Obama wears shirt in Oval Office! OMG!

OMG! Obama wears a shirt in the Oval Office, breaking Bush's rule of jackets only in the Oval Office. A couple of things:

1) Who gives a damn? Conservatives need to stop wining, I'm sick of all the fake outrage on this issue. "OMG, the Oval Office is supposed to be a place of respect... blah, blah..." It was the previous administration's rule! Obama can do whatever the hell he wants.

2) Shutup about Obama screwing up his oath too. It was Roberts that added the extra word. HE messed it up, not Obama. Damn, If I hear any more whining bullshit about this nonissue on Fox News, my head is going to explode.

1 in 7 U.S. Adults Can't Read

Simply amazing.

About 14 percent of U.S. adults won't be reading this article. Well, okay, most people won't read it, given all the words that are published these days to help us understand and navigate the increasingly complex world.

But about 1 in 7 can't read it. They're illiterate.

Statistics released by the U.S. Education Department this week show that some 32 million U.S. adults lack basic prose literacy skill. That means they can't read a newspaper or the instruction on a bottle of pills.

The figures are for 2003, the latest year available. State and county results are available here.

"The crisis of adult literacy is getting worse, and investment in education and support programs is critical," said David C. Harvey, president and CEO of ProLiteracy, in response to the finding.

This is about jobs and the economy, Harvey said.

"More than 1 million people lost their jobs in 2008 and the new unemployment figures are the highest in 16 years," Harvey said. "A large number of the unemployed are low-skilled individuals who struggle with everyday reading, writing and math tasks. The administration wants to create new jobs with the stimulus packages, but to take advantage of those new positions, these adults need basic literacy skills."

A separate study released last month named Minneapolis and Seattle as the most literate cities.

ProLiteracy, which promotes reading programs for the disadvantaged and encourages more government funding, estimates that illiteracy costs American businesses more than $60 billion each year in lost productivity and health and safety issues. Lack of funding at the federal, state and local levels prevents about 90 percent of the illiterate from getting help, the organization claims.

ProLiteracy also estimates:

• 63 percent of prison inmates can't read
• 774 million people worldwide are illiterate
• Two-thirds of the world's illiterate are women

If parents can't read, there's a good chance children will be poor readers, the organization notes.

I don't really know what to think.

Moral Issues: Homosexuality and Gay Marriage

As sort of an intro to my upcoming Moral Issues series, this article will briefly cover the morality of Homosexuality and Gay Marriage.

Firstly, homosexuality. Is it morally wrong? No. It doesn't affect anybody except the homosexual couple themselves. No one is hurt, no rights are compromised. Logically, there is no reason to be against homosexuality. Almost all opposition to homosexuality is religious in nature - which still doesn't warrant hatred or discrimination towards gays, in addition to denying them equal rights. Here are some commonly voiced concerns (besides "that's gross"):

It's not natural. Therefore, it's not moral.

This is an extremely common argument brought up to "prove" that homosexuality is wrong. Using this ridiculous argument, such things as rape could be justified, as it happens in nature all the time. Hell, using this argument, even homosexuality can be justified, as it is seen in nature as well. Take for instance the African Ape, the Bonobo. They have sex all the time, and with anything, male or female. Up to 75% of Bonobo sex is nonreproductive. I guess homosexuality is only natural, huh?

Above all, trying to gauge an action's morality based on its naturalness is ridiculous, and often used with inconsistency. Nature is neither inherently moral nor immoral - it's amoral.

Reproduction is only meant to occur between a man and a woman, not two men! Our bodies just weren't made that way. As a result, homosexuality is wrong, and actually a danger to the human race.

Another common objection to homosexuality, which is really just another form of the "it's just not natural" argument. Sensationalist bullshit as well: come back when the human race is in danger of extinction due to rampant homosexuality.

Gays spread STDs like crazy! AIDs would erupt!

It seems as if they didn't even take the time to reason this one out. Heterosexuals also spread disease as well, and aren't any less likely to cause a massive outbreak than gays.

Now, we come to gay marriage. For such a controversial issue, it only has one rational solution - allow gays and lesbians equal marriage rights. Again, there is no logical reason to oppose this stance. Only good would come from allowing gays equal rights under the law. The only negative that would come from it is the disappointment of some people that they did not get their way. And yes, you guessed it - most opposition is religious. Here are some common fears:

It would infringe on my rights as a heterosexual.

How? What rights would be violated by the evil gays? You would retain all of your rights. The only difference is that gays would be happy too.

Our church does not want to be forced to perform gay marriages against our will.

Again, no one will be forced to do anything against their will. Churches that do not want to marry gay couples will not have to, and churches that want to can.

Legalizing gay marriage would lead to the spread of STDs!

See above (homosexuality portion). Also, wouldn't allowing gays to enter into monogamous (through marriage) relationships lead to a decline in STDs?

It would lead down a slippery slope to bestiality!

Again, they didn't think this out did they? It's a different topic entirely. There are legitimate reasons to prohibit bestiality (consent, for example), but for homosexuality, there are not.

It's not the traditional family way! The traditional family unit would be destroyed!

Ridiculous. Just what is a traditional family? There has never been a "traditional family" throughout history, and there never will be. All that is needed are loving parents and a child - something that gay parents are just as capable of providing. There's no evidence whatsoever pointing to the emotional scarring of children of gay parents. They are perfectly healthy.

It would redefine marriage! Marriage is only supposed to be between a man and woman.

A very commonly voiced concern over gay marriage, which really doesn't boil down to anything at all. Yet agian, somewhat reminiscent of the natural=moral argument. John Stewart actually did a good job of refuting Mike Huckabee when he brought up on the Daily Show. If we went back to traditional (i.e. Biblical) times and used that definition of marriage, then practices such as polygamy and arranged marriages would be perfectly acceptable. The "definition" of marriage has definitely evolved over the years, and there's no reason that two homosexuals who love each other should be excluded.

Recently, I have also seen a trend in most bigots - prefacing their argument with something like "I know my argument is going to get dismissed as a bigoted/religious in nature, but...

In conclusion, homosexuality is not immoral, but amoral. Gays should be given equal marriage rights as well. The fact that they are not is blatant discrimination of the highest degree. Personally, I also think it'd be much easier if all marriages were recognized as "civil unions" by the government, and marriage left to the churches - less headache for everyone.

Look for future entries in my Moral Issues series.