I just read Alex's post "ridiculousness taken to the next level", and the title says it all.I knew religions were stubborn but to make a woman carry around a dead fetus is truly unethical. I commented:
     Very good subject to write on. I had no idea a hospital would do something, as you said, so ridiculous. Personally I wouldn't really argue with a religious hospital denying an abortion. I would just think less of the hospital and just tell the person to go to a real hospital. The hospital showed close-minded idiocy through their actions. In my opinion the doctors would have shown much more religious morality and caring, which Catholics are supposed to, by going through with the abortion. The people behind this ridiculous decision proved to be unreasonable and subservient to what they are told to believe because anyone with an actual heart can't make a woman suffer because "my god says abortions are wrong"; I guarantee the doctors in that hopsital do things on a daily basis that go against the bible such as eating pork or wearing polyester. My sympathy goes out to this lady and I too hope the hospital is given harsh repercussions.

Never Ending Argument of Abortion

       In a blog post written by Steven he discusses the issue on abortion and the newish law that is threatening to shut down many clinics in Texas. The whole feud has been around since abortions could be preformed I suppose, with half opposed and half for. Really it all just comes to personal opinion, I've heard outstanding arguments from both ends. Steven suggests that if you are against the bill (in favor of keeping the clinics around) then you have no heart. As bold of a statement as that is I would have to disagree, still with the knowledge that I do in fact have a heart. I believe in pro-choice in most situations, and this topic just falls into one of my pro-choice categories. If a mother and father, seeing as he has the stones to stick around, aren't suited for a child and just plainly don't want a kid they shouldn't have to maintain that burden. I know that does sound heartless but I've known people in the situation where if they actually had the kid it would have ended their dreams in life. Honestly, I don't remember anything from about 3 years old and less. I know it is kind of considered a "human" while it's in the womb, but it's just my belief that the parents should be able to choose whether or not they have a kid that could potentially cripple them financially and mentally. Of course I'm not going to be happy and throw a party if someone I knew were to get an abortion. It would strictly be their business and nothing more, I'm sure they had their own reasons and none of that is anyone else's business.

The Beloved Constitution

       The Constitution, in my opinion, had an exceptional run but it's dilapidated. The country has changed, the people have changed, the world has changed. How can we expect to be a great nation if we're still living under a set of rules decided in a time where men wore wigs? In a time where there wasn't even a postal system, so someone in the next city over was pretty much dead because there was no way to contact them. The world has changed, therefore I believe so should the piece of paper we live under, sorry Madison.

       I'm not saying to demolish it completely because there are grand views in the Constitution; just mold it more in favor of the new world. I'm no politician so I can't say what the new Constitution should or shouldn't say, but our culture orbits the internet so maybe put some issues about that in it. Also, guns are exponentially more powerful than they used to be so that could also be mentioned in there. Another thing could be transportation since back then they rode animals which is rarely even thought of a way to get around now. Foreign affairs would be another thing; When the Constitution was made if you wanted to get in touch with another country you would have to sail for weeks or months whereas now you can simply video chat.
       The people who drafted this new document would be much smarter thanI and be able to give detailed lists. The main point I would say too would be that the American public agrees. Without the American approval then it would all be for nothing. I just believe that our Constitution, although built for stability and longevity, is just outlived. There's no way the founders could have predicted the advances and culture behavior of the newer centuries.

Did Republicans Shoot America in the Foot?

       After reading this article Republicans Shoot America in the Foot I find myself pretty ruffled, which shouldn't come to a surprise since the author is the president of a union. Leo Gerard, the person who wrote this article, is president of the United Steelworkers union and was also appointed to the President's Advisory Committee on Trade Policy and Negotiations. As you can see from some of his previous works such as "Get your GOP hands off my medicare," this article is going to be full of hatred and slander: and it is.
       The article is primarily about the government shut down, and of course how it's all the big bad heartless GOP's fault. It's full of emotional based appeals about all the workers put on furlough, how badly it affected the fiscal structure of the government, and some primary sources such as restaurant owners near national parks. But it is also full of random tidbits of slanderous remarks towards the GOP which are just unnecessary. I'm not trying to justify in any way that what the Republican party did was right, but at the same time I don't have any squabble with it. What I do abhor though is how almost every paragraph ending in a pure hate statement such as "To the GOP, job losses are just collateral damage." or "It's one thing for the GOP to blast itself in the foot; it's unconscionable for Republicans to shoot America." 
       The article didn't have any information that hasn't been covered on every news station in America these past couple of weeks. I believe Leo Gerard wrote this only to get himself off on his own bias towards a group that doesn't share his own beliefs. I just can't take this article serious with sentences like "To Republicans, governing is a fistfight, a war. It's about destruction" and "It's gunning down America." I guess it's just my personal opinion but if you want to persuade me don't only use pathos based arguments when it comes to politics; I'd rather see facts and arguments based on logic, then maybe even a solution to the problem to make me say,"hmm, you know what man, you're absolutely right." 

America Was Designed For A Stalemate

          Francis Fukuyama has written an opinion article in BBC news (opinion article), explaining his analysis of why the government has shut down, and why it's broken. I have many agreements with this article with only a few disagreements. Fukuyama really puts reasoning into perspective by comparing our governmental system with other developed countries' democratic systems. The majority of the article is him bashing on republicans, but also explains why our whole governmental system is designed to cause these problems in the first place.
          The first problem he issues is that the U.S. "features a legislature divided into two equally powerful chambers, each of which may be held by a different party, alongside the presidency." Of course this poses problematic because both parties have different ideologies so there's a lot of room for disagreement. I like how Fukuyama then explains how in the 20th century, although there was still the same issue, the two parties shared some ideology overlap so it wasn't as problematic; whereas recently, the two parties have drifted much further toward their designated side of the spectrum. He then gives the voice of two political scholars who state that this problem creates "governmental paralysis," which I believe to be true. 
           Next I want to mention that Fukuyama uses the term "vetocracy" many times throughout this article. I personally had never heard the word vetocracy before, but I am so glad I know it now because I believe it fits our system style just ever so properly. My favorite quote from this article involving the idea of vetocracy is, "Our political system makes it easier to prevent things from getting done than to make a proactive decision." 
             Fukuyama then goes on to show how our once inspirational democratic structure now just looks inadequate by comparing it to other developed nations. He also compares our health care system to other countries' which really shows just how ugly it is by saying, "our health-care system was highly dysfunctional, costing twice as much per person as the average among rich countries, while producing worse results and leaving millions uninsured."
              I just really like how he explains how our system is broken by explaining it in a way I personally haven't seen before. My only complaint about this article is how he never proposes a solution. He just talks down on our system but never explains a way to fix it. Other than that, I found this article very informational and interesting. 
        

Gun Control
       
        Now as a Texan, whenever I hear the words "gun control" I feel a moral obligation to drink PBR, become belligerent, and start throwing chairs; but from what I just read from this AmericaBlog article about the Naval yard shooter I feel I should think a bit more rationally on the subject. The article is derived from a clip off of John Stuarts Daily Show, I know some people might dismiss it because of that but just bear with the facts.  The DC Navy yard shooter has had a twisted background, and yet, was still granted the right to buy a gun.  According to the article he suffered "mental illness" for a decade, has been arrested twice for gun violence and even called the police recently saying that he was hearing voices. So why was he able to buy a gun? Did the vendor even perform a background check?
             Personally, I believe that people should have to go through a well done background check in order to be able to buy a weapon with the potential to kill dozens of people as we've seen in the past years.  The recent mass shootings have been a tragedy, but I'm not basing my opinion on the shootings;  I just believe that it is the reasonable and logical thing to do. I found this article important because I think anyone who actually sees the DC Navy Yard shooters background they would agree that he shouldn't have been able to purchase a gun, yet somehow he did.