Have a great day! 
oh, and if you want to delete those unwanted tags - the porn ones - there's a way to do that. I had that problem too. Go to tagboard management, click on "Click here to Delete Tagboard Entries." check the tags, and go to the bottom of the page and click on delete selected items. before you delete, copy the IP addresses and add them to your ban list. Sorry for all the advice, but I had that 
Over the last few days, I’ve heard many voices speaking out for and against the Philadelphia Eagles’ decision to sign Michael Vick. The passion on both sides has been impressive, if not always admirable.
Many animal activists have decried the move, suggesting that Vick should have been banned from the NFL for life—though, oddly enough, not the head of the Humane Society, who hopes to use Vick as an anti-dogfighting spokesman. Some have applauded the Eagles and NFL commissioner Roger Goodell for allowing Vick a second chance. The man himself seems humbled and willing to prove himself. Tony Dungy, a deeply religious man, stands beside Vick and his attempts to rejoin society. And in between, a whole lot of people aren’t sure what to think.
I’m with them.
On the one hand, I agree with the activists. I’m for animal rights myself, and I was shocked, sickened, and outraged by what Vick and his companions did. I agreed that he should go to jail, and when it was announced that he might get released early, I protested, including joining that Facebook group “Keep Michael Vick in Jail.”
On the other, I firmly believe in giving people second chances. Vick served his time and lost over a hundred million dollars. I don’t think we can deny him the chance to earn a living or to pursue his own American dream, not without picking and choosing when to apply our beliefs. If I believe in second chances for those who have taken their punishment and who claim to be trying to make amends, then I have to believe in it for everybody. So I have no problem with the Eagles’ signing Vick.
But believe me, I’m planning to watch him and his behavior very carefully. In instances like this, there should be no third chance. If Michael Vick engages in animal cruelty or some kind of major crime against a person, he should be banned from the NFL for life and imprisoned, this time for longer. I don’t buy the argument that his dogfighting stemmed from immaturity, but I think there’s something to the claim that some particular environments can encourage a kind of moral relativism. I want to give Vick a chance to transcend the man he was and to show us who he’s become.
But if it’s a case of “six of one, half a dozen of the other,” then I’m all out of sympathy for him.
That’s my opinion. What’s yours?
Email The Sportswriter at sportstalk2010@gmail.com
So surprise, surprise…the President’s proposed health care reforms have run into heavy opposition by the usual conservatives and from Democrats who really want to be Republicans. I can’t say I’m shocked, but I can sure say I’m disappointed.
It seems that most of the problems stem from the public option, a government-run alternative to existing insurance companies. Given the ideologies of those in opposition, I don’t understand the problem with this option. Sure, some conservatives shout “Socialism!!” whenever you mention government-run anything or any program that helps the majority, not those who are already privileged. That’s stupid on so many levels that it’s difficult to know where to begin.
First of all, anyone who actually knows anything about socialism will tell you that Barack Obama is no socialist. Hell, even the American Socialist Party’s candidate for President said so back during the election. Second, why do conservatives think crying “Socialism!!” ends the conversation? Shouldn’t we be more concerned about whether the program would work? Shouldn’t we be concerned about whether it would really make sure every person in this country has access to good health care? If it does, who cares how you label it?
Third, notice the name for this potential entity: public option. Under Obama’s plan, anyone who is insured (that is, anyone who has it and can afford it) can keep their current plan. This option is for people who can’t afford insurance or who are dissatisfied with their health care providers. It isn’t meant to replace the current medical system so much as supplement it. But Republican lawmakers won’t acknowledge that, because they’re too busy lining the pockets of big business like the insurance industry and drug companies, the only people who benefit from the current system. Fourth, why is capitalism so great? It benefits the rich and screws over everyone else. Sure, you have a chance to get rich, but I’ll take guaranteed health care for everyone over a miniscule chance to get wealthy any day. Why? Because money is not the most important thing in the world to me; people are.
And finally, since this option is meant to compete with the current system, couldn’t we argue that it represents the very essence of the free market? Competition is considered good under a capitalist system. Even if this option is government-run, all the insurance companies have to do is make sure they offer better service, better rates, and more comprehensive coverage than the government. Or are we really just saying that competition is supposed to benefit only the corporation, not the consumer?
I know how the loudest Republicans stand. Sarah Palin has suggested the plan calls for “death panels” who will decide for a patient how and when he or she will die. But as usual with Palin, she is either deliberately misstating the facts, or can’t read, or remains incapable of reading comprehension. The President’s plan simply assures that if a patient chooses to seek outside counsel on their wishes for how their deaths should be handled, such advice would be covered. It doesn’t mandate that you seek such advice or follow that advice if you do seek it. It simply gives you the choice without making you pay for it.
So mark your calendars. In August of 2009, Sarah Palin spoke out against giving Americans choices.
The same could be said for the protesters who have hijacked the various town meetings we’ve heard so much about. I’m all for speaking your mind in a public forum, no matter your politics or your morals. That’s your right as an American. But you do not have the right to deny others their turn, and in shouting down debate, that’s what these protesters have done. And they have the nerve to hold up signs showing Obama in a Hitler mustache? No American President has come closer to instituting a fascist, totalitarian state than George W. Bush, but these same people supported him. Obama has welcomed civil debate, whereas these protesters have tried to intimidate their opposition into submission. That sounds pretty fascist to me.
And, of course, Republican lawmakers have spoken out against the plan, using the same tired catchphrases they’ve been using for decades—“socialism,” “first step in a government takeover,” blah blah blah. My friends who teach composition will tell you that this line of thinking is called The Slippery Slope and it’s considered a logical problem. In other words, it’s a way of thinking that doesn’t make sense—claiming that taking one step will absolutely result in the worst possible outcome.
To me, and I echo the President here, health care is not a political issue at all. It’s a moral one. How can anyone actually stand up and say that they are against making sure everyone can see a doctor without being humiliated, rejected, or bankrupted? I suppose it’s much easier when you’ve never had to deal with the system yourself. But when one of my friends was in graduate school, he found out he had a life-threatening health issue. He had to have an immediate operation. But, even though he had a job and went to school full time, he could not afford insurance. So he had to choose between taking a chance with his life and going into serious debt. In the end, his family finally talked him into having the operation, and afterward, he paid the hospital as much as he could every month without fail. But when the hospital changed locations and moved into a fancier, more up-to-date facility, they sued him anyway. They wanted all their money right then. He did not have it. You can imagine the financial consequences that affected him for years.
Why should any citizen of this country have to choose between their very lives and the possibility of bankruptcy, social stigmatization, and loss of personal dignity? Because taking care of them might be—gasp!—socialist? That’s just not a good reason.
It is our moral duty to take care of each other. You don’t have to believe that everyone should have a Ferrari and a 64-inch TV and a forty-room mansion, but I don’t see how you can argue against giving everyone food, shelter, and affordable health care, regardless of their circumstances—or yours. To reject the moral choice because it in some way contradicts capitalism is still to act immorally. One wonders how so many of those Republican protesters can go back to their churches and claim a Christian faith, given that Christ himself was all about love, charity, understanding, and peace, not the “free market.” (And by the way, nothing in
I call on every American to look around you, not at the faceless abstractions called capitalism and socialism or Democrat and Republican, but at the very real people suffering right outside your door every day. Look at them and tell them that you don’t care about their lives, their children, or their dreams. I can’t do it. And when I look back on this time years from now, I’ll be able to say that I stood for helping my fellow human beings, no matter how loud or obnoxious the opposition. Gather a group of deluded and reactionary citizens to chase me through a parking lot, and if I manage to live, I’ll still say the same thing. I hope you’ll be able to do the same.
This is your political conscience.
Email Your Political Conscience at yourpoliticalconscience@gmail.com
Bravenet Blog 
Blog Community
Get a Free Blog
Manage your Blog
bravenet.com