Obesity

As one of the fastest growing epidemics in America - obesity costs more to tax payers than almost every other preventable disease, behind smoking. Smoking will soon become a thing of the past. There are fewer smokers than ever in America, and with the laws passed recently regarding smoking in public - even fewer people will light up.
But what about the crisis that is childhood diabetes, high blood pressure, over active thyroid, heart disease, high cholesterol, and so on? People need to realize that although they are free to eat what they like, it is not free for America. According to recently released date on obesity in America, there is a direct correlation between obesity and high medical costs. When someone is super morbidly obese, or just plain fat - they are more likely to frequent the doctors office than Americans of average weight.
It isn't just the cost of their medical expenses that we need to address: it is the cost of lost productivity as well. For example; you work in an office where there is more than one obese individual. When they become sick - which they often do - you have to cover for them or the company will lose money. This is a serious issue. You, as the average weight American will not receive extra pay for covering for the out of office coworker. Additionally, lets suppose this office has multiple overweight people who are frequently out sick: how do you handle the situation without getting sued for discrimination? It is also helpful to note that as a former business owner (construction business with my ex husband), we could not afford to employ overweight individuals because of the costs associated with their employment. The cost of healthcare, as well as their work related expenses; such as workers compensation.
I had a friend that was 360 pounds. She was constantly out sick from work because of her weight. When you don't exercise you are more susceptible to illness. And anyone who has worked in an office understands how unsanitary offices can be. Moreover, this friend of mine would not exercise to save her life....literally. My friends and I made it a mission to try and help her lose weight. We even joined a gym together, (she didn't join), cut our calories, and would not eat fast food. She did nothing. She basically said she was going to wait until she was so fucking fat that her insurance would HAVE to pay for her gastric bypass surgery! This is a problem that I have read on numerous websites. Her mother had gastric bypass surgery after reaching over 500 pounds. Needless to say, she and I are no longer friends.
The important thing for everyone to understand is that the choices you make for yourself, can affect others. Especially if it is something that negatively affects you.
I am thankful that the State of California has passed a law that any restaurant with over 20 locations must advertise their caloric content. I know I have gone out to places like outback steakhouse where I would order a steak thinking, "ok, a slab of meat can't be that bad for me." Only to realize they add so much salt and other ingredients that cause the calorie count to sky rocket.
The point is, let's not be selfish and overeat. There are people starving in this world. There are people starving in America for that matter. There are people who do not have health insurance: I am one of them. I can't obtain health care because of I dislocated my shoulder twice within a year! If Americans made an effort to control their eating, and other bad habits, then people like myself would not have to go without health coverage.
The greatest thing that has happened recently is the health care reform bill. I am really optimistic about it. I know a lot of people will say, "but how will we pay for it." There are infinite ways we can pay for it. I will write about that later. bye for now xoxo

Abortion rights

Today I posted a reply on Yahoo about abortion rights for women. I don't understand why men are so concerned with a womans right to have control of her feminine health. I know they feel it is "murder." But if you look at the legal definition of murder; this certainly doesn't qualify.
Women have a multitude of reasons for choosing to abort their pregnancy. A woman should not have to justify those reasons to anyone. It is a difficult decision that women do not choose lightly.
I have known multiple women who have had abortions. They don't regret it at all. Most have gone on to have children.
Some people argue that if you have sex you should have whatever children you produce - um no. Imagine you are a woman who is allergic to latex, or in my case birth control. You are with someone and you love them, accidents happen. Does that mean that you should give up your dreams because of a pregnancy? Should you stop having sex because you are afraid of getting pregnant?
It is nobody in the governments fucking business! Roe V Wade should not be challenged. If you choose not to have an abortion, or to not support abortion - than go ahead and not support it. But do not presume you have the right to tell another human being what they can and can't do with their own bodies.

Spotlight on Music: The Skeletones

Hello out there! I wanted to shift the focus from politics to music. The band that I feel needs more recognition is The Skeletones! They are a ska band from Riverside that have been playing for around 20 years. My daddy happens to be the trumpet player, and my uncle is the trombone player! In spite of the obvious family ties, they are an excellent band with a number of really great songs that I am sure you will all enjoy.

Gun Control

I will undoubtedly encounter the greatest amount of opposition to this, but I do not think people should be allowed to carry concealed weapons without a permit. There, I said it. Sorry Andrew. Why shouldn't people be allowed to carry concealed weapons without a permit? Well, I have my own personal belief that carrying concealed weapons doesn't make anyone any safer. For example, you are sitting at a Starbucks and a man walks in with what looks like a gun in his jacket. You are unsure what to do. So, you call the cops and report the suspicious man to police, who respond by drawing their weapons at the man and forcing him to the ground. They search him and find the gun in his jacket. He doesn't have a permit for the gun. What was he doing toting a gun around into a coffee shop? What happens if someone mistakes him for a robber? There are a host of frightening scenarios that I am sure will come into fruition as soon as Arizona ensures its citizens can carry their weapons concealed and without a permit.

Drones

Here is a paper I wrote about Drones that I feel sufficiently sums up my sentiments:

War, guerre, guerra, война, 戦争, πόλεμος: a word that everyone on this planet has heard. It is a word that has as many meanings as there are people. Every individual who has experienced war understands it differently. People who witness the destructiveness of war have to change: war changes people, and the way war is fought changes with time. The idea of waging war stretches back in time to the earliest days of civilization. As soon as man fashioned tools for ease of living - he fashioned tools to hasten death. These tools metamorphosed as time passed. But the fundamental idea behind war has stayed the same. The inherently selfish, cruel, and territorial man has demonstrated his inability to coexist peacefully with others of his kind. And man has created an arsenal of specialized tools to stake his claim on this planet. During the course of this paper I will examine the history of the Predator Program; the inducement of the drone programs: why did we choose drones as opposed to soldiers: What is the human cost of using unmanned machines to conduct war; and finally, I will attempt to answer what the future holds for unmanned assault vehicle programs.
Every decade has brought forth a new tool of war. This past decade has unevened the field on which countries once stood relatively equal. Many countries have the same technology to create weapons of mass destruction, but they choose not to develop these weapons for fear that they might use them. The United States is unusual in that it has actually used weapons of mass destruction. That is why the United States Military has sprung into action with new weapons programs that will affirm its title as King of the World.
Beginning in 2001 when the September 11th attacks occurred, the government looked for a solution to quell the fear growing amongst the American people. They needed a viable option for hunting down the perpetrators of the attacks – one that would not only lessen the dramatic effects of sending in foot soldiers – but also to strengthen the quality of intelligence gathered.
Every administration has one major concern when it sends troops to other countries to fight wars: American casualties. From the Vietnam War to the First Gulf War to the present wars, the biggest concern for the administration is to minimize casualties or prevent the press from comprehensively covering the war casualties as the previous Bush administration did.
Hiding casualties has never worked and never will work. So for the past few decades the Pentagon—or really DARPA, its research and development unit—has been working tirelessly to develop unmanned weapons which would not require us to put American soldiers in harm’s way. The new arena of war is one in which we use robotics to wage what is often called asymmetric war: war not between armies of two nations but between transnational radical groups that have to be targeted while avoiding casualties in the countries within which they operate. For many critics, this development is troubling because it signals a paradigm shift in the waging of war. In this new logic of robotics war, we’ve two primary concerns: minimizing our casualties and achieving our goal of targeting insurgents most anywhere in the world. The problem in this logic is that it creates the conditions for maximizing civilian casualties on the ‘other’ side and it potentially turns the globe into a possible arena of war. Issues of state sovereignty, international treaties that require the accouchement of waging war, the treatment of prisoners: all of these become irrelevant when we operate unmanned remote-controlled planes that can see into peoples’ homes and eliminate elements considered enemy-combatants.
The CIA worked closely with the United States Military to identify a qualified contractor to produce a fleet of surveillance drones to serve as the eyes and ears of the CIA. The surveillance program was incredibly successful. The CIA noticed that the Taliban could not figure out who was spying on them. They were observed killing their own people in an effort to expose any traitors. All the while it was the reconnaissance drones flying overhead, relaying vital information to the CIA for ground and air attacks. (Shatchman, 2009)
The CIA and the United States Military did not want to discontinue using such a successful program. They needed to work closely with weapons contractors to create a new weapon that would not only observe and report – it would hunt and kill.
The newest and potentially, most destructive program actualized in the last decade is the Predator Program. It is part science-fiction, part nightmare - but one-hundred percent deadly. The Predator Program is the crown jewel of the United States Military. It is shrouded in secrecy, though its power is well known in Afghanistan where people have witnessed its potency.
The designation unmanned aerial assault vehicle conjures up images of video games, or the Terminator movie series. Whichever way you imagine it, it is much worse in person. There is nothing more frightening than a machine buzzing above a city, deciding which target to take. In the annals of human history there has never been a war fought without men. The Predator Program stems from that very idea: a war without men. The United States military has been attempting unmanned warfare for the past three decades. However, not until the recent wars on Iraq and Afghanistan, have they truly blossomed. But what is the Predator Program?
The Predator Program is an extremely technical Military weapons program that consists of vehicles designed with various operational capabilities. The Predator B – also known as the MQ-9 Reaper was conceived by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems for use by the United States Air Force. The MQ-9 is the first "hunter-killer UAV designed for long-endurance, high-altitude flight.” (Magazine, 2009)The MQ-9 is the flagship unmanned vehicle of the United States Air Force. However, there are multiple vehicles in use today.
According to General Atomics Aeronautical, the UAV (unmanned Assault Vehicle) Predator-1 is capable of operating at an altitude of twenty-five thousand feet for up to forty hours. It also boasts a wingspan of 48.7 feet, and a length of 27 feet. This giant machine can also carry up to 450 pounds of payload. This was the first in the line of Predators. The Predator B, (which later became the MQ-1), is capable of coasting at fifty-thousand feet; carry eight-hundred pounds of internal payload, three-thousand pounds of external payload (missiles); reach speeds of up to two-hundred and twenty knots; a wingspan of sixty-six feet; and an operating life of thirty-three hours.
The MQ-9 reaper also developed by General Atomics Aeronautical for the Military; has a service ceiling of over fifty-thousand feet; payload of thirty-eight hundred pounds; a maximum speed of two-hundred eighty knots; and plenty of room for missiles. The difference between these UAV's and others used in battle is the Predators are designed as hunter-killers. They can be programmed to locate and eliminate targets from incredibly high altitudes to avoid detection, and destruction.
The Predators – also known as drones – are operated from a control room by two sensor operators and one pilot. They are completely removed from the actual fighting and run zero risk of being injured. On the other hand, Air Force fighter pilots always run the risk of being hit by surface to air missiles. The cost of a jet, plus the training over the course of a pilots’ life, is worth too much to risk. (Hanley, 2007)
The cost of one UAV can vary depending on the payload capabilities. The MQ-1 costs around $7.4 million, and the chance that a UAV will be destroyed in combat is relatively low.
The Predator Program was created in part to help protect the interests of the Military at a reasonable financial cost. With the purchase of just one UAV - the Military stands to save millions of dollars per day in operating costs. Additionally, the Air Force could save $1.5 billion dollars by cutting Fighter Pilot Programs. "It takes more than a year and $2.6 million to train a fighter pilot. It takes 20 weeks and $135,000 to train a UAV pilot, who doesn’t need to be a fighter pilot, hence the savings." (jetwhine.com, 2009)
Considering the costs associated with waging a war is always at the forefront of the minds of the members of congress and the American people. Americans and Congress don’t want to see dead soldiers on the news. Congress and the American people overwhelmingly support the drone programs because they value an American life more than the lives of innocent civilians in the countries where we are fighting.
For all the technical trappings of these unmanned machines – they lack the accuracy that is needed to ensure only the intended target is eliminated. The question of accuracy for a machine designed to kill, has been raised since the inception of the program. Congress knows that when you use a weapon, you are taking responsibility for the collateral damage as well.
Collateral damage is a term used to describe the civilian casualties associated with inaccurate air strikes. There is also the question of responsibility that has been raised by concerned Americans and leaders of the countries whose homeland is becoming a proving ground for American operated drones.
In Pakistan there have been drone strikes that have not only caused the deaths of civilians, but have increased the presence of Taliban in tribal areas. According to Reuters, there have been over 44 drone attacks in Pakistan in 2009. Of those 44, only 5 were successful. In total, 704 people were killed in the Northern Territories in Pakistan; 90 percent of those killed were civilians including women and children. The sovereignty of Pakistan has been shaken, and the alliance with the American Military and CIA is causing an increase in sectarian violence in the regions hit by drones. (Anthony, 2009)
The use of drones in the war on terror is justified for some as a necessary tool for the protection of Americans fighting on the ground. However, General George Patreus said that the “drones are not helping us on the ground.” As the General in Command of ground operations in the region, he understands that killing civilians only creates a bigger rift between the people and the government. How do you expect a country to cooperate with you in finding terrorists if you are killing more innocent people than the terrorists are? The international community is also questioning the legality of these strikes. The United States has countered that argument by stating the “force is necessary and legal on the grounds of Self Defense as proscribed by International Law and the Geneva Conventions Code of Military Conduct.” (Gates, 2009)
An unmanned combat assault vehicle is not subject to the same laws as a soldier. These vehicles are sometimes pre-programed for autonomous operation and are not controlled by a human operator. Who then is to answer for any human rights violations? Can a machine be held responsible for a war crime? These machines were designed to kill insurgents or terrorists – but they are incredibly inaccurate. If you have a Marine firing into a crowd to kill one man – he will be held personally responsible for killing the civilians. If a drone flies overhead with the intention of killing one terrorist; kills that terrorist, but also destroys a house full of innocent people – who answers for that?
The Brookings institution, a Think Tank in Washington D.C., has published reports that repeatedly demonstrate the lack of efficiency of drone attacks. They specifically noted, “For every one militant that is killed as a result of a drone attack, ten civilians lose their lives.” (Reidel, 2010) They have also stated that by using drones that kill civilians, they are only making Al Qaida more determined and better able to conduct recruitment. When you dehumanize a population, they will do anything to protect themselves and their families – even if it means joining a fight they wanted to avoid. The majority of people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and surrounding areas, want to live peacefully without interference from terrorists or Americans. (Sherjan, 2010) They do not want to continue living in constant fear. Who would? These civilians will turn violent if they feel they are being forced into a corner. They do not understand that we are there to help – especially if they see their families destroyed due to a barrage of missiles coming from the sky.
The missiles from the sky are operated by men and women who have learned to desensitize themselves by turning killing into a game. They are in charge of multi-million dollar death planes that can’t yet differentiate between an enemy and a civilian. The machine operators are some of those same Americans that were recruited into the Military using video games to separate reality from the virtual world. It makes it difficult to feel empathy for a dot on a screen. They clock in and clock out like any nine to five job in the civilian world. These men and women are not there to witness the aftermath of their seemingly routine operations. They may never see actual combat, though they will have racked up more confirmed kills than any other soldier fighting on the ground.
A war fought without boots on the ground is exactly what Washington wants. They want to expand the Predator and Reaper programs to ensure the fewest American Military casualties. Under President Bush, the Predator Program proved its worth. The Obama administration was faced with a difficult decision: do they expand the Predator program to replace soldiers in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq? Or do they maintain the program at its current level, and keep our presence minimal in the area?
The answer was a compromise: expand the Predator Program and minimize the presence of soldiers on the ground. The CIA has their own program running simultaneously, though the workings of which are classified. We can assume they are improving the Predator Program to include a more efficient missile guidance system, as well as to increase the effectiveness of its surveillance system.
The future of these weapons is certain. The government has discovered an “effective” means of fighting a war at a low cost. They can minimize the loss of American soldiers by using unmanned vehicles of all kinds. This will fare well with the American public who want to see soldiers return home, and it fares well with Congress who want to increase our influence in foreign nations through Military dominance.
Currently Northrop Grumman is developing two types of unmanned combat assault vehicles for the Military: the Scaled Composite Models 396 and 395. They are competing with the Hunter-Killer program that produced the Predators and Reapers. The Scaled Composite Models will be produced at half the cost and half the size – making them a more formidable competitor for future wars.
Lockheed Martin, General Atomics, and Boeing, are also cashing in on the CIA and United States interest in unmanned machines. Boeing has developed the HALE: an unmanned surveillance drone that is capable of ten days of flight. Lockheed Martin has invented the smallest drone: the Samurai. The Samurai weighs just 150grams and is capable of shrinking to under three inches in diameter to spy indoors. Lockheed Martin has likewise made advances to the surveillance drone industry with their RQ-170 Sentinel. It has been dubbed the “Beast of Kandahar” because it has been spotted over Afghanistan.
General Atomics is the undisputed leader in unmanned assault vehicle development. Their latest addition is the Avenger which “is packed with 3,000 pounds of surveillance equipment and lethal munitions, such as laser-guided Hellfire missiles and 500-pound GBU-38 bombs. It can reach speeds of up to 530 mph, far faster than its spindly predecessors, the Predator and Reaper.” (Fulghum, 2009)
Some lesser known companies are also vying for a chance at making a wave in this fast growing industry - Aurora Flight Sciences, Scheibel, and Aesir – have all developed competing drones for use in battlefields across the globe.
The United States Air Force is developing an unmanned aerial vehicle called the MQ-MC, which they hope will phase out fighter pilots permanently by 2047. They are working on simulated dogfights which will enable the MQ-MC an opportunity to “acquire the experience” to make decisions during a combat mission. These simulations are designed to increase awareness for the unmanned vehicles – similar to the methods employed by fighter pilots. The Air Force is aiming to create a fleet of unmanned vehicles that are capable of making in flight operations decisions based on the predictability of human fighter pilots. (Homeland Security News, 2009)
The technology responsible for the creation of drones has enabled the CIA and the United States Military to create a new type of war: a war that can be fought on our terms, without the use of soldiers or fighter pilots. It is ostensibly a new approach to a tired routine that could potentially save the lives of Americans. These machines are being designed to replace the manpower that was once required to protect our interests abroad. (Anthony J. Lazarski, 2001)
However, it is important to note that with all new technology, it can be dangerous if left unchecked. The fears of many who oppose the use of drones are that the machines will fight a war without loyalty. Furthermore, there is a fear that surveillance machines will broaden their reach on our own soil. This fear is not without warrant. Already surveillance drones have been deployed to assist in operations on American soil. The government has authorized the use of drones on our homeland in an effort to find terrorists that are operating within our territory. (Tirpak, 1997)
Whichever side of the argument people take, they need to keep in mind the total costs of conducting war without soldiers. Remember the political costs to our allies. How do their countrymen feel about surrendering to a machine versus a commander? During the Gulf War, Iraqi troops famously surrendered to the U.S.S Wisconsin’s drone – the Pioneer. (Archive ) What about the lives that are lost due to the inaccurate air strikes conducted by unmanned combat assault vehicles?
There will no doubt be countless arguments on either side as to whether one should support the drone programs or not. It is rather obvious at present that the drones have caused serious irreversible damage to the regions in which they are deployed. The people who have suffered the most are the women, children, and men that live in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and coming soon: Somalia. These people will never forget these atrocities. Moreover, there will merely be an escalation in violence in these countries due to our mechanical presence. The antipathy people feel toward America will likely rise as well with every drone deployed.
Perhaps in the future there will be an outcry against the use of unmanned assault vehicles. It is possible that seeing the needless destruction, people will call for the machines to be decommissioned. Only the future holds the answer to this and many other questions. And Americans will be right there in front of their computers and televisions watching the latest developments.

The Burqa

Recently in Europe there have been arguments over Muslim women wearing the burqa. People are arguing that the burqa should not worn as it contributes to terrorism. Here is a portion of my argument from yahoo:

While I don't agree with covering women up - I don't agree with a country banning a cultural practice that is not destructive to the population at large. I have read the Quran Torah, and Bible - there are a lot of inconsistencies with all three books. Nowhere in the Quran does it explicitly call for the complete covering of a woman. It does ask for modesty in dress - but so does the Bible. The Orthodox Jews dress in black from head to toe and are much more obvious in their submission to men than the Muslims in Los Angeles. I would not want to ban the Orthodox Jews from wearing something that I don't agree with. It is not my right to tell them what they can and cannot do if it is not harming me. I can see if for some security reason you are asked to remove a veil, or a turban. Though I can't imagine why they'd need to do that with the advent of x-ray and other physically non-invasive search techniques.
Something to keep in mind is that when you ban something you make it relevant. For example, you ban alcohol and drinking becomes more of a problem. (see US History for that one) When you make something a big deal when it isn't - you give the extremists more ammunition with which to attack your way of life. You give them something to fight about. It is alarming that people are willing to relinquish the rights of others. You let the government take the rights of others, soon your rights will be taken. Look at the US, after September 11th, there was hardly a whisper about the Patriot act infringing upon our right to privacy - the government was given sweeping powers over the people. Just keep that in mind. You allow something as seemingly innocuous as the attire of a person you don't agree with be regulated, soon it will be your attire that is deemed offensive, or dangerous to the public.

Extremism and terrorism doesn't know a dress code. As a former soldier I can tell you with utmost certainty that it doesn't matter what a perceived enemy is wearing. If someone's intent is to harm you, they can do it with clothes on or off.
When you say "what is to keep a similar even from happening here? are you referring to the banning of particular type of clothing? Or are you referring to terrorist attacks?
If you are talking about a particular type of clothing being banned, I am afraid to inform you that the American Constitution and the freedom loving people of this country would not tolerate it. This country was founded on the principles of equality. Yes, we have had our ups and downs. But through the efforts of Americans during the Civil Rights movement, as well as through the efforts of politicians who helped pass anti-discrimination laws - the rights of individuals has prevailed.
If you are talking about attacks occurring on American soil, that can happen at anytime by any person. It doesn't have to be a "brown woman" wearing a veil. Just look at what happened during 9-11. They were men dressed in accordance with American ideals. The best way to fight terrorism is to find its root. As I mentioned earlier, if we (American Military and our commanders) choose to kill civilians and support Karzai and other warlords in Afghanistan - we will only continue to divide the support of the people. In order to prevent any further attacks on American soil we need to earn the trust of the people in who's countries we are present.
In Pakistan there is a new Taliban emerging that is hell bent on destroying Western countries control of their regions. It will only further infuriate them if they see us banning their cultural symbols abroad. They can use that to further their cause. They can gain new support in the villages in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and others within that region of the World by saying "look how the West treats us abroad. They ban symbols of our culture. They bomb your villages full of innocent civilians. Take up arms against them."
As far as not having x-rays at malls etc. That is true. However, if you have lived in America you know that people most likely to commit atrocities on a large scale on American soil - are: Americans.
I think that there needs to be an understanding and respect for all cultures. We need to educate ourselves and our children so as not to continue this endless crusade against those who don't ascribe to our beliefs.

Immigration Reform

I have been ranting endlessly on Yahoo regarding illegal immigration, and more importantly: immigration reform. I have had numerous sparring matches regarding human rights and illegal immigrants. Here is a snippet from one of my most recent attacks:

As far as immigration is concerned: immigration reform is needed in this country. Picking up undocumented immigrants and shipping them back over the border only costs tax payers money. It does not guarantee they will not walk back over here. We do not need to waste money on this. In order to understand how we should address the problem of illegal immigration, we need to address the root cause. That being said, many of the illegal immigrants from Central and South America have come to this country because of economic hardship in their homelands. Some of the economic issues are directly related to American influence i.e. the Chicago Boys and Milton Friedman's free-market policies. His policies caused the political upheaval of numerous democratically run countries. When they opened up those countries to free-market policies, the price of commodities rose so much so that people were unable to feed themselves. They had to leave their homeland to find a new place in which they could lead a normal life. Many of the Democratic leaders in South America (Argentina as an example) were ousted in Military coups backed by the US. Therefore, if you want to talk about illegal immigration, you need to understand why they are here. Then you can address those issues. Otherwise, we will constantly fight an uphill battle with regards to illegal immigration.