I came across an article in a colleague’s blog that I couldn’t agree with more. The issue that he was discussing was an issue that we have been dealing with for quite a few years in Congress and in the public. Alan spoke about how a law that ban’s same sex marriage is down right unconstitutional, and that as an American citizen, a value like getting married is something every citizen is allowed to have. The Constitution states that all men are equal, and there could be nothing that states it more clearly. Every person has the right to get married no matter if it is the ‘traditional’ way of a man and woman getting married, or if they are the same sex. Many citizens in the United States have a problem with same sex marriage on a personal basis, which should not be interfering with this topic. This is a very simple topic to understand, the Constitution says nothing about different rights for Gays or Lesbians, that right there should be the end of the discussion.
Alan did an excellent job stating the religious views on gay marriage and also the constitutional side. He also had a wonderful argument when it came down to showing the numbers on divorce rates in the state of Massachusetts, which is a state that allows same sex marriage. It does not hurt society in the slightest to allow same sex marriage. They are no different than anyone else, and I think that Alan made that perfectly clear in his post on same sex marriage.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Obama Lays Out Afghan Strategy
In the Austin American Statesman, there was a recent article about Obama’s Afghan strategy. The article stated that Obama would be sending 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan immediately and then planned to start withdrawing the forces in July of 2011.
First there are a couple problems with Obama’s decision with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. During Obama’s campaign he pledged that he would end the war in Iraq, and get our men and woman back home to be with their families. Not only did that win major points with families of men and woman that were in the armed forces but also with Liberals who have never really agreed with the ‘invasion’ of Afghanistan and Iraq. It is making Obama seem that he is going back on his word, which is not a good way to end his first year in office. Aside my personal feelings about Obama as a president, which are the opposite of negative, during his campaign he should not of promised something that was going to be so hard to deliver on, since it is a tough decision to make.
Aside from the final decision that he announced on Tuesday, I feel that exiting Iraq in July of 2011, will not go as planned. There was a statement that was made in the article ‘pace will be determined by the country’s security and political stability’. Afghanistan and Iraq had multiple problems before we sent our troops there, they still have had multiple problems throughout our 8 years of our troops being stationed there and they will continue to have problems when we withdraw. The bottom line; it is not our country to be worried about. Afghanistan and Iraq have been through so much destruction that I don’t believe they are ever going to reach political stability or security for that matter.
According to the government it will cost an ‘estimated $30 billion for the first year alone’, I don’t understand why our government is wasting money and lives for a problem that the US is not responsible for. If the government is prepared to lay out $30 billion dollars to deploy more troops to Afghanistan than why can’t that money instead be used to start evacuations now and simply just ‘cut the cord’? It is not our responsibility to make sure a country such as Afghanistan, knows how to run and secure their country.
Another statement that was made by the Democrats was that Obama was starting an ‘expensive expansion of the conflict at a time of economic hardship at home’. Every word of that statement is true, regardless of your political stance. We our having extremely rough economic times here in the US and were are putting most of our time and energy into the war in Iraq when that focus should be here at home.
The only other statement that I can agree with in this article is what Karl Eikenberry, US ambassador to Afghanistan, said which was he ‘opposed sending additional troops, arguing that doing so would increase Karzai’s dependence on the US military and prolong the country’s involvement in the war’. No one could say it clearer, the more troops and the more time and effort that the US puts into Afghanistan is just going to show Karzai that he will never have to worry about running his own country because the US will always be there the fix his mistakes, or lack of involvement. All there is to say is that the US needs to evacuate from Afghanistan and I believe that the evacuation needs to start immediately and not be prolonged until July of 2011, and I definitely feel that sending additional troops to Afghanistan is at the current time, the worst choice of action.
First there are a couple problems with Obama’s decision with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. During Obama’s campaign he pledged that he would end the war in Iraq, and get our men and woman back home to be with their families. Not only did that win major points with families of men and woman that were in the armed forces but also with Liberals who have never really agreed with the ‘invasion’ of Afghanistan and Iraq. It is making Obama seem that he is going back on his word, which is not a good way to end his first year in office. Aside my personal feelings about Obama as a president, which are the opposite of negative, during his campaign he should not of promised something that was going to be so hard to deliver on, since it is a tough decision to make.
Aside from the final decision that he announced on Tuesday, I feel that exiting Iraq in July of 2011, will not go as planned. There was a statement that was made in the article ‘pace will be determined by the country’s security and political stability’. Afghanistan and Iraq had multiple problems before we sent our troops there, they still have had multiple problems throughout our 8 years of our troops being stationed there and they will continue to have problems when we withdraw. The bottom line; it is not our country to be worried about. Afghanistan and Iraq have been through so much destruction that I don’t believe they are ever going to reach political stability or security for that matter.
According to the government it will cost an ‘estimated $30 billion for the first year alone’, I don’t understand why our government is wasting money and lives for a problem that the US is not responsible for. If the government is prepared to lay out $30 billion dollars to deploy more troops to Afghanistan than why can’t that money instead be used to start evacuations now and simply just ‘cut the cord’? It is not our responsibility to make sure a country such as Afghanistan, knows how to run and secure their country.
Another statement that was made by the Democrats was that Obama was starting an ‘expensive expansion of the conflict at a time of economic hardship at home’. Every word of that statement is true, regardless of your political stance. We our having extremely rough economic times here in the US and were are putting most of our time and energy into the war in Iraq when that focus should be here at home.
The only other statement that I can agree with in this article is what Karl Eikenberry, US ambassador to Afghanistan, said which was he ‘opposed sending additional troops, arguing that doing so would increase Karzai’s dependence on the US military and prolong the country’s involvement in the war’. No one could say it clearer, the more troops and the more time and effort that the US puts into Afghanistan is just going to show Karzai that he will never have to worry about running his own country because the US will always be there the fix his mistakes, or lack of involvement. All there is to say is that the US needs to evacuate from Afghanistan and I believe that the evacuation needs to start immediately and not be prolonged until July of 2011, and I definitely feel that sending additional troops to Afghanistan is at the current time, the worst choice of action.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Warrantless Wiretapping Review
I came across a colleague’s blog that stunned me. There was such emotion in what she wrote that it caught my attention, however when I read what her argument was about I was a little confused why someone would be so threatened and hurt by an issue that was overall just trying to protect her as a citizen.
First, let’s start by saying that the nation that we live in is not as safe as we make it out to be. Our country has had numerous threats to its government and citizens, and some have been fulfilled. The way that our world’s technology has expanded there is going to be more room for threats and something needs to be done so that our nation does not get inflicted with another major attack.
The fact that former George W. Bush authorized the wiretapping for cell phones does not bother me and I feel that so many citizens are having such a problem is stunning to me. The government is not interested in our day to day lives, and our personal issues and drama. They are just looking for threats to our nation and our citizens so that our country can feel safe and secure. The government is trying to avoid another attack like September 11th, where millions of lives were lost, and recently with the massacre at Fort Hood, where our own soldiers were attack without rhythm or reason. As a citizen I would rather have a wiretapping on every citizen’s cell phone including my own, to prevent an attack that could potentially affect my family and others that I love.
I feel that Ms. Pattison stated a very good argument about our privacy and the president abusing his presidential powers. However, she never once stated how our country is dealing with our security breaches day after day, and the major attacks that are happening in our country and our affecting our citizens. There should be no problem with our president wire tapping our cell phones. If nothing is being said that would possibly alert the government for any reason, they why are people so concerned. I am not stating that the president should have unlimited power and not be responsible for any actions that are unconstitutional or destructive, but if he has the proper evidence and reasoning for authorizing something as the wiretapping of the citizens cell phones for security purposes, then I feel he is within his duty as a president. The president, just like the rest of our government should be supervised when it comes to which powers they are allowed to have so that they are not abused. However, the problem is that we do not have anyone to supervise them.
I agree with Ms. Pattison that something needs to be done about the issue of presidential powers, but as a growing nation we also need to develop stricter security measures, to make up to the technology that has been evolving in our world. We live in a nation that is not liked overall by the majority of other countries and I would rather live in a country that has better security and protects my loved ones and me, than a country where anyone and everyone can attack us because our security has minimized due to our problems with invasion of privacy. I would hope that the majority of our citizens in this nation would feel the same.
First, let’s start by saying that the nation that we live in is not as safe as we make it out to be. Our country has had numerous threats to its government and citizens, and some have been fulfilled. The way that our world’s technology has expanded there is going to be more room for threats and something needs to be done so that our nation does not get inflicted with another major attack.
The fact that former George W. Bush authorized the wiretapping for cell phones does not bother me and I feel that so many citizens are having such a problem is stunning to me. The government is not interested in our day to day lives, and our personal issues and drama. They are just looking for threats to our nation and our citizens so that our country can feel safe and secure. The government is trying to avoid another attack like September 11th, where millions of lives were lost, and recently with the massacre at Fort Hood, where our own soldiers were attack without rhythm or reason. As a citizen I would rather have a wiretapping on every citizen’s cell phone including my own, to prevent an attack that could potentially affect my family and others that I love.
I feel that Ms. Pattison stated a very good argument about our privacy and the president abusing his presidential powers. However, she never once stated how our country is dealing with our security breaches day after day, and the major attacks that are happening in our country and our affecting our citizens. There should be no problem with our president wire tapping our cell phones. If nothing is being said that would possibly alert the government for any reason, they why are people so concerned. I am not stating that the president should have unlimited power and not be responsible for any actions that are unconstitutional or destructive, but if he has the proper evidence and reasoning for authorizing something as the wiretapping of the citizens cell phones for security purposes, then I feel he is within his duty as a president. The president, just like the rest of our government should be supervised when it comes to which powers they are allowed to have so that they are not abused. However, the problem is that we do not have anyone to supervise them.
I agree with Ms. Pattison that something needs to be done about the issue of presidential powers, but as a growing nation we also need to develop stricter security measures, to make up to the technology that has been evolving in our world. We live in a nation that is not liked overall by the majority of other countries and I would rather live in a country that has better security and protects my loved ones and me, than a country where anyone and everyone can attack us because our security has minimized due to our problems with invasion of privacy. I would hope that the majority of our citizens in this nation would feel the same.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Pentagon Expected to Request More War Funding
The article that was in the New York Times did not surprise me much at all. Despite my personal feelings on the war in Iraq, I am torn when it comes to the department of defense needing additional funds for the upcoming months in Iraq. There are requesting more funds and additional people for a war that really isn’t ours to deal with anymore.
The department of defense is not giving the Pentagon or congress a reason for the additional funds except for the fact that they claim they require more troops, and the additional funds will be used for new war tactics. Unless the department of defense offers a detailed list on the reason why they need this significant amount of money, I hope congress does not authorize the use of emergency funds for the war on Iraq. Also, one very important statement that we all should remember is that, Obama during the presidential election said that one of his main goals was to stop the war in Iraq; how is giving the department of defense emergency funds ending the 8 year war in Iraq; it’s not.
There may be an excellent reason that the department of defense needs emergency funds and more troops for the war, however with the information that they have provided the Pentagon and congress, how could you even possibly consider giving 40-50 billion in emergency funds when there is no reason behind it.
According to the article there are an estimated 68,000 troops deployed in Iraq, and the department of defense is requesting 40,000 more? When and where will this mayhem come to end? When is congress going to realize that there is no need for the United States to interfere with Iraq.
The United States has wasted enough money on the war in Iraq; plenty of lives have been lost due to the troops that are required to fight a war that the United States has no part in anymore.
There was a budget of 130 billion set by the Obama administration based off of the numbers and calculations of this past year. The budget was set for a reason and the department of defense is going to have to figure out how they are going to obey within the lines of the budget and not request emergency funds that they have no valid standing for. We should have no reason for the use of emergency funds since Obama is trying to pull our troops and stop the war in Iraq. I don’t feel that Adm. Mike Mullen or the department of defense has any reason for emergency funds and until it is proven either by a detailed statement from Adm. Mike Mullen, they have no grounds for emergency funds.
The department of defense is not giving the Pentagon or congress a reason for the additional funds except for the fact that they claim they require more troops, and the additional funds will be used for new war tactics. Unless the department of defense offers a detailed list on the reason why they need this significant amount of money, I hope congress does not authorize the use of emergency funds for the war on Iraq. Also, one very important statement that we all should remember is that, Obama during the presidential election said that one of his main goals was to stop the war in Iraq; how is giving the department of defense emergency funds ending the 8 year war in Iraq; it’s not.
There may be an excellent reason that the department of defense needs emergency funds and more troops for the war, however with the information that they have provided the Pentagon and congress, how could you even possibly consider giving 40-50 billion in emergency funds when there is no reason behind it.
According to the article there are an estimated 68,000 troops deployed in Iraq, and the department of defense is requesting 40,000 more? When and where will this mayhem come to end? When is congress going to realize that there is no need for the United States to interfere with Iraq.
The United States has wasted enough money on the war in Iraq; plenty of lives have been lost due to the troops that are required to fight a war that the United States has no part in anymore.
There was a budget of 130 billion set by the Obama administration based off of the numbers and calculations of this past year. The budget was set for a reason and the department of defense is going to have to figure out how they are going to obey within the lines of the budget and not request emergency funds that they have no valid standing for. We should have no reason for the use of emergency funds since Obama is trying to pull our troops and stop the war in Iraq. I don’t feel that Adm. Mike Mullen or the department of defense has any reason for emergency funds and until it is proven either by a detailed statement from Adm. Mike Mullen, they have no grounds for emergency funds.
Monday, October 19, 2009
US Healthcare History: Our Very Own Killing Fields
There was a blog in the Smirking Chimp that brought more of an emotional point of view to health care. It stated that a woman became ill, was 7 months pregnant and because neither she nor her husband had health insurance the woman was denied treatment. Later that evening she died, and so did her unborn child. Smith also stated in her blog that 45,000 citizens in the United States are diagnosed with preventable diseases but end up dying because they are denied the treatment due to no health insurance. The majority of diseases are preventable with constant healthcare and treatment of early stages of any disease or common cold. Most are even curable with a weeks bed rest and prescription drugs. However, most citizens either do not have to money to get health insurance because the premiums are too high, or the place of business that they work for does not offer health insurance due to the rough economy. Smith made a good argument by being able to produce emotions out of the people who will in the future read her blog. Unfortunately, her blog is only appealing emotionally to people who are pregnant or who have kids, or the elderly. Even though a lot of citizens now a day have children or are pregnant and have no health care, Smith has still only come from one angle. Smith could have argued not only the emotional factor that coincides with having a preventable disease, but also the economical side, the numbers and facts on our current healthcare system and the possible healthcare reform. I am not stating that Smith did not touch on the subject at all, because she did, but if Smith would have come at that angle with as much of intensity as she did the emotional factor she could have had a more powerful argument. Smith also makes a statement in her blog ‘the profit-taker know no boundaries for their greed, and our killing fields are filling with the innocent’ in some ways I can agree with what Smith is saying but then I can not. Our healthcare system is not the greatest and our government is working on improving it, however if you were to walk into the ER seriously injured the doctors and nurses would not turn you away simply because you have no health insurance. Smith makes a couple other statements that make me wonder if she has really done her research on our current politicians. The statement ‘what are congress waiting for, and our president? Have they so detached themselves from reality that they think this debate is about excise taxes and re-election prospects’? Politicians are not the working class; they make enormous amounts of money that most of us only wish about. Politicians are not fighting the healthcare reform on emotional stance. Politicians are worried about if it will cost extra taxes because that will be money out of their pocket, and some candidates will plan to use the healthcare reform as a re-election edge. Politicians do not know how it feels to have no money or to live paycheck to paycheck and worry about if they will have heath care for themselves and their children. Smith’s blog only did minimal impact and I feel that it would have been better if she would have come from multiple angles instead of the one she stated.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
High Cost of Death Row
I came across an editorial in the New York Times about the issues or more specific the cost of capital punishment. The author makes a good argument for stating why the government should maybe resort to life without parole as an alternative to death row. It has been proven in many statistics that an inmate sentenced to life in prison cost the government less money, that the millions it takes to execute one. The author also explains that we are not spending all of the governments money on just the execution but also on the pretrial, trial, and the appeals. The money that the government would save from executions could be used for the court system, legal services, or even education. Most inmates who are on death row normally are in prison for the majority of their lifetime due to their long trials and appeals. The numbers that the author gives for the amount of inmates that have been put to death since the 70's are very low, less than 50 people. However, if each time we execute one of those inmates, it cost the taxpayers billions then all together it is not worth it. The author states very clearly in all of his statistics it is cheaper by the millions, to keep an inmate in prison for life. I feel that the author is trying to aim his editorial to the masses, or to specify more, the taxpayers. I believe that this is a good way to get a major issue, like the amount of money spent on death row to congress, and possibly have capital punishment abolished for good.
The author's evidence for abolishing capital punishment is very strong. The evidence shows that we rarely ever sentence an inmate to death, and if we do he sits on death row for almost his entire life, and some even die in prison before their execution. Also he brings evidence to the table of how much it costs just for one inmate to be executed, its in the millions. Our country does not have the funds to execute inmates, we could be using that money to make our legal systems better, or even to help solve cold cases. One thing that I felt the author could have talked about is that, when there is capital punishment and someone gets executed for a crime that they didn't commit, then not only have you wasted millions of dollars but you have just executed an innocent person. That creates more controversy on the idea of capital punishment and our legal system. I agree with the author and his statement to abolish capital punishment, being a taxpayer I would rather see my money go to something useful like making our legal system more efficient and accurate than something that is going to run our country straight to financial disaster.
The author's evidence for abolishing capital punishment is very strong. The evidence shows that we rarely ever sentence an inmate to death, and if we do he sits on death row for almost his entire life, and some even die in prison before their execution. Also he brings evidence to the table of how much it costs just for one inmate to be executed, its in the millions. Our country does not have the funds to execute inmates, we could be using that money to make our legal systems better, or even to help solve cold cases. One thing that I felt the author could have talked about is that, when there is capital punishment and someone gets executed for a crime that they didn't commit, then not only have you wasted millions of dollars but you have just executed an innocent person. That creates more controversy on the idea of capital punishment and our legal system. I agree with the author and his statement to abolish capital punishment, being a taxpayer I would rather see my money go to something useful like making our legal system more efficient and accurate than something that is going to run our country straight to financial disaster.
Friday, September 18, 2009
White House to offer grants aimed at curbing medical malpractice suits ....
I decided to go to the Los Angeles Times webpage for my first assignment, and found a quite interesting article.
The Obama administration decided that they were going to put forth 25 million in grants to "identify practices that would reduce medical errors". Many of the Republicans do not agree with this. 25 million is not enough money to help minimize medical malpractice lawsuits. Republicans feel that this is Obama's way of getting their vote, and have stated very clearly that this is going to fail drastically, and would be a complete waste of the governments money.
I also disagree with the Obama administration putting in 25 million in grants for the reduce in medical malpractice lawsuits. When a patient has felt that a doctor has crossed the line no matter how insignificant it may seem to another person, it was uncomfortable for the patient and that patient has the right to bring it to trial if they feel it is nessacary.
It does not yet seem, to my knowledge, that medical malpractice lawsuits have gotten out of hand, and when and if they do is when the government should take part in putting up more strict requirments for a medical malpractice lawsuit. Only, if the country notices that the requirments we have now have become insignificant. Until then, I feel the government needs no part in it.
The Obama administration decided that they were going to put forth 25 million in grants to "identify practices that would reduce medical errors". Many of the Republicans do not agree with this. 25 million is not enough money to help minimize medical malpractice lawsuits. Republicans feel that this is Obama's way of getting their vote, and have stated very clearly that this is going to fail drastically, and would be a complete waste of the governments money.
I also disagree with the Obama administration putting in 25 million in grants for the reduce in medical malpractice lawsuits. When a patient has felt that a doctor has crossed the line no matter how insignificant it may seem to another person, it was uncomfortable for the patient and that patient has the right to bring it to trial if they feel it is nessacary.
It does not yet seem, to my knowledge, that medical malpractice lawsuits have gotten out of hand, and when and if they do is when the government should take part in putting up more strict requirments for a medical malpractice lawsuit. Only, if the country notices that the requirments we have now have become insignificant. Until then, I feel the government needs no part in it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
