Think You're Not Organized? Check out the Reagan Library

So we've all been to the Reagan Library at least once for a school fieldtrip. You might recall seeing the array of items presented to Reagan as gifts over the years of his presidency. They all looked so valuable and cared for behind the glass, but apparently they weren't being watched that carefully, considering that the library is uable to find our account for tens of thousands of valuable mementos. About six months ago, an archivist was accused of stealing from the collections and was fired. Of particualr interest is whether the artifacts that are unaccountd for include pieces from a large collection of ornamented Western belt buckles given to Reagan over the years by admirers who knew of his attachment to his ranch. The audit found that the Reagan library was unable to properly account for more than 80,000 artifacts out of its collection of some 100,000 such items, and "may have experienced loss or pilferage the scope of which will likely never be known". It also found numerous storage lapses, such as artworks stacked on top of one another, and sculptures and vases unwrapped and lying on their sides on open shelves, in an area prone to earthquakes. National Archives spokeswoman Susan Cooper said the agency welcomed the audit and was taking its findings very seriously. Part of the problem is that the presidential libraries originally did not have the same strict preservation guidelines used by most museums.

I think that it is pretty embarassing how bad the organizational system at the Reagan library was. Not being able to account for 80,000 out of 100,000 is quite the accomplishment, but not one I would brag about. There should definately be some kind of regulation in how national artifacts should be stored and identified so that this does not happen again. I honestly dont think that missing belt buckes is a national disaster, but I do understand that they have emotional value and should be taken care of.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-reagan8nov08,1,6698948,print.story?coll=la-news-politics-national&ctrack=2&cset=true

Newest Issue of National Importance: ALIENS!!!!!

Just when we thought we had enough issues to deal with such as health care, education, immigration and taxes, we have one more thing to think about, UFOs. Tuesday night, Dennis Kucinich was questioned about his claim that he saw a UFO over Washington, as documented in his godmother's daughter's new book. He replied "I did" and went further by commenting that the government should "come clean" on the Roswell matter. This is referring to a supposed UFO crash in Roswell, New Mexico in 1947. Not that he was doing so great before, but claiming to have seen aliens can't possibly help your presidential campaign, unless you are appealing to the nutty "I have been abducted" crowd. But believe it or not, he is not the first presidential aspirant to report seeing a UFO. According to media acounts, in 1973 when Jimmy Carter was the governor of Georgia, he filed a report with the International UFO Bureau (ahhh i cant believe this actually exists!) in Oklahoma City, saying that he saw an "unidentified glowing object" FOUR YEARS EARLIER ing Leary, GA. Why did he report it so late? I have no idea. But he's not the only one. Ronald Reagan believed he had seen UFOs at least TWICE! These reportings were kept secret by Reagan's staff because they did not want to make him look bad. This is entirely understandable. I do not see why any aspiring politician would want to claim that they have seen aliens. It only makes them look insane or extremely gullible, neither quality one would want for a leader. Overall, I found this article pretty entertaining and hope you did too. :)
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-ufo1nov01,1,3756597.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-watson26oct26,1,4606263.story?coll=la-headlines-nation
(link to article i got the info from in my last post) :)

Dr. James Watson: Father of DNA and....a racist?

So, we've all heard of James D. Watson, one of the men who discovered the structure of DNA. Well, apparently hes still alive, and he's gotten himself into some trouble. Last week he was suspened from the Cold Spring Harbor Labratory by the board of directors after making a "racist" comment. He had so many wonderful accomplishments, his colleagues were sad to see him go, but felt it was an appropriate time for him to leave. It all started when Watson went to Europe to pubicize his new book "Avoid Boring People" (my my what revolutionary advice Dr. Watson). During the interview, Watson said he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours whearas all testing says not really." He continued by saying "there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically." As one could imagine, he was faced with tons of criticism. Watson did apologize saying that "this is not what I meant" but it was too late and he was forced to resign.
I thought that this article was very interesting and there are different factors that need to be taken into consideration. Firstly, Dr. Watson is 79 years old. I am not saying that he has gone crazy because I'm sure there are 79 year olds who have there senses about them and are still sharp, but you have to wonder if this comment can be forgivable because of his age and he did not really understand what he was saying, and how it would be interpreted. To refute this point i just made, for the fun of it, Watson said this while promoting his new book, which must let you know he still is a sharp thinker. So one has to wonder, is this just a senile crazy old man or has he made some groundbreaking scientific discovery that intelligence does not evolve equally? Americans of course would refuse to believe this because it totally destroys the ideal the country was founded on, equality. Will people start using this statement, made by a valid Nobel Prize winner, as an excuse to be racist? People do have the right to free speech, and they have heard the opinions of great scientits, what will this all lead to?

Democrats' Plan for Children's Healthcare

This week I read an article in the Los Angeles Times about the Democrats’ attempt to push a children’s healthcare plan through congress. Recently Bush vetoed such a plan, which brought much objection. A coalition seeks to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which was created for the poor. In order to override Bush’s veto, the coalition would need to convince House Republicans to pass it because it needs 2/3 majority. The new bill would expand SCHIP to cover more uninsured children in mostly low income families but also in some middle class families. Republicans who object say that the bill goes too far because it would offer government assistance to people who could already afford private coverage. This is just an issue that Democrats are pushing for while Republicans choose to ignore it.
I think that it is a good idea for the government to implement some form of health care for children of low income families. It would be expensive and impractical, however, to make the plan include health care for children who could already previously afford it. This addition to the bill would only make it harder to pass through Congress, so I don’t know why it is being pushed.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-kidshealth15oct15,1,852350.story?coll=la-news-politics-national

Armenian Genocide involved in American Law

So today I read an article from the BBC that talked about how American lawmakers were going to support some kind of "description" that the mass killings of Armenians by Ottoman Turks after 1915 was considered to be genocide. Currently, Turkey aknowledges that there was mass killings between 1915 and 1917, but does not call it genocide. President Bush is not in favor of US support in this decision because it would harm our relations in Turkey and our access to military bases needed in the war. The article also discussed the well organized groups of Armenian Americans who have brought this issue to natinal attention, considering there are only 1.5 million Armenians in the 300 million strong population of the United States. Although most government officials are supportive of declaring this historical event as genocide, they claim that this is simply bad timing and it is not worth our country's national security now to make this kind of statement. A resolution is expected to be met by November 16th.

I though that this article was very interesting in that the US government has taken upon itself to write history. I also tended to agree with those officials who claimed that even though this may be a worthwile cause and bring some kind of justice to the Armenian people effected by this event, this is simply bad timing. If putting a label on an event that happened 92 years ago will have such a negative event on the war that we are fighting now, I think it can be put off for a little while longer, as long as the people know that the United States is indeed supportive and aware of the issue.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7040344.stm

Sen. Craig Wants Another Chance

Thought you were done hearing about Senator Larry Craig?…think again. Although he pled guilty to disorderly conduct for attempting to solicit sex in an airport men’s restroom, he tried to overturn that plea today. Although he was overruled, he says that he plans to try to clear his name before the Senate Ethics Committee and feels he can still serve Idaho and wants to complete his term, ending January 2009 and then retire. Releasing a statement, Sen. Craig stated “I am innocent of the charges against me”. However, he already signed an affidavit, admitting guilt, and paid a fine of $575. In response to Sen. Craig’s urge to continue serving the country, Nevadan Senator John Ensign said “He gave us his word that he would resign. I’m calling on Sen. Craig to keep his word. If he loves his party, and he loves the Senate, the honorable thing to do is to resign.”
I can’t believe this guy is seriously trying to redeem himself. It’s bad enough that he got caught soliciting sex after being so adamant about his stance on homosexuality. He plead guilty, which should have ended the controversy, leaving people to shake their heads, but put the issue to rest. However, now after some consideration, Sen. Craig feels like that was not a good idea and is trying to deny guilt after all. Obviously if this whole thing was some kind of set up, he would not have pled guilty in the first place. Even if he were to retain his position, I don’t think he would get the respect that he thinks he deserves so it is not worth while for him to spend so much time in court fighting the charge when he has already lost.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/10/breaking-news-s.html