Don't Ask, Don't Tell: we need change

Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a policy spawned from ignorance and discrimination. This military law, implemented in 1993 by Former President Bill Clinton in an attempt to be fair to homosexuals, is one of the most despicable and nonsensical policies ever created by the US Military.  It mandates in

10 U.S.C. § 654 that "Sexual orientation will not be a bar to service unless manifested by homosexual conduct. The military will discharge members who engage in homosexual conduct, which is defined as a homosexual act, a statement that the member is homosexual or bisexual, or a marriage or attempted marriage to someone of the same gender." As you can see, they tried to put a positive spin on it, but it's clearly a negative.

To reiterate in layman's terms, homosexuals are prohibited from telling anyone that they're gay, telling stories about homosexuality, or performing any act that could possibly serve as evidence to prove that they're homosexual. Wow. Seems fair, doesn't it?

Some politicians have claimed that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is an important code because it prevents distraction. Well, that seems logical enough. Basically, they are saying that if a homosexual man serving in the army were to be sexually attracted to another member of his unit, this may be distracting to both of them. Makes perfect sense. Then, I guess we'll just have to get rid of all the women in the army then, too. The United States Military never thought that just maybe a man serving in the army that's attracted to a woman in his unit could be distracted by her presence during important, and possibly life-threatening situations? Hmm. Now, we are presented with a choice. We can either take a step back 200 years and get rid of most of our dedicated servicemen and women and have the armed services be open only to white, heterosexual men. Or we can be reasonable and let everyone who chooses to serve our country do so, regardless of sex, race, sexual orientation, religion, or condition of servitude.

If you honestly think that the relation between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples is so utterly different and if you have some odd thought in your mind that because a person is gay, they'll be more likely to commit rape, you need help. Please, do us all a favor and educate yourself. Get out of your bubble of ignorance and into the real world.

Because of this discriminatory and degrading policy, we are loosing dedicated and talented service-members everyday because they feel wronged. They are forbidden from expressing their true selves and are forced to be a person they are not. Below, I've included a video of a retired military officer who's  job it was do disarm IEDs (improvised explosive devices). IEDs are the cause of the majority of American deaths in Iraq. Because of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", he left the army and our country lost a dedicated officer, someone who could've saved many more lives.

I urge you all to write to your congressmen and representatives, and more importantly, think about the issue of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" when you step up to the polls to vote in the 2008 Presidential Election. We certainly don't need (another) ignorant leader. Thank you.

YouTube Video: Iraq Veteran on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Technorati Tags: gay rights, homosexual, don't ask don't tell, technorati profile, army, freedom, civil rights, discrimination, law

The Water Bottle Dilemna

My name's Jeff and I am addicted to bottled water. While I'll admit that I love bottled water, possibly for no reason, it sure does seem that most of America does too. Water bottles. Americans are obsessed with them. In a world where 1,000,000,000 people do not have access to safe drinking water and where 3,000 children die every year from drinking tainted water, Americans still spent $15,000,000,000 on water bottles in 2006. We import water from places like Fiji; a small island country in which 50% of the population does not have access to safe drinking water. On the other hand, as the popularity of bottled water increases, the popularity of soft drinks such as Coca-Cola and Pepsi is decreasing (or at least their growth is lsowing as more consumers switch from soda to water). Thus, the American public is being slightly healthier, albeit wasteful.

 

We've got a lot to cover, so I'd like to take just a second to apologize for my posting hiatus. I was on vacation but plan to jump right back into things.

 

Let's take a second to address authenticity. Now, many people who drink bottled water on a regular basis do so because they have the notion that for some reason, it is healthier than tap water. Just a little tidbit: 24% of the bottled water that Americans buy is simply tap water repackaged by Coke and Pepsi. Dasani (owned by Coca-Cola) and Aquafina (owned by Pepsi Co.) are nothing more than bottled, purified tap water. If you look at their respective labels, you'll clearly see that no where does it indicate that it's "Spring Water;" simply purified. Companies like Fiji, Evian, and Zephyrhills (subsidiary of Nestle), however, do provide genuine spring water.

 

Waste. It's a huge problem. First, just think about all the resources that are wasted just to transport bottles of water. It's almost unfathomable. Further, as stated in Message in a Bottle by Charles Fishman, we, as a country put 38 billion water bottles per year into landfills. That's over $1 billion worth of plastic -- simply discarded. How about fuel? As we all know, crude oil prices are constantly increasing and gasoline is becoming more expensive by the day. It's not as affordable to get around by automobile as it used to be. With that it mind, at the demand of US consumers, 1,000,000,000 bottles of water are transported weekly by ships, trains, and trucks. That's equivalent to around 37,800 full 18-wheeler truck loads of bottled water. Incase you're bad at math, that'd be approximately 1,965,600 full truck loads per year. Physical waste, unfortunately, is not all. How about monetary waste? Let's put the amount of money that's being wasted in perspective. If regular home tap water cost as much as a cheap bottle of water, the average home water bill would be $9,000 per month. Wow.

 

Let's take a quick look at the psychology behind this all. There is undoubtedly a human motivation to indulge. Whether it's on some expensive caviar at the finest restaurant in France or simply a bottle of Poland Springs water, the human mind is certainly the culprit. Myths, tall tales, and urban legends are simply tools that our minds use as an excuse or justification for this indulgence. Think about how much easier it is to spend money if I "think" it's the right thing to do. If I am convinced that even though this bottle of water will cost me $1.35, it will be healthier for me, my mind immediately has a justification to spend more money. Then, I don't have to feel guilty about spending money for something that I could've gotten for free, because...I have a reason. Advertising ploys help give our minds' these reasons, and thus provoke the purchase of more bottled water. If you recall the Dasani commercial with the bear in the forest drinking Dasani, maybe you'll be able to look back on it and think about what that ad was trying to do. If a bear, a product of nature, can drink the water, then surely I can do so as well, without harming the environment. Convenience is being sold to us, not water. As I mentioned before, the plastic that is dumped into landfills annually totals up to $1 billion; obviously that's the predominant cost, not the water. 

As a nation, myself included, we must reduce our dependence on bottled water. We need to ensure that we're not taking safe water from developing countries and not contributing to a significant environmental problem. I urge you all...next time you're in the grocery store and are about to put a case of bottled waters in your cart, think again. Use tap and you really can make a difference. If it's water quality that's truly important to you, invest in a simple faucet water filter like those offered by Brita or Pur for your home or a high-tech "water cooler" filtration system by PureBev or FreshWaterSystems for your office. Remember, once you go tap, you never go back.

 

Links:   Fast Company: Message in a Bottle

9news: Pepsi says Aquafina is tap water

BBC: Soft Drink is purified tap water

 

 

Nature vs. Nurture

Environment can have both negative and positive affects on a person. It is clear  to me, however, that the environment that a person grows up in plays a major role in the kind of person that they'll be, the decisions that they will make, the opinions they'll have, and the stance that they'll take on major issues. I'm not saying that because someone grew up in a stereotypically conservative town, that they'll take a conservative stance on issues and continue to think like that for their whole lives. No, I don't believe that conclusion is necessary to jump to. I do, however, know that until someone can really break out of their shell and begin to think for themselves, the opinions of others in their immediate area will be impressed upon them and will play a major role in their lives.

Let me give you an example. The town that I live in is predominately liberal. While I don't typically like to politically classify entire geographic areas, please bare with me; it's needed to make this point. I have some relatives who live in a significantly more rural, conservative town. Their pre-pubescent child approached me with a mildly disgusted tone after he'd glanced over at the TV screen which was re-playing the CNN/YouTube Democratic Debates.  He said something along the lines of, "Can you believe [that candidate] wants to let gay people get married?" I thoughtfully, yet nonchalantly, shrugged off the question as my mind delved deep into thought. Accustomed to being surrounded by people who support gay marriage or simply don't mind it, I was slightly phased by the question. Thus, I rapidly decided not to take him seriously. Knowing that he was about eleven years old, I said to myself, "That can't possibly be his real opinion, it must've been impressed upon him by the society in which he lives." While I have strong faith in the minds of young people, I simply knew that he was not old enough to think for himself on this issue. Therefore, it was done and I didn't bring it up again.

This incident brings to light the fact, if not the issue, that the environment in which one is raised proves paramount to the development of that person's ideas. If one is raised with the ideals of hatred and bigotry constantly brought up and eventually made part of daily life, they will, more than likely grow up to be a person who hates. I am not in any way saying that people can not change; this negative "nurturing" simply doesn't help create a positive foundation for future development, though. On the contrary, environment can play a very positive role in the life of an individual. If one is brought up in a place where good morals, ethics, and generally kind behavior and ideals are practiced and taught often, there's a good chance that they'll become a good, upstanding citizen. 

Hopefully this article has taught everyone something; it certainly has made me think. If you're a parent or plan to be one in the future, you need to understand that all of your actions will contribute to the kind of person that your child becomes. The environment that you create for your child to live in will play a major role in his life and therefore will influence the future of American society.

700 MHz Spectrum: freedom at last

Finally...freedom! The FCC agrees with Google and will make the 700 MHz wireless spectrum open. In case this means absolutely nothing to you, let me explain. Currently, cell phone providers maintain complete control over their wireless spectrums. For example, if you want to use AT&T's cell phone network, you have to pay them for access. While we have grown accustomed to this, it does not have to be this way. Google has confirmed multiple times that if their terms are met, they will start the auction off with a bid of $4.6 billion dollars for the wireless spectrum. 

Now, this doesn't only apply to cell phones. I simply used that as an example of the current structure of the industry and the opportunity for change. This also relates to Internet. If Google (GOOG) wins the auction, a variety of free, ad-supported Internet options will most likely be introduced to the public.

Grasping the impact that this could potentially have is difficult. Just think about how the outcome of this auction could alter the entire economy. Suddenly, the bar would be raised and other companies would be forced to reform as well. Internet access could be absolutely free. This would not only be beneficial to the millions of existing Internet users; it would bring many millions more. If anyone could simply turn on their WiFi card and search for the Google network from anywhere in the country, it would be amazing. Commerce on the Internet would flourish as the millions of new users entered this virtual world for their first time. Hundreds of thousands of new websites would be created, the need for more jobs would be introduced, and overall this single auction would have a profound impact on the country, and even the world as a whole. Now that we've addressed the real-world effect that the 700 MHz spectrum could have on Internet, let's take a look at cell phones.

Imagine being able to purchase any 700 MHz-compatible cell phone that you wish, bringing it home, and being able to use it with the provider of your choice. This will inspire a great amount of pricing competition between companies like Verizon, Sprint, AT&T, and AllTel. Instead of having the ability to lock you in, wireless providers will actually have to offer good services at decent prices. That would explain why Verizon is openly against this plan. The FCC's guidelines stipulate that the winner of this auction must allow any device onto it.

Let's all keep up to date on this auction and thank the FCC for finally giving us, the consumers, a truly open and free wireless spectrum. As for Google's bid on it: let's see...free, ad-supported Internet and a completely open cell phone spectrum. Sounds good to me.

Politics and The Bible

Politics and The Bible. They shouldn't mix, it's very simple. However, people will always mix them for one reason. Religion, and therefore the holy scripture (Bible, Tanakh, Qua'ran, etc.) is close to peoples' hearts. So, let's address this. 
 
Although it's certainly not what I look for in a political candidate, quoting of the bible to justify certain policies is not what bothers me so much. It is those who decide to quote only the parts of the bible that work for them. For example, many people say that homosexuality is condemned and prohibited in The Bible. It isn't. But if you'd like to take The Bible literally, fine, then you must also accept the fact that you're instructed to stone blasphemes and adulturers. If you go around preaching against homosexuality and your only justification for your claims is that "The Bible says so", then you must also take the rest of the bible literally. Thus, when your neighbor takes the name of the Lord in vein, you have to gather the neighborhood and stone them as it says in Leviticus 24:10-16. And, of course, if you know of someone who's committed adultery, you better follow the Lord's law and hastily put them to death as is mandated in Deuteronomy 22, Leviticus 20:10, Leviticus 21:9, and Proverbs 6:32. See...anyone can quote The Bible.  
 
I urge you to make a decision right now. Everyone must make this decision, whether you're a politician or just an average person like me. Do you want to be the kind of person who takes The Bible literally and quotes it word for word? Or would you prefer to take The Bible for what it really is, an ever-changing document that was divinely-inspired yet intended to be interpreted? Think about it. Why would G-d have given us brains if he didn't want us to interpret?  
 
Separation of church and state is an absolute necessity. When people like George W. Bush say that they were told by the Lord to invade Iraq, we are reminded what is wrong with this world. It is wrong on so many different levels. If Bush really does talk to G-d, good for him. That really is great and must be a powerful experience. However, he has no right to use this as an excuse, yes that's what it is, to invade a country, wreak havoc upon its citizens, and spend hundreds of billions of dollars. A war motivated and justified solely by a feeling? Because we didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we? Wow, that's great.  
  It sure gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling of confidence in the future of this country knowing that we can get into any war or international conflict or spend any amount of money solely because our wonderfully-educated leader thinks that G-d wants us to. I do need to send a message out to those people who do quote The Bible word for word on the issues that they choose but are able to look past the Bible quotes that they disagree with. Please, consider the common sense that is absent in your decision to do this. You don't get to pick and choose. You agree that it's up for interpretation or you take it all, just as it is.  
 
Thanks for reading and I look forward to seeing your comments. If any active or past politicians happen to come across this, I'd love to see your opinions on the issue as well. I'd recommend that everyone read the opinion article Blastocysts, Bush, and the Bible which was unfortunately removed from the PalmBeachPost website because it had been up too long, but I've posted a copy here. I know this is a heated issue and I do hope that it provokes debate. Also, please remember that while I have my opinions on religion and politics, I am fully aware that you have yours too. I am, by writing this, in no way undermining your ideals; simply expressing mine.