I know race can affect a person in many profound ways, of course, because of culture and that individual's environment. At the end of the day, colors, labels and differences fade, though, and you just see another human being. I believe that's the way it should be. That may seem really idealistic, but I think it can be achieved through compassion, common sense and getting to know individuals from different cultures and walks of life. I sincerely hope I'm wrong about this, but I wonder if we as a society and world will ever get there. Then again, we took a giant leap forward towards this goal today. It really doesn't matter to me, anyway, nor did it when I voted. The only way it influenced my final decision was because I felt it was high time a person who wasn't a Caucasian male would be elected to one of the most powerful positions in the country. When I was at the voting booth, though, I thought mainly about who was best for the country as a whole and who I could see being the best president. I don't care if the guy is black, white, blue or striped like a zebra, he was right for the position. It is, after all, one of the hardest jobs in the country. That's all anyone should care about because it's what truly matters. I say he's right for the job because I believe he would best serve the needs of the majority and get our country back to where it should be. This can be a great chance to improve our economy, health care, national security, and SO many other crucial issues which affect Americans daily. This proves anyone can achieve anything in this country if you really work for it, and that's the true victory here for everyone. It's not just an inspirational yet empty phrase. I believe it benefits all of America as a whole, especially minorities, obviously. I truly do believe, as even Elisabeth Hasselbeck said on The View, that no one lost on Election Night. We all won. This victory meant almost anyone can be president of the United States, and that's an unbelievably wonderful thing for all Americans to celebrate.