Making the Case for Increased Involvement in Libya

President Obama has stated that it is the goal of the United States to remove Colonel Muammar Gadhafi from power. Despite NATO and opposition efforts, the fight seems to be at a stalemate. It appears that if the US is to reach its goal, it may be necessary to increase military involvement. With wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, would the American people have the fortitude to increase involvement in Libya?

The way it is being pitched is:

The United States and its NATO allies need to step up involvement in the war in Libya. Firing hundreds of Tomahawk cruise missiles and enforcing a no-fly zone with Hornet, Tornado, and Mirage aircraft has only been enough to stop the advance of Gadhafi's forces. It is uncertain what the affect of arming the opposition and utilizing unmanned Predator Drones, armed with Hellfire missiles, will be on the situation, but it will likely require more to reach our end goal.

This either sounds bad-ass or frightening, depending on your side of the debate. If you want to be able to sell the idea that more needs to be done, you need to make it sound friendly. First, war has such a negative connotation. Why not call it a game? Everyone likes games. We're just going to go referee the game to make sure that both sides play fairly and that breaking the rules (such as being a dictator) is penalized. Tomahawks were a weapon used by Native Americans. Native Americans also used peace pipes. Instead of Tomahawk cruise missiles, why don't we call them Peace Pipes? As for the fighter jets, hornets are very aggressive, and no one wants to have hornets around. Why not call them Butterflies? Tornadoes are very destructive. Instead of a tornado, I would rather have a light breeze, so we'll call them that. A mirage isn't even really there, so we'll just stick with that. Giving arms to opposition groups has come back to bite us in the past. Instead of arms, why couldn't we give them another body part? Like hearts? Who would object to us giving them hearts? Predator is also a bad word. Either you think of an animal that hunts and kills things, or you think of a pedophile or rapist. Neither gives you warm, fuzzy thoughts. Why not call them Kittens? Cats are predators, but no one is afraid of a kitten! Hellfire missiles obviously need a new name. Hellfire is definitely not a good thing. However, everyone likes a bonfire, so we'll call them Bonfires.

The new pitch for increased involvement would look something like this:

America and friends need to take a stricter referee role in the freedom game in Libya. Sending hundreds of Peace Pipes and having Butterflies, Light Breezes, and Mirages flying over Libya has resulted in a tie, and we need to ensure that rule infractions are penalized during overtime. It is unsure whether giving the good guys hearts and sending Kittens to light Bonfires for the Libyan people will be an adequate penalty for breaking the "oppression" rule. It is likely that further penalization will be necessary.

Wording his argument like this would certainly enable President Obama to get the majority of Americans behind him, regardless of the level of force he wants to use in Libya.

Wisconsin - Outdrinking Your State since 1848, Unless You Are from New Hampshire, Washington D.C, Nevada, or Delaware

When I moved to Erie, Pennsylvania for graduate school, I experienced somewhat of a culture shock. There were many reasons for this, but it was largely due to cultural attitudes towards alcohol. I am from a state where we sell beer at the concession stand at Little League games, so you can imagine my surprise when we were told to put our beers away at a men's rugby tournament. In addition to Pennsylvania's asinine alcohol laws (even more asinine than Wisconsin's) and the level of difficulty in stocking your favorite beverages (you have to go to two separate stores to buy liquor and wine and beer, and you have to buy beer by the case from a beer store. I know, asinine.), the people of Pennsylvania just don't drink like the people in Wisconsin. They don't tailgate at baseball games, they can't take their kids to bars, and their drink specials at bars end by midnight and everyone goes home. I wanted to see which states can keep up with Wisconsin, and which ones can't even keep up with Pennsylvania, as well as see where the US's drinking habits compare to the rest of the world.

I collected 2007 data on alcohol consumption annually per capita for each state, based on alcohol sales, from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA). The figures were given in gallons, but I have converted them to liters to make it easier to compare internationally.

The number one drinking state by a long shot is New Hampshire, where the average person purchases 4.22 gallons (15.97 L) of alcohol per year. If New Hampshire were a country, this would put it in second place in the world. The rest of the top five includes Washington D.C. (3.95 gal. / 14.95 L), Nevada (3.61 gal. / 13.67 L), Delaware (3.23 gal. / 12.23 L), and Wisconsin (2.98 gal. / 11.28 L). If all of the states and the District of Columbia were countries, Washington D.C. would rank third in the world. Nevada would rank fifth in the world. None of the other states would break the top 10. Wisconsin would be tied in 23rd with Denmark and Palau.

The top five driest states are:

1. Utah (1.34 gal. / 5.07 L)
2. West Virginia (1.76 gal. / 6.66 L)
3. Arkansas (1.84 gal. / 6.97 L)
4. Kentucky (1.85 gal. / 7.00 L)
5. Tennessee (1.89 gal. / 7.15 L)

Pennsylvania ranked 37th (including Washington D.C.) at 2.16 gal. / 8.18 L.

For the international rankings, I got 2005 data from the World Health Organization. The top 10 biggest drinkers are:

1. Estonia (16.2 L)
2. Czech Republic (14.8 L)
3. Ireland (13.4 L)
4. France (13.2 L)
5. Andorra (12.8 L)
6. Austria (12.7 L)
7. Saint Lucia (12.7 L)
8. Croatia (12.5 L)
9. Hungary (12.5 L)
10. Lithuania (12.5 L)

Germany ranked 15, tied with Luxembourg at 11.7 L. Switzerland ranked 32, tied with Serbia at 10.1 L. the United States ranked 46, tied with Ukraine at 8.5 L.

The 10 driest countries are:

1. Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and Bangladesh at 0.0L
2. Pakistan, Niger, Myanmar, Mauritania, Kuwait, Iran, Indonesia, and Afghanistan at 0.1 L.

It makes sense, most of those are Islamic nations, and Muslims aren't supposed to drink. I can personally vouch that Niger has some good beer (Biere Niger and Flag), but it's so damn hot there that unless they are one of the few rich people who can afford refrigeration, they have to drink it, well, piss-warm would be an understatement, which would be a deterrent.

As you can see, Americans probably would not win a real-life Beer Fest, although New Hampshirites or New Hampshirians, or whatever they're called might have a shot, and for that matter, the Germans probably wouldn't either. Watch out for the Estonians though, they are by far the world's heaviest drinkers.

Trimming the Fat

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, not a single state in the United States had an obesity rate (obesity is defined as 30% body fat or greater) over 15% in 1990. According to the 2009 statistics, less than 20 years later, only Colorado (18.6%) and Washington D.C. (19.7%) have an obesity rate less than 20%. There is even a neat slideshow you can watch on the website where you can watch all the states in the country change from white/light blue to orange/red (http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html#State).

Where else can you go to find skinny people besides Colorado and Washington D.C? Connecticut (20.6%) came in third place, Massachusetts (21.4%) came in fourth place, and Hawaii (22.3%) came in 5th place.

If you like more cushion for the pushin', the places to go are Mississippi (34.4%), Louisiana (33.0%), Tennessee (32.3%), Kentucky (31.5%), and Oklahoma (31.4%).

Wisconsin, which according to my memory was ranked in the low to mid 20s of the skinniest states in 2008, fell to the 36th skinniest state (including Washington D.C.) in 2009. Way to go, Wisconsin. I know we like our cheese, beer, and bratwurst, but come on, have some pride!

We know where the fattest and skinniest people live within the United States, but what about the whole world? I found 2009 data from the World Health Organization, and apparently, more people care how many women are fat than men because there is data for women in 130 countries, but only data for men in 88 countries. I will list the countries on the extremes, and then also list the US, Germany, and Switzerland, since most of my readers are from these countries. If you are interested in another country, let me know and I will tell you where it ranks.

So where can you find the skinniest women? The top 10 countries are:

1. Vietnam (0.6%)
2. Ethiopia (0.7%)
3. Nepal (0.9%)
4. Madagascar (1.0%)
5. Rwanda (1.1%)
6. Chad, Cambodia (1.5%)
7. Bangladesh (1.7%)
8. Malawi, Congo, Cameroon, Burkina Faso (2.4%)

The Asian and African countries are no surprise. Have you ever seen a fat Asian or a fat black person outside of America? Probably not.

Where are the fattest women? The top 10 countries are:

1. Tonga (74.9%)
2. Tuvalu (67.6%)
3. Samoa (66.3%)
4. Cook Islands (65.7%)
5. Kiribati (58.9%)
6. Nauru (56.0%)
7. Kuwait (47.9%)
8. Saudi Arabia (43.8%)
9. Egypt (39.5%)
10. Iraq (38.2%)

The Pacific Island countries are expected, but the Middle Eastern countries are interesting. I do remember seeing a lot of fat women in Iraq though. It was like the moment they got married, their weight quadrupled. They also seemed to skip from age 15 to age 70, which is probably because they seem to do all of the manual labor, which you would think they would keep them skinny, but apparently not. The United States ranks number 14 on the list at 33.2%. Germany is number 36 on the list at 21.1%. Switzerland is number 91 on the list at 7.8%.

How do the countries with the skinniest men compare to the skinniest women?

1. Vietnam (0.3%)
2. Laos (0.7%)
3. Indonesia (1.1%)
4. India (1.3%)
5. Eritrea (2.3%)
6. China (2.4%)
7. South Korea (2.8%)
8. Japan (2.9%)
9. Philippines (3.0%)
10. Thailand (3.3%)

Again, Asians are the skinniest people. What about the fat men?

1. Cook Islands (57.4%)
2. Tonga (56.1%)
3. Nauru (50.3%)
4. Tuvalu (46.6%)
5. Samoa (44.9%)
6. Kiribati (41.7%)
7. Kuwait (36.4%)
8. Nicaragua (33.1%)
9. United States of America (31.1%)
10. Saudi Arabia (28.3%)

Again, similar to the women, but with the US breaking the top 10. Germany is number 23 at 20.5%, and Switzerland is number 64 at 8.7%.

I had a discussion about this with my dad a few days ago, and he commented on how many more fat people, not just overweight, but obese people, there are than there were when he was younger. He seemed to think that it has to do with a lack of pride, which I can definitely see.

You definitely still see plenty of people who are proud to be American, but their reasons for being proud of American are lacking. Once upon a time, America was a nobody and had a chip on its shoulder. Being American meant you had to work your ass off because you had something to prove to the rest of the world. Americans have inherited the fruits of our ancestors' labor and just take for granted that that's just how it is. There's a saying, "If you don't use it, you lose it." I'm pretty sure it is meant for foreign languages, but it can be applied to anything, including greatness. If you want America to be great, make it great, don't just let it be great, because it won't make itself great.

The moral of the story is, the US is in the top 10 fattest countries for men, and not far behind for women. I could get into our ranking in education and other areas too, but those are for a different post. Get your lazy ass up and work. Not just to get it done, but like you have something invested in it. Take pride in yourself and all that you do.

Tripoli Hypocrisy

I am not President Obama's biggest fan, but I am a fan of fairness, which has definitely been lacking in this whole Libya operation.

Obama has received much criticism for his handling of the situation, some deserved, some not. Some people have proven that they will criticize the president regardless of what he does. He could pay off the entire national debt and bring unemployment to 0%, yet there would still be people criticizing him for something.

A mere week ago, there were people criticizing the president for not doing anything to help the Libyan people. Many people wanted at least a no-fly zone, but the president was too weak of a leader to step up and help these people with decisive action. Suddenly, the UN passes a mandate and the president agrees to enforce it by conducting a no-fly zone, which includes attacking air defenses on the ground, and by bombing Gaddafi's forces that are threatening civilians. Now, these same people who were calling for these military actions are condemning the president for overstepping his bounds and acting beyond the scope of the presidency. There have even been calls for impeachment. Ridiculous.

Yes, I know President Obama's actions are contradictory to statements he has made in the past, and maybe that does make him a hypocrite, but it makes him no more of a hypocrite than all of these idiots who apparently have no policy ideas of their own, they just want the opposite of what Obama does.

Medicated Americans

I was reading an article the other day that made the claim that the United States is the most medicated country in the world, which got me thinking. Obviously we have issues with obesity in America, and all of the health risks associated with it, and I'm sure there are many other medical issues that Americans take medication for, but what really interests me is medication for mental health. When talking about my ex girlfriends to girls, there is a stark contrast between reactions from Americans and foreigners. When I bring up that one was on medication for depression and anxiety and another had been diagnosed as bipolar, American girls often have the response, "That is a serious issue. I take those medications too." Foreign women generally respond, "She must really have issues if she is taking medication." I decided to investigate.

I looked up mental disorder statistics for several English and German-speaking countries (their health reports are the only ones I can read), with emphasis on depression, bipolar disorders, anxiety disorders, and ADHD, in order to compare. However, the report from the US Health and Human Services (USHHS), Health, United States, 2010: With Special Feature on Death and Dying, used a different method to gather its data, making comparison somewhat difficult. The USHHS counted only the number of people actually taking medication for these problems within the period of a month. The other countries involved, including Australia, Austria, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom, used methods counting the number of people who experienced symptoms or who were diagnosed, not necessarily medicated, over the period of one year. In order to make comparisons, the German report, Gesundheitsberichterstattung des Bundes: Gesundheit in Deutschland (Health Report of the Federation: Health in Germany) gave both one-month and 12-month data for depression. I will use the ratio from this data, which says that the one-month data is 55% of the 12-month data.

Another issue with the USHHS report is that it is very vague when addressing anxiety disorders. The other reports break down anxiety disorders into general anxiety disorder, panic disorder, phobias, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and a couple other classifications. I doubt that anxiety disorders, such as phobias, are included in the US report because I can't imagine what kind of medication you would take for that, which leads me to believe that, in addition to only being for those taking medication for the disorder, the anxiety numbers are even lower than they should be for the United States.

The reports are also all from different years, which also skews the data, but they are all from the year 2000 or later, so even though some of the reports show that rates have increased in several of the countries since 2000, for the purpose of this study, we will presume that these changes are insignificant.

We will start with the worldwide figures. Unfortunately, figures on mental disorders were not available from the World Health Organization (although lots of other fun information was, which I'm sure you will get to see in later posts), so the only worldwide information I have is from the German report, and the data is only one-month data on depression. Once adjusted using our ratio to a 12-month level, on average, worldwide, 3.4% of men and 5.8% of women suffered from depression in the year 2000. However, the numbers have likely grown in the past 11 years. 2.4% of people worldwide are bipolar, according to a report by CBS News in 2011. I found no reliable data on anxiety disorders or ADHD worldwide.

After adjusting the United States to a 12-month study, in 2008, 7.2% of men and a whopping 21.6% of women have taken medication for depression within the past year. 3.6% of American men and 7.2% of American women have taken medication for anxiety within the past year. The number of men taking medication for depression was four times higher than in 2004, and the number of women taking medication for depression was six times higher than in 2004. The number of both men and women taking medication for anxiety doubled from 2004-2008. 4.4% of Americans are bipolar according to CBS News. In 2008, 9% of American boys between the ages of 5 and 17 took prescription central nervous system stimulants, commonly prescribed for ADHD, in the past year, while 5.4% of girls 5-17 have taken these medications. Nine percent of Americans under 18 had been diagnosed with ADHD in 2009. Again, most of these figures are only the people taking medication for these disorders, not the number diagnosed or experiencing symptoms, making these numbers lower than they should be when comparing them to numbers from other countries.

Next up is Australia. I got their data from the 2007 report The Mental Health of Australians. In a one-year period, 20% of Australians reported symptoms of some sort of mental disorder. More specifically, 5.4% of Australians experienced symptoms of depression (4.1% of men and 6.6% of women). In this same period, 14.4% of Australians experienced symptoms of some sort of anxiety disorder (10.8% of men and 17.9% of women). Also, 1.8% of Australians experienced symptoms of bipolar disorder (1.8% of men, 1.7% of women). I found no data on ADHD.

The Austrian data came from the Österreichischer Psychiatriebericht 2001 (Austrian Psychiatry Report 2001). In Austria, 29.5% of the population experienced symptoms of a mental disorder in 2001 (27.7% of men, 31.2% of women). 12.8% of the population experienced symptoms of depression (9.8% of men, 15.9% of women). The Austrians seem to be a very anxious people, with 17.2% experiencing symptoms of anxiety disorders (11.8% of men, 22.6% of women). Only 1.3% of Austrians experienced symptoms of a bipolar disorder. I found no data on ADHD. Since this report is from 2001, it is likely that these numbers are now even higher.

According to the 2002 report A Report on Mental Illnesses in Canada, women who suffer symptoms of depression are double the number of men, but I have no exact gender percentages from Canada. However, 4-5% of the total population suffers from symptoms of depression. Additionally, 1.1% of the population suffers from symptoms of anxiety disorders, 1% of the population suffers from symptoms of a bipolar disorder, and 15% of the population suffers from symptoms of ADHD, although having lived not too far from Canada, both in northern Wisconsin and in Erie, Pennsylvania, my guess is that is not ADHD, just boredom.

Next up, we have Germany. Their 2006 report reports that 5.8% of men and 9.5% of women suffer from symptoms of depression, while 14.2% of the population (9% of men and 19% of women) suffer from symptoms of anxiety disorders.

A 2006 study published as Te Rau Hinengaro: The New Zealand Mental Health Survey shows that 6.8% of New Zealanders suffered from depression over the period of a year (5.2% of men and 8.4% of women), 14.8% of the population suffered from anxiety disorder (10.7% of men and 18.6% of women), 2.2% of the population suffered from a bipolar disorder (2.1% of men and 2.3% of women), and 6.7% of New Zealanders suffered from ADHD.

The only reliable information I could find on the Swiss was from the 2009 report Diagnose von Depressionen in Hausarztpraxen (Diagnosis of Depression by General Practitioners). The report states that 20-25% of the Swiss population has been diagnosed with some sort of mental disorder, while 7% of the population was diagnosed with depression over the period of a year (33.1% of these are men, 66.9% are women). It is important to note that this number is the number of actual diagnoses, not number of people reporting symptoms in a survey, so the number is somewhat lower than it should be in comparison to other countries, with the exception of the United States.

Information on the United Kingdom came from a 2006 spreadsheet called Estimating the Prevalence of Common Mental health Problems: Additional Data from the UK Department of Health. According to this data, 16.6% of the population suffers from symptoms of some sort of mental disorder, 11.4% of the population suffers from symptoms of depression, and 13.4% of the population suffers from symptoms of an anxiety disorder. In order for these numbers to be correct, a high percentage of those suffering from anxiety or depression must experience symptoms of both.

Additionally, according to the CBS News report on bipolar disorder, only 0.1% of the population in India, 0.7% of the population in Japan, and 2.6% in Colombia suffer from bipolar disorder.

So who is the craziest? I will now rank them in each category. Keep in mind that these rankings are likely off due to discrepancies in rate criteria and dates.

Depression:

1. American Women 21.6%
2. Austrian Women 15.9%
3. The British Population 11.4%
4. Austrian Men 9.8%
5. German Women 9.5%
6. New Zealand Women 8.4%
7. American Men 7.2%
8. Swiss General Population 7%
9. Australian Women 6.6%
10. Worldwide Average for Women 5.8%
11. German Men 5.8%
12. New Zealand Men 5.2%
13. Canadian General Population 4-5%
14. Australian Men 4.1%
15. Worldwide Average for Men 3.4%

Anxiety:

1. Austrian Women 22.6%
2. German Women 19.0%
3. New Zealand Women 18.6%
4. Australian Women 17.9%
5. British General Population 13.4%
6. Austrian Men 11.8%
7. Australian Men 10.8%
8. New Zealand Men 10.7%
9. German Men 9.0%
10. American Women 7.2%
11. American Men 3.6%
12. Canadian General Population 1.1%

Bipolar:

1. American General Population 4.4%
2. Colombian General Population 2.6%
3. Worldwide Average 2.4%
4. New Zealand Women 2.3%
5. New Zealand Men 2.1%
6. Australian Men 1.8%
7. Australian Women 1.7%
8. Austrian Men 1.4%
9. Austrian Women 1.3%
10. Canadian General Population 1.0%
11. Japanese General Population 0.7%
12. Indian General Population 0.1%

ADHD

1. Canadian General Population 15%
2. American Boys 9.0%
3. New Zealand General Population 6.7%
4. American Girls 5.4%

All sources say that depression and anxiety disorders often occur together, so since the Americans are near the top of the list for depression, they should also be much higher on the anxiety list. The Canadian anxiety rate also seems surprisingly low.

As demonstrated by the USHHS report, depression and anxiety rates are quickly rising. Why is it that these rates are growing and the United States is at the top of the list for depression and bipolar disorder and its place on the anxiety list is questionable? Is it because people really are getting more depressed and anxious? Is it because people are more aware of these disorders? Or is it because people need an excuse - something to blame for certain behaviors?

Are people getting more depressed and anxious? Maybe. Several of the sources I used cite diet and exercise as a way to fight depression and anxiety, and Lord knows Americans are lazy (Americans probably work more than most other developed countries, but are lazy when it comes to physical activity) and eat crap.

Is it because people are more aware of these disorders? I doubt it. Take Canada, for example. Canada is a developed, Western country. Why would Canadians be less aware of these disorders or have less access to help than Americans?

Is it that people need an excuse? It wouldn't surprise me. In today's world of youth sports where they don't take score, every little girl is a princess, and teachers and parents aren't allowed to hit children when they act up, people can never be at fault. This gives them an explanation beyond just making stupid decisions and acting irrationally.

Whatever the reason, is medication really the answer? Improving diet and being more active, as well as putting yourself in a more positive environment, are good steps to take. Whatever it is, except possibly in extreme cases, you can beat it on your own. All it takes is determination. Medication is just going to mess up your hormones and screw you up even more.

Homonyms

It is well-known that I am a grammar Nazi, so I am going to post a few basic grammar rules that you can follow so that even if you don't know what you're talking about, you at least sound smart. I feel it is my job to teach you this stuff, since your English teachers in school obviously did not.

Today's topic is homonyms. Homonyms are words that sound the same, but have different spellings. Don't let them fool you. They are, in fact, completely different words.

Example number one: They're, their, and there. "They're" is a contraction of "they are", "their" is possessive (it shows ownership for those of you with limited vocabulary), and "there" refers to the location of something.

Example number two: You're and your. "You're" is a contraction of "you are", and "your" is possessive.

Example number three: To, too, and two. "To" is a preposition (it links nouns, pronouns, and phrases to another word in the sentence, again for those of you with limited vocabulary), "too" is another word for "also" or can also show the extent of something (i.e. this grammar stuff is too easy), and two is a number.

These are the big ones that I can name off the top of my head, so we'll leave it at that for now. Here is a quiz where you can test your homonym skills:

1. (To, Too, Two) many people screw this simple stuff up.

2. Many people judge (you're, your) intelligence by how well you speak.

3. People need to proofread (they're, their, there) work.

4. The Green Bay Packers went (to, too, two) the Super Bowl and won!

5. If you don't understand this stuff, (you're, your) probably not very smart.

6. (They're, Their, There) is no reason why you should get any of these wrong.

7. The Green Bay Packers won the first (to, too, two) Super Bowls.

8. The Packers could do it again next year because (they're, their, there) going to have several players back from the injured reserve.

Answers:

1. Too

2. your

3. their

4. to

5. you're

6. There

7. two

8. they're

Grading scale:

8 correct - C

1-7 correct - F

If you did not get 100% on that quiz, you are stupid. Stay tuned for verb conjugation, plurals, and pronoun case.

Misinformation Super Highway

"The rest of you go get the goods on Stan. His mom grounded him once for setting something on fire. Let's find out what that something was and then lie and say it was a puppy."

This quote from Eric Cartman of South Park has a lot of relevance to the debate currently going on in Wisconsin. I hear so many people attacking Scott Walker, calling him a dictator, accusing him of being the end of democracy, and resorting to plain, old, name calling, such as "douche" and other variations of that word. As much as many of these people probably do hope that Scott Walker ends democracy in Wisconsin, just so they can say, "I told you so" and have a legitimate reason for demonizing the governor, he is not a dictator, he is not working outside the bounds of a democratic society, and he is doing what he feels is best for the state of Wisconsin, which, although not the same as everyone's view, does not make him a douche. I don't care which side of the argument you are on, name calling and making lucrative accusations will not give you any credibility.

While on the topic of credibility, I have seen all kinds of statistics and outrageous claims spreading like wildfire across the Internet. There is an old saying, "If it's on TV, it must be true." This seems to be the case with the Internet now. People read something on Facebook, and rather than do a little research into the information before passing it on, they take it for gospel and repost it for the next sucker to believe and repost. I realize that it is tempting to post information that may benefit your side of a debate, but wouldn't you rather convince people to join your side because you have valid points, and not because they were hoodwinked into thinking your side was right? All I ask is that you spend a few minutes to check your facts before spreading false or half-true information all over the Worldwide Web.

I have one more point to make on this topic. Saying that a person or group of people is for or against something is not a valid argument. I have heard about firefighters and police supporting the protesters, as well as Green Bay Packers. As much as I love the Green Bay Packers, firefighters, and police, their support of something is not enough to convince me. That is no better than the argument during the 2008 election that people shouldn't vote for Obama because the Palestinian terrorist organization Hezbollah put their support behind him. People need to make up their own minds, not take a side because they are blindly following someone else who supports that argument.

Think about what you are saying, and even though you obviously agree with your side, please realize that the other side does, in fact, also have legitimate arguments, and be respectful of them. Mutual respect will accomplish more than name calling and spreading false information and half truths throughout the Misinformation Super Highway.