Let Freedom Ring's Blurty Entries [entries|friends|calendar]
Let Freedom Ring

[ userinfo | blurty userinfo ]
[ calendar | blurty calendar ]

[27 Jan 2004|02:57am]

cobain_x_mortis
[ mood | contemplative ]

A thought to ponder.
For the past few days I've been involved in an ongoing debate on gay rights with people on livejournal over this and I figured I'd present my arguments for the case in what I hope is an intelligent and well thought out manner, this is something I've been working hard on, gathering all my thoughts together and presenting them in a way where I am (hopefully) not being directly offensive t religious people or demanding that you see my side and try to understand where we're coming from. I know you're all probably sick of the gay rights posts all over by now but I think this is worth bringing up:

Where religion and government clash )

Sanctity of marriage? )

Is homosexuality natural and is it good for mankind? )

Is it a trend or a product of depressed/abused kids seeking attention? )


Conclusion
My main point in posting this was because I realise that when I debate (especially on this subject) I tend to get very emotionally involved and therefore when I am attempting to make a point, it's so surrounded by emotion that it comes across like either I'm trying to pick a fight or like a rally call.
This is, I hope, a clear and organized explanation of why I feel homosexual marriage should be legal. I tried to think of a lot of arguments against it so I could give my two cents on those arguments, but I'm drawing a blank, so I wrote what I could think of. I want to hear your thoughts on the matter.

/fin

post comment

An interesting first-hand perspective on the war. [04 Apr 2003|11:37am]
nute
[ mood | happy ]
[ music | Metallical - Master of Puppets ]

An experienced journalist has commented here, http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030421&s=hedges regarding aspects to war, and specifics of the Iraq conflict, that many parties (both pro and anti war) often overlook in their desire to justify their viewpoint.

Frankly, having also had first-hand experience with the situations to which he gives reference, I give this article a LOT of weight.

Thoughts?

2 comments|post comment

Affirmative Action... [01 Apr 2003|08:43pm]

dragonfly1517
[ mood | sick ]
[ music | Lou Reed - There Is No Time ]

I just watched a segment of the Supreme Court proceedings on Channel 13 tonight, and I'm hoping to her some responses to the ongoing controversy. I realize that in light of Iraq, affirmative action may appear insignificant, as it did to me until just now, but it's still an interesting and relevant topic and I've been endlessly discussing and deliberating Iraq, so it seems like a change would be nice. Anyhow...

As of now, I just thought I'd start with my personal opinion. Strangely enough, I am ANTI affirmative action (I say strangely enough b/c I am generally very much with the liberal POV). However, I feel that I can justify my position well. I believe in having college admissions be directly (and only) concerned with academic merit. I realize, though, that at this point this would be unfair given the differences in opportunity high school students have across this country - i.e. it's ridiculous to pit a student from an elite school against one from an inner city public high school. There is no such thing as equality of opportunity, at least not yet. That much I think must be taken as a given.

Consequently, admissions officers must somehow take into account these differences. BUT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS NOT THE ANSWER, as it only breeds more racism. If admissions were to be race-blind, I believe, diversity could be achieved through compensation that is applied through SOCIO-ECONOMIC statistics. At this point in our history, I do not believe that we can point to race and qualitatively state that certain races need to be rewarded over others. This only breeds more resentment. Furthermore, if we continue to follow that line of reasoning, couldn't we endlessly be giving people benefits for things that may or may not actually affect them. If a student's race is a measure of the difficulties they faced, what about hair color, or weight, or shoe size? That's absurd.

All right, so my last point was a bit of an exaggeration. Nevertheless, if we can't quantitatively assess the affects of racism, we can't start compensating people randomly, so to speak, as this will only spark race issues where they may not exist. I don't think racism in schools is really such a problem anymore. But here is where I have some doubts, and would like to hear other opinions. Is racism still a major problem in educational institutions? I won't deny that America still has major problems with race, but I don't think they carry over to schools that much. For that reason, I think compensation should be based on socio-economic status (which most likely would correlate to benefitting minorities as well, but that way it could be a sure, numerical thing), as it seems more constitutional to me that way. Our society has to move on into the future, and while I don't think we should ignore racism WHERE IT TRULY EXISTS, I believe that overly compensating and drawing attention to race is going to promulgate the problem instead of solving it.

All right. That's just my personal POV as of now. I look forward to hearing other opinions, because on this issue I am not completely decided, and could be swayed if someone were to make a compelling case showing the problems minorities face in schools. If there is still a tremendous problem, then I guess we should compensate, but again, I am wary of the whole idea of doing it by race, as it seems (ironically) discriminatory - which it technically is. Then again, as far as admissions, there are a whole bunch of other huge problems that I think need to be correctly, like the whole issue with sports, legacy, and so on. If we tackle affirmative action and make THAT fair, we better fix the other issues as well!

*Sigh*

As for Iraq...actually, never mind...I really don't feel like going into it...it's all on my Blurty.
All I'll say is:
"War is, at first, the hope that one will be better off; next, the expectation that the other fellow will be worse off; then, the satisfaction that he isn't any better off; and, finally, the surprise at everyone's being worse off." - Karl Kraus

*Yours, Susanna

4 comments|post comment

[01 Apr 2003|05:06pm]

cobain_x_mortis
I have kind of a random question that came from a debate in my religion class today.
Why isprostitution illegal? It's okay to have sex with someone you just met at a bar and will never see again, but for some reason it's illegal to get paid for it.
If it's something between two consenting adults who is the government to say what is and isn't moral?

Just a question.
8 comments|post comment

Peter Arnett (As Posted In My Journal) [01 Apr 2003|11:02am]
bluelotus
We've all heard about Peter Arnett. Everytime that guy reports on the U.S. military, he gets sacked! Out-fucking-standing. He lied about U.S. forces using chemical weapons against a Vietnam village, got the Lyndon and Nixon administrations pissed at him for his coverage of Vietnam (despite walking away with a Pullitzer prize), got CNN to fire him in 1998. Now, this guy goes on T.V. -- Iraqi state-run T.V., not Al-Jazeera -- claims the Coalition forces misunderestimated the resolve of Iraqi opposition, then went on to say the operational pause (which only lasted a day, and was more like a rest stop) was because the Coalition military planners required time to formulate a contingency plan to deal with the opposition. Bull fuckin' shit! It doesn't bother me that he's wrong -- hey, it's his opinion, and as an American citizen of 25 years, the Constitution entitles him to that -- what bothers me is he said it on Saddam Hussein's personal propaganda machine. That makes you question where his loyalties are.

NBC fired him (a good call), and he made his final appearance on NBC Today (they have a video of it). He issues a formal apology, said it was embarassing and that he apologized for the repercussions it caused. You could almost believe him until you remember his exact words, which were that all he said in the interview is "what everyone knew" about the war. Can you feel the bullshit getting thicker? Better grab your swimming trunks, it's about to get a lot thicker. After he gets fired from NBC, a UK publication, the Daily Mirror, which is avowedly anti-war, hired him! As if this wasn't enough to show he wasn't sorry for what he said, he released a statement which was pretty much a retraction of that apology he made.

Even Walter Kronkite, notably anti-war, said it was extremely irresponsible of him to perform that interview. I guess this goes to show one thing: You, Mr. Arnett, are an ass clown of the same caliber as Michael Moore, and you only made that apology to save your own sagging ass. Once you were hired by that anti-U.S. tabloid, you retracted it. I hope you don't expect to walk away from this conflict with another Pullitzer prize.
post comment

[29 Mar 2003|01:43pm]

volleyoccer2006
wow!! when did this community come back??? not that its a bad thing but im just wondering???
1 comment|post comment

Sleep well every thing is going as planned [27 Mar 2003|12:48am]

shockandawe
In the quest to find new ways to destroy those dirty Iraqi Rabs
the US military has created a weapon called the M.O.A.B.. The "Massive Ordinance Air Blast" AKA "mother of all bombs" this weapon is the largest of its kind weighing in a 21, 000 pounds of explosives(DAMN). It is guided to its target by satellite. The Bush regime has not ruled out it's use....we just got started.
4 comments|post comment

"liberal" [26 Mar 2003|11:19pm]

plywood
i was reading the dictionary today(imagine that ) and in coming across the word "liberal". do you know what it said? well let me tell you,"liberal" was defined as simply "openminded". hmmm... that got me to thinking, openminded, huh? well if they are so "openminded" then why is it that they are so narrowminded when it comes to the choice that i make as an American citizen to "...keep and bear arms". and lets say i want to drive an SUV, are they going to be open minded about that? how about if i would like to light up a cigarette? "openminded" i ask you, are you all really so "openminded"?
17 comments|post comment

[27 Mar 2003|01:54am]

disillusion
My last post about the current Iraqi situation sparked a lot of controversy. I would like to just get a few things straight:

I did not mean to come off as being either pro nor anti war. My last post was written for my own purposes, to organize my thoughts. After getting my thoughts down on paper (or the computer, for that matter), I found myself leaning towards war. Still, I admit to being weak. I am only fifteen, and have never actually experienced war. 9/11 was really my first awakening - paretically because I myself live in Manhattan. I joined this community because I am interested in politics and want to learn more.

I try to be open to new ideas. Please don't jump down my throat! I'm not saying that I am right! I just want to hear out everybody's opinions....


Have a nice evening.

-rachel
14 comments|post comment

[26 Mar 2003|09:35pm]

secretagentkill
My mom was telling me how some cops had a warrant for a drug bust but they got the houses mixed up and went and busted the wrong house and when they busted in they caught two gay men having sex, and the two men were arrested! Because in Texas there's an anti-sodomizing Law and now the men are Sueing the State of Texas, isnt that bizzare? So Texas is basically anti-gay men?
Anyone have any thoughts on this, Thats so wrong.
11 comments|post comment

do they know ? [26 Mar 2003|06:46pm]

plywood
[ mood | amused ]

do the "anti-war"protestors (as ya'll like to call them ) really know why they are opposed to this war? i have been paying attention to their gripes... and i have heard , its a war for oil, its a war for President Bush's daddy, its corporate greed, its a war for money and the like. so i ask... do they know? do they really know what they are opposing? and another question ... why is it that the evening news finds it nessessary to interview the most braindead nimrods they can find? it seems that all the protestors i've seen on the news couldn't find a coherant sentance with two hands an a flashlight. just an observation.

3 comments|post comment

[26 Mar 2003|08:42pm]

android_13

The Hindenburg 1938

=s




9/11

(Get the pictures?)

Well if you can put 2 and 2 together, only one thing's for sure: it ain't the first time something went ablaze in New York's skies!

Remember the Hindenburg anyone? Now isn't it ironic that the failure of the U$ government seems to repeat itself whenever it wants to declare war on someone for its corporate interests?

21 comments|post comment

[26 Mar 2003|03:23pm]

disillusion
This evening, during a tutoring session, I got into a lengthy discussion regarding America’s current war situation. Three weeks ago, I skipped school to attend an anti-war rally held in Union Square Park. However, since that time, I have been gathering information that has changed my views. I am still anti-war and a pro-peace activist. However, I do see that there are many reasons that we must fight. I am writing this simply as a method or organize my thoughts and make them somewhat coherent.

In order to understand the current situation, you must understand the governmental structure in Iraq. Saddam was an assassin before his rise to power. His dictatorship operates on layers. His followers kill out of fear of being murdered themselves. For example, a police officer will kill because his commander forced him to, out of fear. The commander will have told by some governmental official, who will have been commanded by Saddam himself. The ideal situation would be to cause an uprising among the people themselves. The level of fear in the Iraqi regime makes this an impossibility.

One of the more prominent anti-war arguments is that America should back away and let the people make their own judgments. Saddam Hussein is power hungry and not a direct threat to the United States. It has, however, been proven that Iraq has nuclear weapons that can easily wipe out ten times the population of the United States alone. Would he risk ever attacking America and jeopardize his power?

Our current situation is often compared to the Holocaust. America has been allies with Israel for years. Although, prior to Pearl Harbor, we did not attack, America had, been leaning towards the allied forces. Still, congress had refused to sign the Treaty of Versailles in June, 1919, unlike Clinton’s involvement with Middle Eastern peace treaties. What would have happened if we had fought involved earlier on?

Six million Jews died in the Holocaust. Today’s nuclear warfare can cause kill the same number of people in a single afternoon.

Who’s to say that we have actually learned from our past mistakes (ie the atomic bomb)?

Saddam Hussein has already bombed Kuwait along with his own people. Is it a matter of stopping him before it’s too late?

Then there is that inevitable question – are you willing to die for your country? America is far from ever being a perfect nation. We were the ones that split the Middle East without consideration religious conflicts. Blacks achieved civil rights only forty years ago. Our country allowed, and even encouraged, the KKK to perform their sick rituals for decades. It is no secret that some of Bush’s motivations for war are about oil and reputation. Our nation is full of contradictions, but we don’t have the right to be complaining. Most anybody who researches governmental policies will tell you that America one of the best systems in current existence.

In 1990, Saddam Hussein passed a degree allowing males to kill female relatives in the name of honor. He encourages his sons to rape and cut of the clitoris of female victims. How can liberals, feminists and equal rights activists not take action?

What’s the fine line between corruption and morality?

Over half of the population in Iraq is under fifteen. It is wrong to kill innocent children and civilians under ANY circumstances. This war is bound to leave us with thousands of casualties, but, if we don’t fight, the number might increase to tens of millions worldwide. Throughout these past seven days, America has dropped many bombs, all of which have only hit military terrain. The water supply and electricity throughout Baghdad has remained untouched. Still, we have yet to actually hit the dictator himself. Saddam Hussein never sleeps one place two nights in a row. This war will cost America billions of dollars, and our economy is already down. I have never studied the stock market, so I honestly can’t predict anything. But still…

We can’t bomb away the Middle Eastern conflicts. Their have been religious wars since biblical times, and this is just another stick in the road. Militant terrorists will always exist. The only question is if this war is worth fighting for.
12 comments|post comment

Religion as a useful tool for tyranny [26 Mar 2003|12:18pm]

starryideal
[ mood | pissed off ]

I have seen on the news the outcry from the Islamic people that there are people verbally assaulting their women, calling them f-ing raghead b-words (their terminology). These appeals for fair treatment are coming straight from these people right in the middle of their religious rightness. In these places of religious rightness, mosques, temples, whatever, there are no women, except the one woman they trotted out to do the complaining for them.

I see them prostrating themselves to their conception of God. Apparently, in their conception of God, the men are closer to God. The women are what? Not allowed in the inner sanctom? I believe in God, but I'm pretty sure he wants us to stand, not bow. And he wants us to stand together, side by side. Not on top of each other, or shoving anyone behind us with religious nonsense.

I say to them, dont' complain, you idiots, you and your holier than she religion are just part of the problem. You are tyrannizing your own people by putting yourselves (men) above them. I don't want to hear from you until you stand together with equal partnership. Because until then, you don't have a leg to stand on.

Put up or shut up.

3 comments|post comment

Here is something different to talk about [26 Mar 2003|08:40am]

kuuipo
[ mood | curious ]

What do you all think about the Elizabeth Smart situation? I think enough time has passed for reflection on this to have a non emotional opinion. Here are some things I want to hear your views on:

1. Could this been avoided? Meaning, they invited this man to their home to do some roof work.

2. Why didn’t she call out when she heard her family looking for her?

3. Her sister waited 2 hours before telling her parents her sister had been taken.

4. She was in public many times, why didn’t she run?

5.She was gone a couple of months, do you think she was brainwashed?

This is my take. It all sounds to weird for me. You don’t invite a homeless man into your home when you have children. You’re asking for trouble. I honestly think she was very scared initially. Now the sister, you know when you’re scared and alone, every minute seams like an hour. So your telling me she waited 2 hours before she waked her parents. That sounds bogus to me. I can’t understand why she didn’t run or the whole brainwashed thing.

Give me your thoughts!

12 comments|post comment

Great JOB! [26 Mar 2003|07:42am]

kuuipo
[ mood | excited ]
[ music | Pres. Bush's Speach ]

I just wanted to thank those who went to the link I posted to write a soldier in the Middle East. A friend yesterday told me that when she had tried to sign up, there were no more available names. Right now there is a waiting list of people who want to "adopt" a soldier. I can't say enough how great it is that these men and women are now getting some support from "home". Thanks again!

post comment

Who would Jesus vote for? [27 Mar 2003|12:04am]
ephesians610
[ mood | curious ]
[ music | Come on people now - Youngbloods ]

Would Jesus be a Republican or Democrat? Explain your answer thoroughy please.

14 comments|post comment

[25 Mar 2003|09:06pm]

meh_im_tired
i was talking to my freind today
he was wearing a
"anti war= pro terror" sign on him
like pasted to his face
but yea anyways he asked me what Bush shouldhave done
what anybody else would have done if they were attacked by terriots
comments??
5 comments|post comment

question seeking an answer [25 Mar 2003|06:52pm]

sofi26cookie
what do u think we're going to do in/with Iraq once the war is over?
Is it going to be another Afghanistan where we take over, put a new (favorable) gov't and stay there to keep things uder control?
15 comments|post comment

This might clear things up a bit [25 Mar 2003|11:13am]

kuuipo
[ mood | curious ]

We have been talking about if the Iraqis were wrong in filming our POWs. This is an interesting article that can help the debate:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2080616/

12 comments|post comment

navigation
[ viewing | most recent entries ]
[ go | earlier ]