This post was done by Sammie, and I have to give her kudos. Her article is about gay marriage and how everyone should be equal. I 100 percent agree. There is a separation between church and state for a reason, and so far I have heard nothing from the people that do not want same sex marriage to be legal that wasn’t related to sin of religion.
In Sammie’s article she wisely states that this issue will never have a conclusion that appeases both sides. She also asks some tough questions like, “How can anyone truly justify this as a legitimate basis on which to deny rights? What happened to true equality? Who has the right to make exceptions to fairness, to choose to grant rights to some but not all Americans?” Way to go Sammie! These are great points.
She goes on to say that the nuclear families are not the only type of family that can raise kids. “Families rely on tender, loving care, regardless of the gender of one's parents.” I completely agree. Kids aren’t going to see people as homosexuals they are going to see them as parents.
All in all there are links to other articles, and good clear points. It is only one person’s opinion, but I like how she doesn’t tell every one this is right. She tells people why she thinks it should be.
For those of you who are wondering I am Catholic, God judges, not man. What’s right for me is not for others.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
BLOG STAGE 7 ASSIGNMENT
No shame in prosecuting a child!
A U.N. official says that child soldiers should be looked at as victims; which in any other war or uprising I would agree with. But the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are different. The Middle East is not like Africa where rebels go through villages murdering parents in front of their kids and then telling the kids if they don’t want to join their parents they will come fight for their cause. In the Middle East kids are raised to shun western civilization. They are brought up in their culture to fight against any western influence.
The guy that is on trial, his name is Omar Khadr, was 16 when he decided to make road side bombs (IEDs) and place them on the side of the road, and he was 16 when he decided to throw grenades at the U.S. Special Forces in Afghanistan, and he succeeded in killing a medic. They caught him on tape and he admitted to throwing the grenade. And get this… he is Canadian. He left his country origin for a war zone to blow up American Soldiers. Nobody forced him to do anything.
This will be the first military commissioned trial under Barack Obama and while it’s a crappy trial to draw first it should be a slam dunk. The “kid,” who is now 23, was an Al-Quaida operative who bragged about how his IEDs would kill the most American soldiers. Referring to the grenade incident that killed a medic, Khadr who is the son of a trusted associate of Osama Bin Ladin, said “It was the proudest moment of my life, when I threw that grenade.” Does that sound like he is a victim? He was breed to think the way he does and he is proud of his actions. We prosecute kids as adults in the U.S. with much less.
His Canadian lawyer said, “We’re just embarrassing ourselves by being here.” Oh well so sorry to inconvenience you but when someone blows up an American soldier, justice should be sought. The lawyer has also told his client that “Our job is to shame the process.” This is absolutely absurd, it wasn’t that long ago the U.S. was condemned for keeping prisoners without trial, now he’s got one.
The White House and the Pentagon have said that the case is solid but it is a public relations nightmare, but that there is no age limit under the Military Commissions Act that will prevent the case from proceeding.
A U.N. official says that child soldiers should be looked at as victims; which in any other war or uprising I would agree with. But the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are different. The Middle East is not like Africa where rebels go through villages murdering parents in front of their kids and then telling the kids if they don’t want to join their parents they will come fight for their cause. In the Middle East kids are raised to shun western civilization. They are brought up in their culture to fight against any western influence.
The guy that is on trial, his name is Omar Khadr, was 16 when he decided to make road side bombs (IEDs) and place them on the side of the road, and he was 16 when he decided to throw grenades at the U.S. Special Forces in Afghanistan, and he succeeded in killing a medic. They caught him on tape and he admitted to throwing the grenade. And get this… he is Canadian. He left his country origin for a war zone to blow up American Soldiers. Nobody forced him to do anything.
This will be the first military commissioned trial under Barack Obama and while it’s a crappy trial to draw first it should be a slam dunk. The “kid,” who is now 23, was an Al-Quaida operative who bragged about how his IEDs would kill the most American soldiers. Referring to the grenade incident that killed a medic, Khadr who is the son of a trusted associate of Osama Bin Ladin, said “It was the proudest moment of my life, when I threw that grenade.” Does that sound like he is a victim? He was breed to think the way he does and he is proud of his actions. We prosecute kids as adults in the U.S. with much less.
His Canadian lawyer said, “We’re just embarrassing ourselves by being here.” Oh well so sorry to inconvenience you but when someone blows up an American soldier, justice should be sought. The lawyer has also told his client that “Our job is to shame the process.” This is absolutely absurd, it wasn’t that long ago the U.S. was condemned for keeping prisoners without trial, now he’s got one.
The White House and the Pentagon have said that the case is solid but it is a public relations nightmare, but that there is no age limit under the Military Commissions Act that will prevent the case from proceeding.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
BLOG STAGE 6 ASSIGNMENT
Benefits of Marijuana Reform
I chose this article to respond to because my fellow classmate is spot on, on his opinion. Marijuana is no more a problem than tobacco is, and by legalizing the use for people of a certain age it would bring in serious amounts of cash, and bring an entirely new industry to the American population. That industry could do more than just make a profit from taxes, it could also create jobs helping out the unemployment issues we are having. Although I doubt that marketing would be all that hard, it is necessary to run a successful business. Larger states such as the nearly bankrupt California would make a killing and potentially pull themselves out of debt. As my classmate has stated in his article, it would also do wonders for our over crowded prison system. Just imagine, a world where Lindsey Lohan and others, actually had to do their time, and not get released due to overcrowding.
This article gives rough estimates, and makes good clear points. What it does not address is how do you stop kids from growing it? Unlike tobacco you could grow this stuff in a dirty shoe, so it’s not like the U.S. could do like they do with tobacco and say “hey you can’t buy this until your 18.”
The only thing that I disagree with is the point in the article where he states that “Marijuana being legalized would offer the drug on the open market opening up new jobs for sales and production; also causing drug kingpins operating the black market to lose power.” I believe that Marijuana being legalized would offer new jobs however; I doubt that drug kingpins will lose power. While marijuana brings in a lot of money each year, there will always be bigger, badder, more expensive drugs that they will traffic into the United States. It may actually push criminals into up-ing their game creating more powerful drug kingpins.
I chose this article to respond to because my fellow classmate is spot on, on his opinion. Marijuana is no more a problem than tobacco is, and by legalizing the use for people of a certain age it would bring in serious amounts of cash, and bring an entirely new industry to the American population. That industry could do more than just make a profit from taxes, it could also create jobs helping out the unemployment issues we are having. Although I doubt that marketing would be all that hard, it is necessary to run a successful business. Larger states such as the nearly bankrupt California would make a killing and potentially pull themselves out of debt. As my classmate has stated in his article, it would also do wonders for our over crowded prison system. Just imagine, a world where Lindsey Lohan and others, actually had to do their time, and not get released due to overcrowding.
This article gives rough estimates, and makes good clear points. What it does not address is how do you stop kids from growing it? Unlike tobacco you could grow this stuff in a dirty shoe, so it’s not like the U.S. could do like they do with tobacco and say “hey you can’t buy this until your 18.”
The only thing that I disagree with is the point in the article where he states that “Marijuana being legalized would offer the drug on the open market opening up new jobs for sales and production; also causing drug kingpins operating the black market to lose power.” I believe that Marijuana being legalized would offer new jobs however; I doubt that drug kingpins will lose power. While marijuana brings in a lot of money each year, there will always be bigger, badder, more expensive drugs that they will traffic into the United States. It may actually push criminals into up-ing their game creating more powerful drug kingpins.
Friday, July 30, 2010
BLOG STAGE 5 ASSIGNMENT
Work Together? Yeah Right!
Immigration is an issue that may very well become a Supreme Court issue by the end of this year, but are politicians using the issue to sway voters in the upcoming elections?
During the campaign in 2008 the future president was asked how quickly he would push for new immigration legislation and he said, “…what I can guarantee is that in the first year we will have an immigration bill that I support, and we will be promoting.” But the promise changed in 2009 when the same reporter asked if he still planned to keep his promise he said, “I am absolutely going to keep my promise to push for immigration reform.” Here we are 18 months later and we still have nothing.
The answer for Arizona came in the form of a very controversial law. Senator John McCain has said that, “The law is a direct reflection of what the federal government has not done.” This is true the federal government has done nothing, however the last time I checked the federal government was made up of mostly two parties, and neither side has proposed anything.
Would this even be an issue if the law were made in Idaho on the Canadian boarder? No. On this specific issue, it is a classic case of Republicans vs. Democrats. Republicans from Arizona have put a law in place which they believe protects their citizens from illegal immigrants that make up a significant amount of their crime, because the national government has not. The President and Democrats in Congress are going to ignore the problem, at least until after the November election because the law in Arizona, which allows for racial profiling, has drawn huge waves of protesters that hurt the Republican Party’s chances for House and Senate seats.
It is pathetic that neither party at the national level has done anything, and even more appalling that they won’t do anything except point fingers at each other. Things will only get worse as states try to treat symptoms of a bigger problem, which both parties in congress need to address.
Immigration is an issue that may very well become a Supreme Court issue by the end of this year, but are politicians using the issue to sway voters in the upcoming elections?
During the campaign in 2008 the future president was asked how quickly he would push for new immigration legislation and he said, “…what I can guarantee is that in the first year we will have an immigration bill that I support, and we will be promoting.” But the promise changed in 2009 when the same reporter asked if he still planned to keep his promise he said, “I am absolutely going to keep my promise to push for immigration reform.” Here we are 18 months later and we still have nothing.
The answer for Arizona came in the form of a very controversial law. Senator John McCain has said that, “The law is a direct reflection of what the federal government has not done.” This is true the federal government has done nothing, however the last time I checked the federal government was made up of mostly two parties, and neither side has proposed anything.
Would this even be an issue if the law were made in Idaho on the Canadian boarder? No. On this specific issue, it is a classic case of Republicans vs. Democrats. Republicans from Arizona have put a law in place which they believe protects their citizens from illegal immigrants that make up a significant amount of their crime, because the national government has not. The President and Democrats in Congress are going to ignore the problem, at least until after the November election because the law in Arizona, which allows for racial profiling, has drawn huge waves of protesters that hurt the Republican Party’s chances for House and Senate seats.
It is pathetic that neither party at the national level has done anything, and even more appalling that they won’t do anything except point fingers at each other. Things will only get worse as states try to treat symptoms of a bigger problem, which both parties in congress need to address.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
BLOG STAGE 4 ASSIGNMENT
BUSTED!
Don’t you love when public officials get caught saying something that they didn’t mean too? Like Joe Biden dropping the F-bomb when healthcare reform passed? I happen to think it’s nice to know that they are human beings, and that they are passionate about their causes, and what they do. The most recent case of blurting profanity has come from Ken Buck, a Colorado Tea Party Candidate, who was caught calling party members dumbasses.
Little Green Footballs reported, “Of course, he didn’t say that in public. He was caught on tape by a Democratic Party worker in an unguarded moment. In other words, when he was telling the truth.”
The article goes on with Buck’s statements regarding his bad judgment. He of course apologized for his language and said that not all tea party members were dumbasses; he was just frustrated with the fact that he wanted to talk about the national debt, and tea party members wanted to talk about a birth certificate. He goes on to say that other candidates feel the same way, but they might not use the choice words he used.
The guy has been on the campaign trail for 16 months, it appears as if every time he gets on television someone asks him about President Obama’s birth certificate, as if a birth certificate is going to fix the economy or get rid of the trillions of dollars of debt this country has.
The article does say that he is “pathetically back peddling” but isn’t that to be expected? Just because there’s freedom of speech doesn’t mean that it’s appropriate or accepted. Of course he is going to apologize. Hello! He’s running for office and the Tea Party has the ability to make a big stink about this.
The best piece of this article comes in the last line where they have this takeaway point, “Even the Tea Party’s own favored candidates think they’re crazy.” Over all, the article is well written. It displays Ken Buck’s original statement, his back peddling comments, and the author throws in his own statements at key points of the article. A must read!
Don’t you love when public officials get caught saying something that they didn’t mean too? Like Joe Biden dropping the F-bomb when healthcare reform passed? I happen to think it’s nice to know that they are human beings, and that they are passionate about their causes, and what they do. The most recent case of blurting profanity has come from Ken Buck, a Colorado Tea Party Candidate, who was caught calling party members dumbasses.
Little Green Footballs reported, “Of course, he didn’t say that in public. He was caught on tape by a Democratic Party worker in an unguarded moment. In other words, when he was telling the truth.”
The article goes on with Buck’s statements regarding his bad judgment. He of course apologized for his language and said that not all tea party members were dumbasses; he was just frustrated with the fact that he wanted to talk about the national debt, and tea party members wanted to talk about a birth certificate. He goes on to say that other candidates feel the same way, but they might not use the choice words he used.
The guy has been on the campaign trail for 16 months, it appears as if every time he gets on television someone asks him about President Obama’s birth certificate, as if a birth certificate is going to fix the economy or get rid of the trillions of dollars of debt this country has.
The article does say that he is “pathetically back peddling” but isn’t that to be expected? Just because there’s freedom of speech doesn’t mean that it’s appropriate or accepted. Of course he is going to apologize. Hello! He’s running for office and the Tea Party has the ability to make a big stink about this.
The best piece of this article comes in the last line where they have this takeaway point, “Even the Tea Party’s own favored candidates think they’re crazy.” Over all, the article is well written. It displays Ken Buck’s original statement, his back peddling comments, and the author throws in his own statements at key points of the article. A must read!
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
BLOG STAGE 3 ASSIGNMENT
I have just read The Republicans and the Constitution, an editorial on The New York Times website, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/opinion/20tue1.html?_r=1&ref=editorials . The article is about how the republicans plan to vote against possible future justice Elena Kagan. The author says that the republicans don’t like her interpretation of the commerce clause, so they are preparing to vote against her. Elena Kagan stood her ground when republicans at her confirmation hearings tried to get her to agree that the commerce clause needs regulations.
The author stated very good arguments while defending the possible future justice including the benefits society has enjoyed due to the interpretation of the commerce clause as it is now. Things like, Clean Air Act, Labor Standards Act, and The Civil Rights Act, just to name a few.
The logic behind his arguments is quite clear, because the commerce clause has been fought by conservatives for decades and Elena Kagan supports it, she is not essential to their cause and must be voted against. The author is hard to criticize because his arguments are very strong in my eyes.
His closing argument in particular is exceptionally strong. He states that such a vote is simply about her, and the President, and a vote against her or the commerce clause is a vote against some of the best things that the government has done.
I agree with him, the committee is supposed to be determining if she is capable to interpret the constitution. It is not there to ask her hypothetical questions about requiring Americans to eat three fruits a day. What I do not agree with is his use of the word “silly” in describing the questions from the committee. He also says that she was “under attack.” Cross examining which the republicans are allowed to do is not an attack and I think both of theses word choices were poor.
You really want people to vote?
If you really want the people to vote maybe a big name political leader should get on tv and say,
"Do you realize that people fought for the right to vote? Our founding fathers who had to fight the most powerful monarchy of all time, women who were told their place was in the home and they had no business in politics, African Americans who had to fight to get just about every right from a country who inslaved them. And lets not forget the people that are fighting overseas right now! Any man or woman, of any race, that is of the proper age that does not vote is a lazy coward who would rather have someone else fight their battles for them."
It might ruffle some feathers. :)
"Do you realize that people fought for the right to vote? Our founding fathers who had to fight the most powerful monarchy of all time, women who were told their place was in the home and they had no business in politics, African Americans who had to fight to get just about every right from a country who inslaved them. And lets not forget the people that are fighting overseas right now! Any man or woman, of any race, that is of the proper age that does not vote is a lazy coward who would rather have someone else fight their battles for them."
It might ruffle some feathers. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)