Texas State Senate Pass Drug/Welfare Bill

Earlier this week, the Texas State Senate approved drug testing for some welfare applicants. 90 million dollars of welfare is already distributed to over 100,000 families in Texas annually. "Taxpayer money should not be used to subsidize someone's drug habit," said Sen. Jane Nelson, one of the bill's sponsors. The bill passed the State Senate with a vote of 31-0. Texas has become one of seven other states that has passed legislation that requires welfare applicants to take a drug test. Those who will be tested are those who have had a previous drug related conviction or have failed a past drug test. Those who fail the test will be barred from welfare for twelve months and then can reapply. If a person fails three tests in a row, they will be banned from welfare permanently. However, benefits will still be provided to children regardless of the parents.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/10/texas-senate-approves-drug-testing-for-some-welfare-applicants/

I am in total agreement with this new legislation. Anyone who receives tax payer money (remember that includes your money and mine too) should be drug tested so that the government will know if they are a high risk for wasting the money on illegal drugs. I think this law should be expanded to all other unemployment benefits like food stamps. Anyone who uses or is addicted to drugs should not get any of my money or yours for that matter. Another good part of this law is that the children of the drug-addicted parents don't suffer. They still receive the benefits and I don't mind if a child ends up with my money, just as long as a crack head doesn't.

Saddam Hussein

For many years, our country was at war in the Middle East. This war was sparked by the 9/11 attacks that took place in New York and Washington D.C. Another reason that this war was started was because a suicidal maniac known as Saddam Hussein was claiming to have WMDs (weapons of mass destruction). The Intel that that the Department of Defense gathered backed up what Saddam was stating about possessing WMDs. Seeing as how Saddam was suicidal and that he was a maniac, we had to go over there to rid the world of his stench. Eventually we found out that our Intel was flawed, but we still got Saddam. After Saddam was out of the picture, we started to occupy his country.

Getting rid of Saddam and any weapons of mass destruction was a must, and we accomplished that task. Even though Saddam did not posses any nukes or weapons of that sort, we still had to make sure. Just think, if he did have nukes or some sort of biological weapon, he may have set it off somewhere in America that would cause so much damage and carnage that 9/11 would look like a cake walk.

I disagree with the occupying of some of the Middle Eastern countries. What we should of done was get in there, 86 Saddam, destroy any and all WMDs, and then get the heck out.

State your opinion on the subject if you have one.


http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4990269755599014338#editor/target=post;postID=429319200161481927

Drone Attacks

Everyone who went to Pius with me knows that I am a military guy and that I am especially fascinated with the Air Force.  During the wars in the Middle East, there have been many drone strikes lead by the C.I.A. and the J.S.O.C. that have been very successful in eliminating their targets. On the other hand, some of the strikes have also killed some citizens that have nothing to do with the intended targets. Many people want this covert drone war to end because of the side casualties of citizens who do not participate in terrorist activity. I however disagree. I know that it is bad that there are more casualties that result than are intended, but if the heads and leaders of terror groups are taken care of, the ends can justify the means. I know that can sound harsh to some people, but war and battle have very ugly sides sometimes.  In Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia there have been over 400 strikes and over 3,000 successful targets eliminated.  Before you criticize drones, first look at the alternatives; leave terrorists alone, call in troops for a quick hit that can result in high casualties, or use other conventional airstrikes that tend to be less accurate and result in more unintended casualties. Drones strikes have been and are critical to the military taking out targets. While some people want drones banned, I still want them in use because of their successful history.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/02/07/drone-strikes-cia-naureen-shah/1900363/

Women in the Military

The Revolutionary War. The War of 1812. The Mexican War. The Civil War. The Spanish-American War. World War One. World War Two. The Korean War. The Vietnam War. What do all these American wars have in common? They were all fought by men and mostly won by men. Not until 1990 during the Persian Gulf War did women actually serve in the war. They also have served in the War in Afghanistan in 2001 and in the Iraq War in 2003. However, when women served in these wars, they were limited to certain positions in the service. They are limited to certain positions because of questions regarding the physical strength of the woman body. But last month, the Pentagon lifted the ground combat exclusion and allowed women to enter all fields. Although the exclusion has been lifted, the requirements have not changed. For example, you must be able to carry your backpack around with you easily and scale walls (keep in mind that it weighs well over 100 pounds). The military is allowing women to join more fields but they are taking it slow and being responsible by making sure that women can handle the wheel. They plan to fully integrate women in 2016.

I totally agree that women should be in ground infantry, just as long as they are strong enough for the job, like picking up and loading 40-pound tank shells. I am not being sexist by saying men are stronger than women, I am being scientific by looking at it from a “sciency”  point of view. Men naturally have more mass than women do which means we can physically exert more force onto an object, thus making us stronger. But if women prove they can handle everything that men can handle in ground combat, then by all means, let them enter all sects of the military.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/02/marines-army-standards-women-combat/1884141/

The Presendent's concerns with concussions

Today in football, concussions seem to be getting more and more common, and consequentially more and more worse. Many people’s eyes have been hooked by these concussions, even the eyes of the President of the United States of America. With all these sports injuries being reported, some people have begun questioning the safety of football. The NCAA has, with best intentions, made progress on the matter. However, whatever rules the NCAA institutes; it is up to the players to follow them. It is also up to the coaches to ensure the safety of his players. In any case, it is not up to the President of the United States. He has every right to be concerned with the matter, but he should not intervene with the game in any way, shape, or form. As the president, he should be concerned with other troubling matters that are currently affecting the nation. For example, crushing debt, unemployment, and foreign affairs in the Middle East. His agenda should be completely focused on other matters, he does not need to control the rules put in place by the NCAA. In the end, I think there needs to be something done about the concussions happening in the game, but sports concussions should be the least of the president’s worries.

 
 http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/lopresti/2013/01/27/president-obama-football-ncaa-concussions/1868161/

Lance Armstrong

A role model is someone to look up to, has a good work ethic and tries to do the best as humanly possible. Everyone needs a role model in life to follow. Tiger Woods used to be a good role model because he was a hard worker and extraordinarily talented at golf. Eventually he peaked and his reputation came crashing down with an affair. Just like Woods, Lance Armstrong is crashing too. Throughout Armstrong’s career, he has been accused of using illegal drugs to enhance his cycling performance.

            Starting back in 2002, Mike Anderson was working for Armstrong as a personal assistant. While in Armstrong’s hotel room, Anderson found “Androstenedione”, illegal drug enhancers. A little while afterwards, Armstrong sued Anderson. The case was settled, but Anderson’s reputation was so tarnished that he had to move to New Zealand.

            There are many more people like Mike Anderson whose reputation was broken because Lance Armstrong sued them. Now that Armstrong has been found guilty of doping during his races, he now appears as an utter jerk because he lied in court saying that he did not dope. Now all the lives that he ruined are now receiving a little retribution because now Lance’s reputation is ruined.

            I used to think of Lance Armstrong like I did Neil Armstrong, out of this world. When I heard through the years of people claiming that he doped, I did not like them because I would not and could not believe that he cheated. Now that I know he did cheat, I am miserable because I have lost a role model to look up to in life. I think that Armstrong should beg for forgiveness from the people he wronged because it is his fault that they have been reputed for being liars.

Please tell me what you think what Lance Armstrong should do now? Should he ask for forgiveness and repay the people he wronged or just go on living his life?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/cycling/2013/01/20/lance-armstrong-oprah-interview-peds-confession/1848149/