DO ASK, DO TELL?

Leonard Pitts from the Houston Chronicle did an article on how the "don't ask, don't tell" rule of the military is on it's way out.  Apparently the Obama administration has been working on finally putting to rest the principle that all homosexual personnel had to hide their sexual orientation to serve our country. I thought this was supposed to be America: Land of the Free? So why do some have to hide who they are to serve and protect it? 

In the article he goes on to further explain the process it would take to actually put this into action and that he thinks the principle will be gone soon but we need to carefully plan before hand to prepare for the repercussions. The main thing that really caught my eye as I'm sure most other peoples, is the key evidence that he provides in his article; " It is worth noting that the 70 percent of American adults who support allowing gay service members to serve openly includes majorities among some rather unlikely demographic subsets: 53 percent of conservatives, 57 percent of regular churchgoers, 60 percent of Republicans."  He says that these numbers, "They speak to that gathering force, that growing sense that "don't ask, don't tell" is doomed. The unthinkable feels like the inevitable." This is the one flaw in his article, he doesn't provide where he got this information from, people have to take it on faith, take his word for it, I doubt he's lying but if he would have included the source it would really have bigger impact on people because of its credibility. But if it is true with numbers like these it's not hard to see what's about to come.

He goes on to say that, "Change, like babies, has this way of coming, ready or not." All and all, I ultimately think Leonard Pitts did a great job informing us while still providing his reasonable and logical opinion , and to be honest I don't think he's far off on what he thinks is going to happen.

Paladino Threatens Reporter

I read this post today written by Charles Johnson on Green Little Footballs and yes apparently the GOP candidate Paladino is back in the news for threatening a reporter.

Sunday’s Post featured a front-page story about Paladino’s wife, Cathy, and his ex-lover, Suzanne Brady. It included an exclusive interview with Cathy Paladino.

“You send another goon to my daughter’s house and I’ll take you out, buddy!” Paladino told Dicker.

When Dicker asked how he planned to do that, Paladino replied, “Watch!”

“Are you threatening me?” Dicker asked.

When the candidate’s aides jumped in to separate the men, Paladino, referring to Dicker, told them, “F- -k him.”

 The only thing Charles Johnson said was "Carl Paladino, the GOP’s psycho candidate for Govenor of New York, is in the news today for threatening a reporter." and provided the information above. It's not like don't agree with Charles Johnson, but he doesn't really go into any detail about the entire incident. He gives a few quotes of what was said afterwards but not before.There was also no information about the events leading up to the incident. Theres just not enough information about what happened to really come to a well formulated opinion, it's very one-sided .Most of us know how over zealous these reporters can be, and most the time its not in a good way. We all know the extent some reporters are willing to go to get a their story. Who knows what this reporter has been saying to Paladino or his daughter for that fact. In my personal opinion I think Paladino is just looking out for his daughter, I mean its not like he's threatening the reporter out of no where for no reason which the article makes it seem like. I'm not saying Carl Paladino is a saint, far from it in fact, but how could I really form an opinion about the incident when such little information is provided. Just put it all out there and let us decide for ourselves instead of already putting an idea into our heads.

It's a bird.....It's a plane.....It's a 100- plus mile per gallon car?

 Environmental groups lobby Obama administration to adopt 60 mpg fuel standard
 The winners of the Automotive X Prize showed it was possible to achieve 100-plus miles per gallon cars. As a result 19 environmental groups have launched a campaign urging the Obama administration to adopt a 60 mpg fuel standard that would apply to cars and light trucks by 2025. Though I sometimes think these environmentalists are aiming a little too high I don't think its out of this world to expect such a thing especially when its such a long ways away.

Gloria Bergquist, vice president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a trade group that represents General Motors, Ford Motor Co. and 10 additional auto manufacturers, said, "We were very surprised when environmental groups called for 60 mpg because just last year we worked with the Obama administration and the State of California and environmental groups to agree on a new national standard that would reach over 35 mpg by 2016, and before we've even achieved those new heights, in fact, before the program has even taken effect, there are already calls for almost double the mileage."

Am I the only one who thinks, why is the mpg fuel standard so low right now when a car like the Toyota Prius can get 51 mpg, I mean it's not like we're really getting cars with much less gas mileage for much cheaper, I'm not saying that the prius has a cheap price tag but what if everyone started buying and mass producing cars just like it instead of picking your old fashioned gas guzzlers, wouldn't the price significantly go down? I know it's not a solution but it would be a start.