In Response to Snapp's Posting: "Pro Choice or Pro Life"

I have to say that for choosing such a controversial topic you couldn't have approached it better. I would consider myself a fence rider on the topic also. I do not believe that the government should make such personal decisions for it's citizens. I do think that maybe the law could be changed. I understand that Roe v. Wade gave the right to these decisions to the mother-to-be, but I think that abortion should be banned at the federal level during the third trimester. I also believe that the states should enforce more prerequisites during the second trimester, like viewing video and pictures as some have attempted in the past. Good posting Snapp!

You can view Snapp's original post at: http://centralparkdemocracy.blogspot.com/2007/11/pro-choice-or-pro-life.html

Will We Be Spending Less at the Pump?

According to CNN.com the Senate passed a mandate this June to dramatically raise the corporate average fuel economy standard. The completion would come by 2020 and would raise cars from 27.5 miles per gallon and trucks from 22.2 miles per gallon to 35mpg fleet-wide. The corporate average fuel economy has not been raised in over thirty years.

There are significant loopholes in the bill which include automakers receiving credits for producing flex fuel cars, which are able to run on ethanol. But even this is still benefiting the environment and the consumer's pocket book. What is interesting is that even though automakers currently have built millions of flex fuel cars only 1.5 percent used the ethanol.

Ethanol is not widely available. The US only produced 4 billion gallons of biofuels in 2005. The bill that the Senate passed this June would include requiring this to increase to 36 billion by 2022.

One concern that this bill brings is the increasing potential for manufacturers to go overseas for minimized production costs. The possibility of adding a provision to the bill that would limit these possibilities has been discussed, mainly by House Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell.

Another initial negative aspect could be the increase of cost passed on to the consumer. These changes will be costly for the manufacturers and we would be the ones helping to pay those costs initially.

With global warming being a concern and a focus of our nation, the costs may be considered minimal for the long term improvements. We also need to realize the potential cost of gasoline by 2020, twelve years from now. Twelve years ago, in 1995, gasoline averaged $1.50 in our country. What increases can we even expect?

I believe that this bill should be passed by the House, who has not yet voted. I think that we are now trying to proactive to the concerns that have been so widely discussed and debated for years.

In response to Maintaining Freedoms' blog: "Not Protecting the Citizen."

"Not Protecting the Citizen" seems to lack any statistical facts or truths. It is seemingly a few discriminatory sentences slapped together to meet an assignment deadline. According to Dictionary.com the definition of discrimination is: "To make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit." This blog approaches the issue of illegal immigration all wrong.

What research led to the fact that the illegal immigrants in the United Stated "...Rob the stores, banks, become gangsters, etc.?" Illegal immigrants in this nation do everything in their power to stay under the radar. In no way do they want to be arrested and sent back to Mexico, knowing that they would have to try to make it back to the Land of Opportunity a second time. According to Center for Immigration Studies "Researchers and observers, aware that widespread concern over crime committed by immigrants can boil over into hate crimes committed against them, rarely hesitate to note that the majority of immigrants are law-abiding. Often, they go further, adding that immigrants commit fewer crimes than the native-born."

Illegal immigrants work extremely hard for the money that they make. Yes, these illegal immigrants should be paying taxes on the income they are making, because they do utilize many government programs and benefits that other citizens use. These immigrants are paying taxes, if not income tax then sales tax. Although many "illegal immigrants" take over social security numbers and do pay income tax.

Hispanics/Latinos make up 14.8% of our nations’ population according to the 2006 U.S. Census Bureau. I don’t think that we are being pushed out by these immigrants, and I don’t think that this blog holds any truth.

View Maintaining Freedom's blog at: http://dancgov.blogspot.com/ and my comment at https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=83777301037322891&postID=7522350130795183278

Comedic Discriminaton? (Blog Stage Five- Original Article)

Stephen Colbert was planning to run as a democratic candidate for the 2008 presidential election. According to CNN's article published November 1, 2007, candidates must demonstrate two requirements to get on the ballot: that he or she is viable nationally and has spent time campaigning in the state. Chairwoman of the state Democratic Party, Carol Fowler, and a member of the executive council stated that Colbert did not meet the requirement of national viability. The South Carolina Democratic Party voted to keep Colbert's name off the Democratic Primary ballot.

So, should Stephen Colbert be allowed to run for president? If Marc Katz can run for mayor, and Arnold Schwarzenegger can run for governor, why can't a political based comedian run for president? The hope is that our system is advanced enough that if Stephen Colbert is not qualified he would never make it as the primary, let alone into office.

What does "viable nationally" mean? Viable has numerous definitions, most of them including "capable of living," but I am going to go with "having the ability to grow, expand, develop, etc." (dictionary.com). How can a group of individuals decide one's viability? Don't we all have the ability to grow, expand and develop if we so desire?

So, it is not that I think that Stephen Colbert should be the next President of the United States, but I do believe that he should have the ability to be on the primary ballot. It is not that I think that Stephen Colbert running for president would not make a mockery of our political process, but it seems that if he is able to provide the necessary requirements to be a candidate, he should have that ability.