This blog is for students in Ms. Aby-Keirstead's AP US Government class in Bloomington, MN. It is for students to post their thoughts on current events and governmental affairs. Students should be respectful & think of this forum as an extension of their classroom. The instructor has the same expectations for classroom discussion & blog posts. These posts will be graded for both their academic merit & for their appropriateness.
Pick a fellow student to respond to. Read the article they are reacting to. Explain whether you agree or disagree with their position on the article in question. This is your last post for this term.
posted by maby-keirstead @ 1:06 PM
This blog is for students in Ms. Aby-Keirstead's AP US Government class in Bloomington, MN. It is for students to post their thoughts on current events and governmental affairs. Students should be respectful & think of this forum as an extension of their classroom. The instructor has the same expectations for classroom discussion & blog posts. These posts will be graded for both their academic merit & for their appropriateness.
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
29 Comments:
In response to bmac:
I found the article Bridget chose to write about very interesting because it has to do with the concepts of global warming and climate change, a very important but also very touchy subject in todays society. The ultimate question is does global warming exist? Many people today would answer yes without a second thought. The article Bridget chose to write about is primarily in line with this train of thought, attacking Tea Party members for disregarding the issue as insignificant.
I completely agree that this article was extremely biased towards liberals and makes it sound as if all Conservatives believe the Bible word for word. Although there is nothing wrong with that, it is most certainly untrue about all Conservatives. Tea Party members may have a skeptical view of the liberal’s extreme view of Global Warming and may disregard it completely but they have a right to. The fact that this article is making the Tea Party members look like bad people because of their beliefs is not okay. One of the fantastic things about living in America is that we have the freedom of speech, thought, and opinion. Regardless of whether the Tea Party members are wrong shouldn’t matter because they have the right to believe what they want. I found that this article had a whole lot of an opinion and very little fact. I agree that the article would have been better presented had it included some facts to back up many of the statements the author made in his defense that global warming is a real problem today.
I also found that I agree with Bridget on her stance on the issue that is global warming. I don’t agree with the extreme liberals who say that the current state of our climate is all humans fault or the extreme conservatives= and Tea Party members who say God put the resources on earth for human use. I very much believe that it is important to be kind to our planet and be conscience of the pollutants we put out into the world yet I feel, regardless of the existence of humans, the planet has always gone through periods of climate change. I also believe that the term ‘global warming’ is void. I very much believe in the term ‘climate change’ and think it is happening and that humans are helping to speed up the process. Likewise, I very much dislike the term ‘global warming’ because I don’t think we can simply describe our climate change as simply warming or cooling. Granted, I don’t know nearly enough about the state of our climate as the scientific experts but that’s my personal take on climate change.
All in all, I agreed with Bridget throughout her article. Not only was the New York Times article she looked at extremely biased but also it gave a lot of opinion and few facts besides statistics regarding Tea Party members and their beliefs on global warming. I also agree that the articles statement that humans are the sole cause of climate change isn’t correct. There are other factors that move climate change forward aside from human interference.
In response to AnthoNOVA:
Well, I think it’s pretty obvious to us that the opinions of this deranged poster should be taken with a grain of salt. AnthoNOVA is clearly more interested in beating out the rest of his classmates to comment on the blog than on developing clear, insightful… insights. He probably placed so much emphasis on fast response that he doesn’t even remember what he asserted, and would refute the same arguments now, not even realizing that they were his own words. What a clueless dolt.
Although it’s clear as day to most of us that AnthoNOVA’s 4th blog post has more basis in psychosis than fact, let’s get down to the dirty business of shattering his cracked logic and crushing his fledgling ideas. AnthoNOVA (misguidedly) chose to respond to the following article:
“Grading School Choice” by Ross Douthat
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/11/opinion/11douthat.html?_r=1
I agree with the premise of AnthoNOVA’s claim, that the title of this article may indeed be “Grading School Choice,” and that web address seems to lead to the article. However, even from this early point in his letter to the editor, AnthoNOVA falters. He outright states that the author goes by the name of Ross Douthat. To anyone with eyes, it is plain to see that “Douthat” is some sick mish-mash of words which AnthoNOVA probably strung together hoping no one would notice that he made the author up. I am so convinced in this that I have no need to check the article, and even if AnthoNOVA is correct on the title and URL, those are the only two of his points I agree with.
First of all, I disagree with the extensive amount of extraneous gibberish that bookends Mr. NOVA’s letter. He said it best in the opening line of his blog post: “This is straight-up unacceptable.” By relegating the actual content of his blog post to center [look up patterns of memory again] and surrounding it with excess, AnthoNOVA effectively lulls the reader into ignoring his faults of reasoning and accepting his conclusions, no matter how feeble, as they are.
Indeed, throughout the post AnthoNOVA provides numerous cues that he is unable to take even his own argument seriously. He says of the blog post, “I’m just publishing it because I’m insane.” And he provides abundant discussion of the true, subversive motivation for his most, namely that he is procrastinating reading Chapter 9 by accomplishing mounds of work before it’s really due. Now, admittedly, I have Chapter 11 to read. And I also just did a sizeable portion of the study guide which I don’t have to have finished until Tuesday. However, at least I am forward about the issue- AnthoNOVA only speculates on this “subconscious method of procrastination.”
Wow- I haven’t even gotten around to the silly, unconsidered ideas present in AnthoNOVA’s italicized, difficult-to-read letter. Let’s get to it (telegraphic sentence).
AnthoNOVA provided an anecdote which asserted that private and charter schools do no better than public schools at educating students. This is beside the point. The argument of school choice is that creating competition between such groups and the default public schools results in better education at all of them. Mr. Douthat’s article established that current school choice programs do not allow this to happen: “In practice, even the more ambitious school choice experiments have protected the public school system from the rigors of real competition.” We just need to fully implement the school choice concept- given 20 years of zero regulation for my uber-conservative policy to work, of course we would see improvements in education.
AnthoNOVA also expressed concerns that programs of school vouchers would result in poor students becoming stuck in unfunded schools. Artichoke! Sorry, just a nugget for those of you who are actually reading this. In the case of the only existing federal voucher program in the US, located in Washington DC, low-income children are given the opportunity to escape DC’s notoriously bad public schools to attend private schools (1). Now, elitist and scheming Democrats are using their stranglehold on federal policy to not let 200 new students into the pilot program which will end next year, citing student’s wellbeing (2). The poor students being assisted by the voucher program are fighting being returned to the failing schools where they have no choice to escape.
It turns out slamming the schools with convoys of armored money trucks won’t work either. Mr. NOVA claimed that “the solution to America’s education crisis is not in school choice, but in … throwing money at public schools.” “Since 1985, inflation-adjusted federal spending on K-12 education has increased 138 percent. Since the 1960s, real per-pupil federal education expenditures have more than tripled. Meanwhile, academic achievement has languished,” answers policy analyst and former educator Lindsey Burke (3). Such funding increases are in fact forced through the governmental process by teachers’ unions, who, like the Obama-Pelosi-Reid triumvirate, have a stranglehold on America (4). These unions, composed of people who take an extreme- in fact suspicious- interest in education, clearly do not have the interests of students at heart. For real expertise, policymakers should go to business models and the free market and stop listening to the adults in direct daily contact with students.
AnthoNOVA is wrong again at the close of his unnecessarily long treatise, making the shocking claim “I agree with the viewpoint voiced by President Obama.” Again insinuating the liberal agenda into our children’s lives in a “Back to School” address this fall, Obama clearly missed the point on education. Despite the valiant efforts of some states, Obama continues to push for national education standards, now offering monetary rewards to states that accept national standards. While Obama gave his address from the lavish comfort of a prestigious Philadelphia “Blue Ribbon School,” where the facilities were likely not built in 1970, the classrooms are soundproof and not plagued by mice, and the hallways broad, bright, and breezy, his policy plans ignore the plight of many children across the country who are already failing state standards (5). Why does the president want our children to be national failures as well?
So there you go. I have hereby destroyed misguided blog poster AnthoNOVA’s futile argument with careful utilization of wit and ad hominem accusations. Which is Latin; it makes me sound smart. I suppose I can only say that I am glad AnthoNOVA was so obsessed with his opportunity to be the first comment on Blog Post #4; it clearly only weakened his stances, making it easier for me to whip out this reply utterly annihilating him before anyone else could comment on Blog Post #4 Response.
Oh, and Britta, we’ll talk later.
Sources:
(1) http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/09/conservative-group-rips-second-lady-ignoring-elimination-dc-voucher-program/
(2) http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/14/dc-families-bemoan-imminent-loss-voucher-program/
(3) http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/07/Creating-a-Crisis-Spending-Increase-to-Fund-Bloated-Education-Bureaucracy
(4) http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/07/Creating-a-Crisis-Unions-Stifle-Education-Reform
(5) http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/09/14/lindsey-burke-obama-school-education-speech-school-choice/
Have a great day :-)
In response to Justin,
I do not think that the tea party is an extremist group that is set against the environmentalist movement. On the contrary I think they are doing a good giving other scientific findings a voice. The IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] was formed to build the scientific case that mankind causes global warming, and the policy case for regulating carbon dioxide emissions. There is a clear political bias coloring the IPCC message in a way that minimizes scientific uncertainties and maximizes public panic [1]. However this slit warming was moderate and previously predicated before the twentieth century. Also this small amount of warming did more good to wildlife and human health, such as reducing the incidence of cardiovascular disease related to low temperatures and wintry weather, then harm [2]. The NIPCC, the non-intergovernmental panel on Climate change, is a non-government based agency; its members are not predisposed to believe climate change is cause by human emissions, and is able to offer independent opinion not biased by the government. I think that having a debating policy with more research will only help our environmentalist policies. This is not saying that I do not agree when Justin says “in both individuals and government policy will be the true solution to creating a sustainable world for future generations to live in.” But I think both Conservatives and democrats alike need to look at a wider range of facts and figures.
[1] Roy W. Spencer, The Great Global Warming Blunder
[2] http://www.heartland.org/ClimateChangeReconsidered/index.html
In response to Lexi:
I agree with you that spending less money is a legitimate solution to alleviating the federal deficit, but there are problems with the idea you propose. First off, there is the case of whether or not the government decides to spend less. Where are they going to cut spending? The government is running a deficit of around $1 trillion dollars, and just over 80% of the federal budget is dedicated to Social Security, Medicare, the Department of Defense, Medicaid, Unemployment and Welfare programs, and paying interest on the national debt (1). Side note: I apologize for using Wikipedia as a source, but I do not have the attention span to sift through millions of PDF files from whitehouse.gov to compile these figures for myself. Anyways, while I agree with you that the Democrats do deserve to take some heat for their spending, collecting more tax revenue is the only feasible way for the government to cut down the deficit. This is because the only government programs that can be cut without a significant backlash don't even receive enough funding to put a dent in the budget deficit. While I'd personally like to see them take a huge chunk out of the budget allocations for the military, it's never going to happen, nor will cuts to Social Security, Medicare, or social welfare programs ever happen.
Sure, the government could cut wasteful programs like the Department of Veterans Affairs and their program of throwing away unused prescription drugs (2), additions of the auto fleet for the Department of Justice (3), and eliminate redundant inspections from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (4); but that would only eliminate a very small fraction of our deficit. Yes, the government should make their spending more efficient, but they can't plug the budget deficit with spending cuts alone. Like it or not, the government has to increase tax revenues to close at least part of the gap here.
Also, while you say spending less is better for the economy, I would like to propose an alternate point of view. Money moves in circles in our economy, and as "the father of modern economics," John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946) would argue, people hoard (save) money in difficult times, meaning there is less money to go around in the economy (5). Hence, the cure is for the national bank (the Federal Reserve) to expand the money supply. The only way for getting money back into circulation is to circulate it, and when people can't do it, the government needs to do it (5)! Also, as Keynesian theory reasons, during a depression (as many people believe we have/are slipped/slipping into), when people refuse to spend money despite government attempts to expand the money supply, it is the government's job to spend for consumers to alleviate the economy (5). The success to back Keynesian theory lies behind World War Two. President Roosevelt rejected Keynes' plan to fix the Great Depression, but the economy did not get back to normal until the War, when governments typically resort to that Keynesian theory of massive wasteful spending (5). Keynesian policies kept the 9 postwar recessions from turning into depressions, so there is no reason why the government shouldn't be implementing these policies today. On the other hand, the trickle-down theory you seem to advocate for may create an economic growth in theory, but has not done so in practice (6).
Finally, I would like to add that the GOP deserves to be mocked by everyone and their mother for their financial policy. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the Republicans run on a platform of so-called "fiscal responsibility," which makes it fantastically ironic that three of the biggest contributors to the debt/deficit in American history are Reagan and the Bushes (7). The "fiscal responsibility" championed for by the Republicans is a farce, and former Governor Jesse Ventura put it best, saying: "Republicans spend like Democrats, only they charge it. At least the Democrats go cash and carry, but the Republicans do the same thing and charge it."
Sources
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget
(2) http://www.cnbc.com/id/38385072/10_Ways_to_Reduce_Wasteful_Gov_t_Spending?slide=2
(3) http://www.cnbc.com/id/38385072/10_Ways_to_Reduce_Wasteful_Gov_t_Spending?slide=5
(4) http://www.cnbc.com/id/38385072/10_Ways_to_Reduce_Wasteful_Gov_t_Spending?slide=8
(5) http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Keynesianism.htm
(6) http://www.faireconomy.org/research/TrickleDown.html
(7) http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html
In response to Kristin:
I completely agree with what Kristin said. I do believe that the article clearly put out ways that the President, Congress and/or the Supreme Court could get ruin of the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell law. I really like how in the article the editor showed that it would be difficult to repeal the DADT law but it is not impossible. They said that the president could increase the changes that the appellate courts would agree with him by following a deliberate process that gives consideration to the views of the military leadership, some of whom have already come out against the policy (1).
Not only that but I do like the fact that the editor states that whether or not a President agrees or disagrees with a law, he still must follow it, unless he chooses to repeal it. I think that Obama should definitely try to show more support to repealing DADT because then more action might be taken against it.
I also like how Kristin added in the fact that “as much as 75% of Americans support allowing homosexuals to openly serve in the military, and 73% of military personnel are comfortable with homosexuals” (2). This not only shows that the majority of Americans disagree with the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell law, but also they would most definitely support the repeal, if there ever was one.
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/opinion/21dellinger.html?_r=1&hp
2. http://www.sldn.org/pages/about-dadt
In response to eSass...
Let me start out by saying that this was one of the most emotionally charged pieces that I have ever read. The author is clearly very angry over the content and uses this power to convey a very biased opinion. One of the first quotes that is used in the piece states "Gay marriage threatens the institutions of marriage and the family," while I personally believe that this is an overstatement, and untrue, I think that this quote was probably taken out of context, or at least lacked some explanation (1). I would have liked to know why the Family Research Council thought that way. Do they have any research to back this claim up?
I agree with Erica's statement that "Gay marriages are just the same as straight marriage" but I somewhat disagree that they have had to work harder for their love. I think that gay people have had to work harder for their rights, and it is a constant battle, but would disagree that this equates to working harder for love. Also, by using SOAPS on the piece I found that the article reached out to people who are already pro-Gay rights, so there opinions are just substantiated. While this article appeals to the emotions of the reader, I think it lacks looking at the other sides opinion. If the author could have looked at someone who was anti-gay marriage's opinion he could have used the "weakness" of that person's argument to support his own claim.
I thought Erica's analysis on the financial side of gay marriage was very interesting. I never thought that gay marriage could change the income tax situation. While this could increase revenue for the federal government, I don't think that the impact of the wedding industry would have that great of an impact on the economy (2). It may at first, since lots of gay people would be getting married, but the author of the second article assumes that all people who are gay will want to get married which I feel is an over assumption and a weakness to the argument.
Overall I think that the post was mostly aimed at emotions, which is a very great way to get feedback, and to reach out to people. I would have liked to see more numbers and facts but otherwise she did a good job.
(1)http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2009299,00.html
(2)http://economics.about.com/cs/moffattentries/a/gay_marriage_2.htm
Kristin,
First off, thank you for your letter. We appreciate your views and hope that you continue reading the New York Times and submitting your opinions.
The “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” policy has plagued our military for too long. Since the policy was enacted, more than 13,000 soldiers have been discharged from the military because of their sexual orientation. These people, and many others who are now hiding their sexuality to avoid losing their jobs, have suffered under this policy, when they should be celebrated with the rest of our veterans. These are people who could be helping defend our country, but cannot, because of “Don’t ask, Don’t tell.”
As you said in your letter, the possible depletion of troop morale is not a suitable reason to bar viable assets from entering into the military. There just isn’t a rational explanation for why this policy is allowed to continue. With polls showing that support for repealing the policy is increasing, the policy is at its end. The information you provided in your letter (75% of Americans support allowing homosexuals to openly serve in the military, and 73% of military personnel are comfortable with homosexuals (2)) backs up this fact.
Your letter was very well written and supported. Once again we appreciate your letter, and hope to hear from you again soon. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Bill Keller, Editor of the New York Times
(1)http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/opinion/21dellinger.html?hp
(2) http://www.sldn.org/pages/about-dadt
In response to Katie
I was surprised to see that the New York Times took the time to print the editorial piece in there newspaper. The letter had nothing new to say about climate change. The letter talked about how many members of the Tea Party do not believe in climate change. I can’t understand if the quotes they use from Tea Party supporters and candidates are supposed to be comical or outrage the reader. The article is a hodgepodge of these quotes and offers no insightful information. The author John Broder seems to go out of his way and bash Tea Party supporters and conservative talk show hosts.I think Katie did a good job getting through the garbage of this article to find useful quotes and information that could be used to create an argument. She does an excellent job at using her knowledge in economics to construct an argument that a cap and trade system would be the most efficient in reducing green house gases. I agree with this idea, but such a policy will disproportionately hurt economies that enact such rules. This tidbit of knowledge is important in determining whether a government should go through with such a policy.
On the issue of “dirty” energy’s campaign donations and lobbying, I disagree with her and the article. They bring up the fact that these firms have spent half a billion dollars on lobbying and campaign contributions since 2009. Katie draws the conclusion that these firms know what they are doing is bad and that they don’t want to change. The fact is that all firms are just looking out for there best interests. These firms interest is in the current status quo. Green Energy firms give as many contributions. Investors who have a combined 421 billion in the clean technology are opposed to Proposition 23 in November because it would repeal clean energy policies and environmental policies (2). This is another group of firms just looking out for themselves, but you won’t see an editorial in the New York Times about. The point is that firms along with people will look out for their best interests even if it will hurt society as a whole in many cases. You can argue all day about this topic, but you won’t change human nature.
(1) Climate Change Doubt is Tea Party Article of Faith
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/us/politics/21climate.html?_r=1&bl
(2) A Beautiful Coalition against Dirty Energy
http://www.grist.org/article/2010-10-28-a-beautiful-coalition-against-dirty-energy
In response to Bridget’s Letter:
I found the subject you chose to write about very interesting and agreed with your interpretation and assumptions you made, though there are a few things I would like to add.
The article was definitely left-leaning, and did not do anything to include the Tea Party’s rationale for their position. I agree with you that the article was mocking the Tea Party with its title as well as various quotes in the article. Every quote from a Tea Party supporter was completely discounted and the article made them seem foolish. It is true that the Tea Party is against the passage of legislation regarding climate change, but that is not necessarily because they are ignorant of global warming. They do have good reasoning behind the idea that humans may have little to no influence on climate change as scientific evidence hasn’t drawn direct conclusions addressing its causes. Also, their objections to the climate change legislation don’t have to do with the effects of climate change, but on the cost of reducing it. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions would cost a fortune, and it would mean that the government would have to take a bigger role in the economy, which Tea Party supporters believe would not outweigh its benefits at this time. I wish the article would have included the Tea Party’s arguments against climate change legislation, as I think good journalism should address both sides of an issue.
I think that the article chose an extreme situation to categorize the Tea Party as a whole. The article said that less than half of Americans believe global warming is an environmental problem, so it is not such an extreme position to oppose climate change legislation. It also made me angry to see that the article completely discounted the scientific studies that raised doubts about climate change while it also made the Tea Party supporters seem ignorant for their doubts on scientific studies that say global warming is a problem. The also article argued that the only groups that are skeptic of climate change are linked to the oil industry in some way, which is not true. I agree with Bridget that the article should have provided more evidence to support the author’s position, as it would have done a better job of discounting the Tea Party’s side than the strategy he used.
Great blog Bridget!!
In Response to Monica,
I agree with what Monica has to say about the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and the injustice of its current stay. As a future serviceman myself, I see no problem in fighting alongside an openly gay man because on the battlefield, a bullet doesn’t care about one’s sexual orientation. Being gay doesn’t worsen or better my thoughts on that person; it’s what they do and how they act in combat that determines my opinion of them. A possible outcome of the policy’s repeal is an open relationship within units. I do have a problem with that because men aren’t allowed to fight alongside women on the battlefield. The issue I’m concerned with has nothing to do with public displays of affection, (PDA) but rather that in numerous studies, when a close partner goes down (like a girlfriend or boyfriend) the immediate reaction is to tend to their needs. But when men fight with each other, our instinct tells us that it isn’t necessary to care for one another in the same way we would do a woman (or a man in this possible scenario). In summation, gay enlistees should enjoy the same privileges and restrictions as straight enlistees, no more, no less.
Monica also made a good point regarding President Obama in that he’s in a tough position and must handle the next weeks with precision and tactfulness. He must get his message through to Congress and the Courts in order to have his original policy on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (1). Obama has made multiple promises early on in his presidency including repealing this policy which have not come to fruition, at least not yet. This is why that many critics have questioned his preemptive Nobel Prize, saying he hasn’t made a significant breakthrough (2).
What Monica said about the rights of gays being more important than the morale of the unit is rather interesting. When the commanding officer takes into account morale, he or she must also consider that if morale is low, so is the will to continue fighting. A man’s will power may be the only thing that keeps him going; so to say that the rights of gays are more important than life strikes me as an interesting statement. In continuance with that statement, the greatest irony is that the reason many troops say they fight, or at least why I will fight, is because ‘they may not support what you think but they will fight to the death to protect the right to say it.’ Basically, they support the right to be gay and will fight for it under the first amendment but being gay around them is unacceptable? I can’t really grasp that concept and (now that my circular thought has returned to morale vs. life) if the troops support openly gay serviceman, morale wouldn’t decrease but rather increase. I support openly gay service because I don’t care whether the person next to me doesn’t like girls, I care how he handles a weapon and if he’s got my back in combat.
1) http://www.startribune.com/politics/105353688.html?page=1&c=y
2) http://blogs.reuters.com/global/2009/10/09/does-obama-deserve-the-nobel-peace-prize/
In response to David
I went on the article "GOP Gearing up for White House Investigation" and i disagree with your opinion that Obama administration has failed the American people. I think the time when Obama became president the economy was down and the country was at war. Now the economy is in the process of improving and troop in Iraq have been reduced. People can't blame President Obama for the things like bad economy because it happened when Bush was president. I think republicans should not use the subpoena power to get the administration talking because it would raise lot of controversies.I agree with you on that you said the President can't push unpopular issues because it wouldn't get him recognition and his reputation his down. The republicans are focused on winning this November election and if they win their main goal is to investigate Osama administration practices. I think Democrats are trying to win the election and gain as many seats as possible to in order to prevent republicans to gain control over the house. I think even if republicans win they should not use the subpoena power extensively against the Obama Administration to question them I think it would lead to major issues. I think David did a great job analyzing the article and stating republicans goal on this election. Great Job David
Sources
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-vs-congress-20101021,0,6803116.story
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-na-obama-vs-congress-20101021,0,904953.story
Response to Caitlin:
I agree with the general idea of Caitlin’s letter and the article in that too many people are dependent on government programs. I was shocked that nearly half of Americans do not pay federal income taxes and are not listed as a dependent on a taxpayer(1). It does not seem right that the people who contribute so little to government get so much in return. In the past three years, Congress has greatly expanded the eligibility and benefits of government programs. The food stamp program has increased by 80% since December 2007. Jobless benefits have increased by 272% since then(2). Once these government programs have expanded it is very hard to decrease them. These programs encourage long-term dependence(2). It is unlikely that people will be very motivated to find a job when they don’t have to. Most people who receive food stamps have been unemployed dependents for many years, even decades. It has even been found that children growing up on welfare are more likely to remain dependant on government programs as adults(2).
While I agree that dependence on government is a problem, I think that the solution is more complex than merely criticizing Democrats and getting more conservative people elected to Congress. To solve this problem, the country needs to change society. We should promote self-sufficiency, economic independence, and work ethic(2). The government should make programs that increase personal responsibility and promote employment while gradually cutting back on the programs that lead to dependence. These government welfare programs should be replaced in part by private charities, which actually have a higher success rate for helping people get back on their feet(2). I think that this plan will help people more than government programs because it is healthier for individuals and for our country to self-sufficient.
Overall, I think Caitlin did a good job with the letter. I particularly liked the Ronald Reagan quote that she used. I think that the references to socialism slightly exaggerate the situation, but she did a good job of getting her point across.
1. http://blogs.ajc.com/kyle-wingfield/2010/10/21/year-after-year-our-culture-of-dependence-grows/?cxntfid=blogs_kyle_wingfield
2.http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/jborowski/record-number-of-people-dependent-on-government-pr
I agree with Erika’s letter. I thought the article made some really valuable points on gay marriage. I thought the author of the article really made the article readable, some articles about gay marriage say the same things, and make the same point. However, this article makes some points I haven’t heard before. This article contradicts the argument about gay marriage running the sanctity of marriage. Strait People don’t need any help doing that with how popular (1)divorce is. I really liked Erika’s points on gay marriage benefiting the economy.(2) She makes an excellent point for gay marriage helping our country.
(1)http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,2009299,00.html
(2)http://economics.about.com/cs/moffattentries/a/gay_marriage.htm?p=1
Response to Lexi (LClark):
When I saw your first thoughts on the Star Tribune article you wrote about, I immediately knew that I would, more or less, disagree with what you said throughout, and I was certainly not wrong. To begin, I think that the national debt is a smaller problem than the recession which the nation finds itself in. Spending more now to get us out of the recession (of course it’s up to interpretation about whether that works or not but we’ll assume both sides have equally valid ideas about the economy for the moment) is more important than balancing a national debt, because the former creates less devastating problems than the latter. Also, it’s important to note that Biden doesn’t specifically dislike Republicans because they spend less, but more because they claim to want to spend less while spending tons of money themselves. This is quite clear if you look at the numbers for the Bush administration: they raised the national debt by 4.9 trillion dollars during their time in power (1). Another important point is one you made yourself: money borrowed now won’t be as difficult to pay back in the future because of inflation. Possibly the most important point, though, is that while Democrats propose more government programs, they also want to tax the extremely wealthy, which would largely offset the costs of many of them and could even go to work on the debt.
Despite what I said, I agree that the solution isn’t to print more money and issue bonds. Depreciation of the dollar is an entirely real problem and it’s something that cannot be allowed to happen. I disagree with the assertion that decreasing spending is the clear solution though, mostly for the reasons above.
The next problem arises when you state that tax cuts give businesses more money to hire more people. In theory, this is perfect logic, and in practice it can’t be said that it completely fails. There is no way you can say that money from tax cuts goes totally, or even mostly, towards hiring new American workers, when there are a bevy of other options for businesses, appealing for a myriad of reasons. They could hire and produce in foreign markets, such as China, which makes sense, because it’s much cheaper to produce there. Unfortunately for the rest of us, that doesn’t help the American economy. Another thing they could do it pay off the debts they’ve incurred, which is set to happen en masse with a new set of tax cuts. Businesses are worried about the state of the recessed economy and want to be sure they don’t go out of business should it get worse. On a similar note, they can pure-and-simple save the money they get from the tax cuts to pay future debilitating debts. With the uncertainty created by the recession, it can easily be said that these are all more appealing than hiring more American workers.
Also, as a side note, I would argue that Republicans are moreso to blame regarding the debt, as between the Republican presidents since Carter, 8.3 trillion dollars of the currently 13 trillion dollar debt has come from Republican presidents and their administrations (3), but that’s a small point.
Aside from the clear ideological differences, though, I thought your post was quite well researched and written and it’s clear you put a lot of thought into it. Good job!
1. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-4872310-503544.html
2. http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-tax-cuts-stimulus-2010-9
3. http://articles.mcall.com/2010-01-22/news/all-namehere_mc.7154476jan22_1_national-debt-trillion-debt-crisis
In response to Caitlin’s response to Justin’s post:
I am going to have to disagree with your viewpoint that the Tea Party isn’t against environmental movements. By the Tea Party even trying to connote global warming with anything positive (such as the reduction of cardiovascular disease), it takes away from the bigger problem: that global warming IS happening and its effects ARE detrimental to our generation and all those who follow us. The IPCC needed to say the message that “maximized public panic” because there are groups out there like the Tea Party who are promoting the notion that global warming is not an issue facing our country.
Tea party Republican Joe Miller doesn't think global warming is real. He was even quoted to say, "The science supporting manmade climate change is inconclusive.” (3)
From this, we can conclude that Mr. Miller [like many of his fellow Tea Party members] is choosing to look the other way, rather than looking at the facts. The green house effect is the warming that happens when gases in Earth's atmosphere trap heat. As the mercury rises, the climate can change in unexpected ways (1). In addition to sea levels rising, weather can become more extreme. Recently, the IPCC reported they have seen that eleven of the twelve hottest years [since the accurate thermometer readings have been recorded] occurred between 1995 and 2006 (2). Hurricanes and other storms are also likely to become stronger than they already are; can the South handle another Katrina/Emily/Wilma/Rita if something isn’t done? That is a serious problem facing our government if Tea Party members and other Republicans do not start reading the information presented by the IPCC and the truth that is being spoken.
Caitlin, I will agree with you that healthy debate and hearing both sides to a story is always the right way to approach social issues. But when it comes too global warming, I believe there is a fine line between “giving other scientific findings a voice” and blatantly ignoring the facts presented.
1. http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/?source=NavEnvGlobal
2. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/SLW_WorkshopReport_kuala_lumpur.pdf
3. http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/10/28/1897010/gop-senate-candidates-among-global.html
Star Tribune: http://www.startribune.com/nation/104799804.html?page=1&c=y
In Response to: Emma G’s Letter
After reading the article about “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” in the Star Tribune, I found myself with the same feelings as Emma has. Delaying the repeal is upsetting and causing Americans distress. Defense Secretary Robert Gates explained why the repeal is moving at a slow speed. He said, “An immediate injunction would have "enormous" consequences on the military” (1). However, he didn’t have many examples to back up his claims. The Washington Post claimed he “did not provide examples of how the military might suffer, and gay rights groups have asked Gates to clarify his remarks” (1). His remarks weren’t clarified in a way that pleased the group.
I agree with Emma when she says that “this is a civil rights issue.” The Rutgers University suicide is a prime example that unfair treatment of homosexuals is taking place on a smaller scale as well as a national one. In the New York Daily News, Journalist Elie Mystal talked about the Rutgers tragedy and how bullies should be dealt with. “Some [authorities] have gone so far as to argue that we should throw kids into jail for bullying each other, especially if the tormentors are making fun of a kid's sexual orientation” (2). I agree with Elie, and I think that harassment, especially in schools should have serious consequences, especially at Jefferson. I also like how Emma introduced the issue of trust into her letter. I agree completely that trust is necessary for effectiveness but also the safety of the members of the military. The stronger the communication and bonds the military possesses, the stronger the military will become.
Emma gave two personal examples of why she wants “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repealed, and how she has seen the effects that bullying and harassment about homosexuality have on teens firsthand. The examples definitely gave the letter an edge, and helped explain to the editor why she views the article the way she did. Overall, Emma sent a clear message to the editor. She definitely held and defended her stance on the issue of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” I think the letter is well written and would be a useful source of feedback to the Editor of the Star Tribune.
1. Washington Post: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/10/pentagon_cites_uncertainty_abo.html
2. New York Daily News: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/10/21/2010-10-21_tyler_clementi_rutgers_freshman_who_committed_suicide_after_gay_bullying_could_h.html
This is a response to Monica’s post.
The article is http://www.startribune.com/politics/105353688.html
I agree strongly with Monica’s stance on this issue. The military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy definitely seems like a violation of First Amendment rights. The fact that openly gay men and women don’t have the right to protect their country if they want is totally unjust and unacceptable. The majority of respondents to a CBS News Poll did say that they support the rights of these men and women, so it’s not even like this would be a super unpopular move. Fortunately it does appear that the policy will soon be repealed since the Pentagon has already given orders to recruiters to accept gay individuals. The discharge proceedings for these individuals are being suspended at the moment, but since the process has already begun it seems likely that it will be pushed through sometime soon. I believe that Obama is right to be cautious about this change, since this topic is undoubtedly touchy for some people. However, I think that he definitely needs to do his utmost to bring about a change. This is an important step towards equality for gay individuals and should definitely happen. I agree with Monica when she talks about how “One federal official said that letting in openly gay recruits could "harm troop morale"(1).This shouldn't be a problem, but even if it is, the rights of gays should be put above morale.” The First Amendment rights of individuals are an integral part of our society and this policy definitely seems to violate them. Good post Monica!
In response to Val:
Val, your response to the article about the BP Oil spill and its effect on the ecosystems in the ocean was heartwarming. I was so happy to hear your point of view as it is mine too. My favorite part of your response was when you said “Thank you for showing America the truth behind the oil spill, and describing how the damage is being repaired!” I agree fully with that. When I went to Japan this summer, I heard a lot about the oil spill from the Japanese Media. It was stuff that America would never have wanted me to hear about the oil spill. The Japanese government censored a lot less of the BP oil spill because it wasn’t their government. Watching the images and footage from the Japanese television was definitely a different experience than I had ever had. Seeing this made me open up my eyes. For this reason, I agree with you when you write to the editor about showing truth. I believe that truth is very important and that the lack of truth is one of the reasons that there is extreme distrust in the governmental system today. Looking online on the BP site there are no extremely negative pictures about the oil spill (1.). There are only positive pictures and words describing how BP will help to clean up the mess that it caused. Also, in another American article, the article talks of how BP is an environmental disaster, but they think the damage is over exaggerated (2.). This is certainly not true. America is just tryin gto hide the extent of the spill. I believe we need more articles such as the one you wrote about that will tell us how the environment is really faring.
I am also very glad that you brought up the comment about the worker saying “There is lots of coverup for BP.” I think that sometimes, to protect their businesses, firms must do some coverup. Obviously there is a lot of coverup that BP is already done. There is also a lot that BP has lost. However, covering up is sometimes beneficial to the business man. To switch things up a bit, I’m going to play devil’s advocate. Sorry environment. Although I love the environment, I believe it is sometimes necessary for businesses to keep information from consumers. This is vital to the success of a business. I believe it is important to inform the public to an extent of what is going on and then to let the individual figure out the rest of the story from there on.
1.) http://www.bp.com/extendedsectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=40&contentId=7061813
2.) http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2007202,00.html
Response Post 4 (in response to Emma G)
I agree with Emma G, that deliberately having a slow process to remove DADT is absurd. A service member’s sexual orientation does not affect their performance, bravery, or character. Therefore, DADT is discriminating against LGBT service members, and removing them from service, without any just cause. Some 75% of Americans support allowing homosexuals to openly serve in the military, and 73% of military personnel are comfortable with homosexuals (1). Surveying soldiers on their opinions of DADT will send a strong message to the military and Congress, showing that DADT is not supported by the majority of the military. Emma is correct when she says that there needs to be strong unity and trust within the military, and preventing LGBT service members from being completely open with the other members of their team, will weaken the strong bond of the military.
More than 750 service members with critical skills, including knowledge of Korean and Arabic languages, have been discharged as a result of DADT (1). These skills are indispensible to the military, and having to remove these qualified soldiers based solely on their sexual orientation is a doing a grave injustice to them and the military.
A slow, gradual process to remove DADT will allow more cases of discrimination and injustices against LGBT service member. The government must implement a strong policy to remove DADT to send a strong and efficient message to the military and society at large, that the civil rights of LGBT service members in the military will not be restricted.
President Obama has the ability to take a firm stand against DADT if he tells the Supreme Court that he believes DADT is unconstitutional. The opinion of the President can influence Supreme Court decisions, as President Clinton showed in his defense of soldiers with HIV in the military (2). President Obama has the ability to make a profound change in society, if he shows more public opposition to DADT and expresses his view to the Supreme Court.
1) http://www.sldn.org/pages/about-dadt
2) http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/opinion/21dellinger.html?hp
In response to Abby,
I found that I agreed with your stance on the article. When I first found out the topic of the article, the NAACP accusing the Tea Party of being racist, I didn’t want to totally dismiss the views of the interest group. I figured that if the article contained examples, and there was research done, it must be true. However, as I read the article I started to see that, like you said, much of the information they had either had no specific evidence, or could have been twisted into making the Tea Party look bad. For example, in the article it says that Tea Party members made racial slurs to colored congress members. This may not even be true, and even if it was, it wasn’t everyone in the Tea Party that did it, so people cannot then classify the whole Tea Party as racist. Later on, the article even goes on to say that the Tea Party expelled members that had been said to have made racial remarks. This further proves that the Tea Party is not actually a racist group. The Tea Party may be a slightly extreme group, but it was not meant to be a group that focused on social issues like this anyway. It was formed in response to economic issues.
I understand that the use of any racial slur would anger people in the NAACP. If a member of the Tea Party did make a racist remark, the NAACP has all the right to feel that way and want to protect themselves, but going after the whole Tea Party when only a few may have done it is not the way to go. I believe that the Tea Party as a whole is not racist.
Good Blog Post Abby!
Source:
(1) http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/us/politics/21naacp.HTML?_r=1&ref=politics
Sorry I’m commenting on this prompt a second time; Caitlin encouraged me to respond, I felt strongly about the issue, and that first post was just silly anyway. Feel free to discount whichever one does not agree with your views as unnecessary excess, or please keep the party going by counter-responding.
To the editor:
Last week this blog published a letter from caitlinF lauding an article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, which discussed American frustration with government tax policy as the cause for the Tea Party movement. The impetus for conservative blogger Kyle Wingfield to author this article was the October 14th release by The Heritage Foundation of its annual Index of Dependence on Government, which among other statistics observes 43.6% of Americans do not pay federal income taxes. The original article caitlinF responded to can be found below:
http://blogs.ajc.com/kyle-wingfield/2010/10/21/year-after-year-our-culture-of-dependence-grows/?cxntfid=blogs_kyle_wingfield
Although technically true, the statistic is greatly misleading. The poor have a minimum income before federal income taxes begin applying: families of four must make about $25,000 for the federal income tax to apply. Americans may also have zero net income tax because “they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability” (10). However, the statistic ignores excise (sales) taxes and state and local taxes, as well as payroll taxes such as Social Security and Medicare (11), which for 75% of filers exceed income taxes (9). Such taxes have no minimum income to apply, and are one of the primary reasons that President Obama has championed tax credits for the poor and middle class. In addition, because the statistic factors in tax exemptions, credits, and deductions, the argument that welfare is increasing while the poor pay even less is invalid. By no means does the statistic that 43.6% of people do not pay federal income taxes mean “that not only are people getting more from the government but are contributing less to it,“ as caitlinF claims.
As a point of order, caitlinF’s post discussed changes in the statistics over the last year, but close reading reveals that “The percentage of people who do not pay federal income taxes themselves, and who are not claimed as dependents by someone who pays federal income taxes… [was] 43.6 percent in 2008,” (8) and these numbers are neither current since President Obama took office nor even remotely classifiable as a Democratic approach to the degree people depend on the government. Admittedly, the current numbers are probably similar with the continued recession.
I find it exceedingly interesting that the primary reason for the apparent high value of the “no income tax” statistic is a measure advocated and passed by famously fiscal conservative President Ronald Reagan. Reagan’s program, the Earned Income Tax Credit, offsets a portion of taxes on those within a low-income bracket system (12). In her response to caitlinF’s post, Monica argued that welfare programs “encourage long-term dependence.” However, “families use the Earned Income Tax Credit to pay for necessities, repair homes, maintain vehicles that are needed to commute to work, and in some cases, obtain additional education or training to boost their employability and earning power,” according to a group which helps register families for EITC benefits (12). Monica also argued that welfare removes motivation to work. Due to a system which provides more tax credit the more hours a person works, “the EITC has encouraged large numbers of single parents to leave welfare for work,” and “become a powerful force in dramatically raising the employment of low-income women in recent years” (12). The evidence backing Monica’s claims came from FreedomWorks (14), a Tea Party organization which “fights for lower taxes, less government and more economic freedom for all Americans” (13). Regardless of the Tea Party movement’s status as extremist or a grassroots majority, FreedomWorks clearly has a political agenda working which creates bias in the article.
It is useful to consider the information in this television broadcast -->(2)<--, which publicizes major corporations, including Citibank, Bank of America, and General Electric, which, last year, paid zero dollars on taxes by using loopholes and tax breaks. I guarantee that these major corporations, if taxed effectively, would blow the “welfare” inherent in refunding the income taxes of the poor out of the water. Now, critics may note that this piece of evidence is from liberal MSNBC host Rachel Maddow’s program on October 21. I think this is a fair move considering caitlinF’s support came from The Heritage Foundation, a group which on its home page appeals to visitors to “Join Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and 696000 conservatives as a member of The Heritage Foundation and help us strengthen the conservative comeback” (1).
Picking on low-income Americans is not the solution to dependence on government. Those Americans below the poverty line- 14.3% according to the Census Bureau (4)- make only 3.4% of all income generated in the US; at the same time the top 20% of Americans raked in 49.4% of American income (3). The story here is not that low-income Americans often are reimbursed for income taxes, but that the divide between the richest Americans and the poorest Americans is polarizing the country. According to CBS even The Heritage Foundation agreed that low income Americans are suffering (3). With the income gap spiraling out of control, the Highest Marginal Income Tax Rate- what the richest of the tax bracket pays- is half of what it was in 1980 (5). The tax bracket’s pattern of lower taxes on the upper class is graphically illustrated at source (6). Legendary investor Warren Buffett’s words of wisdom, “There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning” (7), are perhaps the most relevant characterization of American policy that conservatives lamenting the “Obama tax hike” don’t wish to hear.
I’m not sure why caitlinF chose to cite this article as her second piece of evidence:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2010/10/20/gene_lyons_gop_hypocrites
It comes from the noteworthy liberal online publication Salon, and offers a scathing criticism of what it calls “empty rhetoric they don’t even believe,” a “war on arithmetic,” and “GOP hypocrisy,” and also characterizes the Tea Party movement as “basically a joke, hearkening back to a mythical Golden Age in American life that never existed.” It is possible that caitlinF misinterpreted the article based on its second paragraph: ”Take Rep. Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota, for example. Campaigning for reelection, the photogenic Tea Party heroine postures boldly against taxes and government spending. A bitter critic of the Obama administration's efforts to improve the economy, she specifically and repeatedly derides ‘the failed Pelosi trillion-dollar stimulus.’" In the event that she missed its elements of caricature, here is a website promoting Michelle Bachmann, for the blog peruser’s convenience:
http://biggovernment.com/author/mbachmann/
Sources:
(1) http://www.heritage.org/
(2) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#39789312
(3) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/09/28/national/main6907321.shtml
(4) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/09/16/national/main6872133.shtml
(5) http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213
(6) http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/nytimes_taxes_graph.gif
(7) http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/business/yourmoney/26every.html
(8) http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/10/the-2010-index-of-dependence-on-government
(9) http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=1000456
(10) http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1
(11) http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/do_40_percent_of_americans_pay_no.html
(12) http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=2505
(13) http://www.freedomworks.org/about/our-mission
(14) http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/jborowski/record-number-of-people-dependent-on-government-pr
Wow. That was a doozy.
In response to Justin:
I completely agree with Justin's criticisms of the Tea Party and their irrational denial of the existence of global warming. As the article points out, the vast majority of scientists confirm that global warming is in fact a problem, and the Tea Party still claims it's a lie. In fact, climate change skepticism is one of their core beliefs. I find this completely ridiculous and laughable. I agree with Justin that the article does a good job of showing the extreme nature of the Tea Party. The man who is quoted saying that global warming is a lie said he based his opinions solely of "the preachings of Rush Limbaugh" and the Bible. Really? Now, I admit, the man was merely an electrician, but the actual political leaders of the Tea Party don't sound that different. I was also frustrated by the clear fact that is right under the Tea Party's nose: big oil and energy companies deny the problem of global warming. Isn't it obvious that they're doing this just to protect their profits? Wow, Tea Party. Just wow.
I agree with Justin that a social revolution is what we need to fix this problem, but I am not quite as optimistic that it will happen any time soon. Too many people are "going green" for the tote bags and cool graphic t-shirts - not because they really care about changing the world. Also, people are just lazy and don't feel like actually reducing their carbon footprint. It would be difficult to organize enough people that actually want a real revolution. There are too many jerks and slackers in the world.
In response to Jesse's Letter:
I completely agree with the points that Jesse made on his post. He considered different sides of the issue while coming from a very human, down-to-earth level. I particularly liked his hypothetical idea about how we would certainly be keeping statistics of civilian deaths if it was on our soil.
When we turn war into an idea of us against them or good against evil, we lose our of humanity and compassion. We enable ourselves to live in ignorance without seeing the faces or even hearing the statistics or stories of civilians. With war, there is always the fundamental moral that one must not take another person's life. Whether or not the moral is considered however simply doesn't seem to be on the minds of the people who start wars. Wars have been fought for centuries; it has essentially become a part of our global culture. When will the norm of war end? No one can say for sure. I believe however that we can consider reports like this article a small stepping stone on this lengthy path to peace.
In response to RJ:
I definitely agree with you when you say that the Obama administration has failed to deliver on many of the things that he (Obama) had claimed he wanted to do in his presidency, and as someone who was an avid Obama supporter in 2008 I also am extremely disappointed in our President. It is important, however, to think about the bigger things that have plagued Obama throughout his presidency such as the economy and health care- but at the same time we must remember that as the President he cannot simply remain neutral on controversial social policies. I also think something that needs to be emphasized is that the President didn’t fail to make a controversial decision on anything fiscally related like bailouts, or universal health care. Now that these decisions have been made, and leading economists say that we are finally exiting the recession, it’s time for Obama to step up his game and prove to Democrats and Republicans (and third partiers) that he can stick by his word and make a decision that will positively affect the lives of thousands while at the same time making a giant leap forward in making members of the GLBTQ community socially accepted by more than just a small group of people. I also agree with you strongly when you mention that lifting the ban has done nothing to affect other soldiers. You’re completely right to point out that there have been no reports of soldiers feeling more uncomfortable around their colleagues and there has also been no mass group of soldiers just deciding to quit because of the lift of this ban. Clearly Obama has no opposition within the military (even the high ranking officials believe that DADT is detrimental to national security), so the only true opposition he has is in the Republican party as well as conservative third parties. Since this is true there is no reason Obama should appeal to them by trying to slow or even stop the process of repealing the ban because they won’t vote for him anyway.
Anthony you are the first person in the 3 or 4 years I have done this blog activity who has responded to HIMSELF! :)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home