Topic Discussion 3

Thanksgiving Edition 2010!

General Topic: Should Oregon’s collegiate sports teams practice in a location other than Oregon?

[Question given by: Jim D.]

General Analysis (Background Information):

-During our recent playoffs in professional sports, we have never been able to keep 1^st place in the national competitions and hold a national title

-Example: Oregon State’s Football teams practice within Oregon State University.  At one point in 2010, we have reached 1^st in the nation in playoffs with other states.  This is quite a high standing, but it took a physical toll on players of the team.  Many of Oregon’s good players were injured badly coming from the playoffs, while other states’ football teams are still on the move. 

-Most of the new sports figures we recruit, in general, never make a big impression on team scores or team successes

-Example: The Portland Trail Blazers recruited Greg Oden in the team because of his exceptional physical features.  He previously seemed impervious to any injury given to him.  There were high hopes and expectations for this player.  A few weeks into the gaming season, he was critically injured on the knee without any strong reason.  After recovery, he came back into the gaming sessions and injured himself on the knee again.  After that his career almost came to an end. 

-The Trail Blazers have a good potential based on their previous games. 

-The way these teams enter the national spotlight, they do have a good training course to prepare

In the Affirmation of the Topic

Most Oregonians have strong opinions about their professional sports teams when it comes to football and basketball.  However, did we ever get the idea of how the location of their practice affects them, after losing in the national spotlight for a while?  After all, comparing our team with the other states, you could visibly see their strength on the field.  You might ask yourselves, well, how did they get all these “good” players on their team? 

To answer that, we must look at our own players first.  Oregon, just like any other state, is strongly in favor of recruiting useful professionals on their teams.  In the past, we have had many famous players (like Michael Jordan) requesting to include themselves here, but to no avail because of our “pickiness”, I should say.  Nowadays, we are smarter than that.  We pick players based on height, physical strength, and skill. 

The thing is that even the players we recruit that have all these attributes, either have a bodily injury that inhibits their capabilities.  We train them to the best way from taxpayers money, but we still don’t see any shocking results.  The answer lies in Oregon’s climate in general.

If you have lived in Oregon for more than 6 months, you probably have an inkling that we have a long cloudy year with a few peeks of sun.  Even the statistics show that we have a high humidity level, cool temperatures, and cloudy or rainy conditions for about 8-9 months every year.  Based on this alone, we could conclude that our players are practicing indoors and/or practicing in an environment that has no positive or negative effect on their health.  Getting some sunlight is one major thing that we need in order to replenish our supply of vitamin D which benefits us physically (increasing calcium and phosphorus absorption) and emotionally (can relieve stress, and improve moral).

So, if we know that our teams are practicing in a non-beneficial place, we could now focus our attention on where we could locate our teams so we could get the best performance out of them in the play-offs between states.  One suggestion would be near Klamath Falls on the border between Oregon and California.  This place seems to have the ideal weather; a combination between California’s sun and Oregon’s humidity would suffice for physical and spiritual health.

If our sports teams were located in a place with less air pollution, increased sunlight, and strategically location, we would eventually have a greater chance at gaining national attention with regards to sports (relating to football/basketball).   It wouldn’t just be all luck and injury in order to achieve team regard.  The location factor for team practice is beginning to take an increasing role over the quality of our professional teams; a good and worthwhile thing to attempt.

è Comments are welcome as to your opinion on the topic or suggestions for the next topic.  Thanks for reading!

Controversy on the "Dont' ask, don't tell" Policy

URL: http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2010-10-21-militarygays21_ST_N.htm

(This top news sounds familiar – This policy can affect certain people with regards to the military)

'Don't ask, don't tell' back in effect, again

Updated 1h 31m ago |  Comments 18  |  Recommend  

E-mail | Save | Print | 

By Jim Michaels, USA TODAY

A federal appeals court in California on Wednesday temporarily restored the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gay servicemembers.

Ruling in favor of a request by the Justice Department, a three-judge federal panel suspended a judge's order requiring the military to allow openly gay troops, the Associated Press reported.

The impact on military recruitment was not immediately clear. Cynthia Smith, a Pentagon spokeswoman, called the court's action Wednesday "appropriate."

She declined to tell the Associated Press whether the Defense Department would roll back its guidance to recruiters that they must abide by last week's lower-court ruling.

Earlier Wednesday, military recruiters said they were prepared to begin processing openly gay recruits but many recruiters said none came through the doors.

Staff Sgt. Joshua Roland, an Army recruiter in Staunton, Va., said no openly gay recruits have come in since a court ruling overturned the military's "don't ask don't tell" policy.

"It hasn't affected us as far as anyone coming in with that issue," he said.

At least three servicemembers discharged for being gay began the process to re-enlist after the Pentagon's announcement Tuesday that the policy was suspended until further notice, according to the Associated Press.

Many recruiters say it has been business as usual.

"We haven't changed how we recruit or who we recruit," said Marine Cpl. Ryan Turnage, spokesman for the Marine Corps' recruitment efforts in western Mississippi.

Recruiters had been told they should warn recruits who acknowledge they are gay that the policy could be reversed and result in their discharge.

The Pentagon had wanted to study the consequences of removing the policy before taking action. That study likely will not be completed until December.

Some military commanders, such as Gen. James Conway, commandant of the Marine Corps, have said most troops oppose reversing the policy and worry that such action could be disruptive during wartime.

The Pentagon is looking into issues, such as living accommodations, that might have to be changed if the policy is reversed and gays can openly serve. They also are measuring opinion among troops.

Supporters of the policy say troops near the front lines who tend to live in close quarters with one another may be uncomfortable serving with openly gay troops. Non-commissioned officers could be burdened sorting those conflicts during war if changes are made without adequate preparation, they say.

"The last thing in the world Marine squad leaders and fire team leaders need to worry about is some kind of social experimentation," said John Grinalds, a retired Marine major general. "I'm worried about what an abrupt change in policy will do to Marines."

Peter Mansoor, a retired Army colonel who served as a brigade commander in Iraq, said overturning the policy might cause short-term disruptions but would ultimately work.

"In the long run integration will go smoothly," said Mansoor, who teaches at Ohio State University.

Analysis on the Temporary Reinstatement of the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” Military Policy that affects Homosexual people in particular – Affirmation

By Explorer

          This is a big issue regarding the people that ensure the safety of our country.  If inappropriate homosexual activity becomes a problem among soldiers and marines, then their performance can be reduced therefore making our armed forces a little bit more vulnerable.  The “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy basically is the allowance for homosexuals in the armed forces on one condition, that they don’t reveal their gender orientation and refrain from inappropriate conduct with others.  This was originally put in order to give equal rights for homosexuals.  One of these rights was the allowance of homosexuals in the military.  In short, this act symbolized the efforts being put to show America as a place of equality and control, especially in labor, which is beneficial.  There is an interesting side to this policy though.  This policy had a good effect in the 1990’s during Bill Clinton’s campaign.  Times have changed and frankly gay military workers can be out on the loose.  USA Today says that “troops near the front lines who tend to live in close quarters with one another may be uncomfortable serving with openly gay troops.”  If this is the case, then this policy would eventually become practical in the most part.  “Openly gay” troops are at a high risk of discharge under this rule.  Our troops should be able to work in an environment that is efficient and has little or no disruptions.  The news article quotes that, “Some military commanders, such as Ben. James Conway, commandant of the Marine corps, have said most troops oppose reversing the policy and worry that such action could be disruptive during wartime.”

          Permanently, retaining this policy would put homosexuals under control.  Without this, cruel, unusual, and possibly inappropriate action may occur within military encampments and operations.  And we do know that is unacceptable for the public to let these events happen without the knowledge that inappropriate homosexual activity or just the openly homosexual people in the military can affect our safety.  The job of the military is to protect American citizens’ which means that if the servicemen in the military do not cooperate effectively, then the people can be in jeopardy.  All it takes for our military is just a few scattered disruptions to lose control over operations and guards.  Looking back at how many soldiers we lost in our most recent attack on Iraq, we could not afford any interruptions regarding the matter of homosexuals especially when we are currently planning to attack Afghanistan.  It takes a lot of resources for our military to wage a war on another country.  One of our valuable resources which is our soldiers could not afford to be lost to other matters such as this.

          In conclusion, this policy is essential to the retention of U.S. soldier.  Still though, it all depends on the behavior homosexuals show towards this policy. So the question is, will we still be able to sustain a strong reputation for our military if this rule is reversed? 

I encourage you to comment as to your views on this standing.

Controversy on Removing Some Amendments on the US Constitution

http://www.aolnews.com/surge-desk-elections/article/candidates-who-want-to-amend-or-repeal-sections-of-the-us-constitution/19665204

(Check This Top News Out – Certain Senators Want to Change Our Rights! – October 7, 2010)

8 Candidates Who Want to Amend the US Constitution

David Knowles Writer

AOL News Surge Desk

(Oct. 7) -- Does the U.S. Constitution grant Americans citizens too many rights?

That seems to be the conclusion reached by some tea party activists and the candidates they have helped propel to victory. While in years past, a scattered number of political aspirants have spoken about scaling back the Constitution so that it more closely resembles the original version, this year's rise of the tea party has resulted in a slew of candidates who view the revered document as bloated.

Surge Desk has a roundup of the politicians who believe that, when it comes to the number of amendments tacked on to the Constitution, less will mean more.

AP / MCT

Sharron Angle [Republican Candidate for Nevada], Joe Miller[Republican Candidate for Alaska State] and Rand Paul[Republican Candidate for Kentucky State] are some of the candidates running this year who have expressed a desire to repeal or amend certain portions of the U.S. Constitution.

THE 17th AMENDMENT

Before the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913, state legislatures, not the voters, appointed the senators from a given state.

Mike Lee [Republican Candidate for Utah State]
In an interview with CNN in July, Utah Republican Senate candidate Mike Lee termed the 17th Amendment a "mistake" that lessened the power of the states. Thought Lee admitted that a repeal of it was unlikely, it is clear that he favors such a move.

Analysis on the Eagerness of Senators for Change in the U.S. Constitution (Particularly the 17^th Amendment) – Negation

by Explorer

            Ok, simply put, the 17^th amendment is a protection for any state to have too much representation in the government.  The lessening of the power of states has a purpose though.  If the 17^th amendment is to be repealed, this not only removes the restrictions on the number of senators that will represent a state, but instead let the state legislatures get to appoint any senator in particular (as long as he/she has the right qualifications based on Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution).  This is where we, the people come into play now. Right now, if there is no senator where there should be one (representing a state) then the 17^th amendment makes the state governor temporarily appoint a senator until an election can be held to fill the position.  So, without this amendment it would be totally in the hands of the legislature.  And this is not the ultimate goal of the U.S. Constitution.  The “Enlightenment” ideas have been around for centuries and they always have something to do about representing the people.  Without this amendment we don’t have a say of who really is apt for the job as Senator.  This seems more like a limit to our right to vote, isn’t it?  Without it, the legislature gets to appoint and all we could do is watch; watching, and hoping that someone has the sense to pick the right guy.  No, that’s not how it works, we need representation and this amendment was thought through before it was ratified.  It was put there on the basis that the people need representation. 

            Imagine if you lived in 1780’s and you were waiting for all these amendment things to happen.  You know that when you’re about 110 years old that these things have value (I presume).  A lot of thought was put into this because of the sole fact that people were going to die if the wrong guy was chosen to lead and/or a state or legislature might end with as much power and King George III back in the 1770’s.  Let’s say, that another 30 years pass by in a wink and you’re now 140 years old and it’s the year 1920.  Man that’s a long time you might say… But it’s not! At this point you can’t just say “oh the 15^th, 16^th, 17^th, and 18^th amends were passed is the last three decades.  Why do I care?” You might just see the next Hitler come up of nowhere if we were not just supported by the 15^th and 17^th amendments.  Now do you know the power of 17^th amendment now?  Without it, it could spell the next Hitler, Civil War, Nullification of Voters Suffrage Rights, National Assembly, Feudalism Governing, “Taxation without representation”, Boston Tea Party, King George III Act, and much, much, more.

            So, what do these two paragraphs sum up to?  It simply means that it means a lot about how this 17^th amendment is treated.  I’m not saying though that this is a firm stance on this topic.  There are many other aspects to this topic also.  The affirmation could be that this could be our next chance for the true color of a corrupt government to be released to the public and show the public the truth of the matter that we need change in the right direction.

è Please do leave comments here whether it’s in the affimation or negation of the topic, and inform me of any new understandings on the topic.  Thanks for reading.