6/29/2010
As you discover substantive and interesting current events, post the links, a brief summary, and discussion questions here for others to follow and respond to. It is my hope that these discussions will be student inspired and you will forget about the number of links and responses I've asked you to post and engage in discussion throughout the summer because it is interesting!
HAVE FUN!!!
gw
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I found this article pretty interesting and a good debate piece. I am finding it hard to take a side on this subject. While I am not fond of discrimination, in all forms, religious views always bring-up controversy on things that should just be common sense. Especially, in this case, where gay individuals are involved. So, read the article and display an opinion!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/us/29court.html?ref=us
I came across this article while browsing NPR's website. I find it interesting that people are boycotting the independently owned BP stations. I believe that people do not know that each individual BP station is franchised and boycotting them doesn't give much less business to BP. We should also remember that the BP compensation fund's money (unlike that of our government) actually exists and the fact that BP could tank under all the pressure for compensation.
ReplyDelete-Do you believe that there should be a reasonable cutoff on compensation funds?
-Was the oil spill really BP's fault? Whose was is?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128190762
Here is an article about a stirring controversial event: Obama's spending. Within this article it lists the new proposal Obama placed upon the nation about stimulating the economy and reducing unemployment. But when doing so he would borrow more money than he already has. Yes, the debt of America is great but could Obama's idea truly aid against unemployment?
ReplyDeleteThere is much talk about Republicans shooting down every proposal Obama creates but could this be logical worries about the president's spending?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128196667
Well done you three! I would love to see some responses to their posts!
ReplyDeletegw
In response to Mary's post,
ReplyDeleteIt is absolutely unfathomably stupid to believe that forcing your own country into deeper debt could somehow reduce unemployment. It is true that jobs have been created, however is is also true that the overwhelming majority (almost all of them) are government jobs. The estimate of created jobs was also recently proven to be grossly overestimated. Politicians spend in order to make them popular, which is ironic, because it only makes them popular with other politicians and not to the American people, who supposedly elect them into office. Job creation relies on the private sector and not the government. Government should not spend our, our children's, and our children's children's money in order to promote their own agenda. The national deficit (how much we owe ourselves) was 13,046,202,606,800 when I posted this, but it grows about 100,000 every second. http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
Therefore is if fiscally irresponsible for the government to spend so much money on a futile cause. The only way to stop errant spending is to have opposite political parties in charge of the Executive branch and congress. When Clinton was president, and Newt Gingrich was speaker of the house, hardly any spending bills were passed because he republican congress wouldn't approve any of the Democratic executive bills, and the Democratic executive wouldn't approve any of the republican congress' bills. Thus, fiscal gridlock. It's not terribly complicated when you think about it.
Responding to Conner:
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be some apparent evidence that, as seen commonly among big business disasters, rules and regulations were ignored by members of BP. However,the true group at fault is the Fed Mineral Management Service. They should have been more vigilant in keeping an eye on how the rules were being followed. So, BP and the Fed Mineral Management Service are at fault for the original disaster to occur. But now, after weeks of oil continuously leaking into the gulf, the fault begins to shift.
Helpful: http://www.galesburg.com/features/x227914905/Roundtable-Whose-fault-is-the-oil-spill
Why are we still on the subject? Well because the Obama administration is spending its time pointing fingers instead of focusing on getting the whole plugged. The political mumbo jumbo needs to cease and a real solution has to emerge. According to a fox news poll (taken on June 10th) 57% dissaprove of the governments handling of the situation.
Helpful: http://thehuntsvillepatriot.com/2010/06/fox-news-poll-on-obamas-handling-of-oil-spill/
In the meantime, I do applaud how Obama was able to squeeze $20 billion dollars out of BP to pay for the families who's jobs and lives are being affected by this disaster. THIS is what government is supposed to do. Serve and protect its citizens: not regulate. This "Deepwater Horizon" catastrophe, as the oil spill is now known, is a perfect example of what occurs under government regulation.
While watching the news this morning, I learned that there were new developments in the case against the New Black Panther voting party. This is a somewhat old story, but the new developments have opened the case back up to investigation. The case was against a few members of the New Black Panther voting party, who were charged with breaking voters’ rights and voter intimidation. The members were seen outside of various polling and voting places in the 2008 presidential election shaking knight sticks at white voters that entered the polling and voting buildings. The following link is a recent follow-up story on NPR:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128251057
The court eventually dropped the case against the party for “lack of sufficient evidence.” Many people did not believe that this was the real story, though. Many claimed that the court was afraid of being labeled as racist, and dropped the case in fear of it. The following video from the 2008 election, however, was present at the time of the conviction:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU
I personally believe that this was clear evidence of voter intimidation and that the “lack of evidence” verdict was clearly not the real case.
What do you think?
Does this video classify as voter intimidation?
Was the court’s verdict valid?
Should they have been afraid of being labeled racists?
In response to Connor's response to Mary.
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned that it was "fiscally irresponsible for the government to spend all that money on a futile cause". I both agree and disagree. I agree that it is fiscally irresponsible. The government is essentially employing the unemployed with taxpayers' money. This frustrates the taxpayers. Also, now the unemployed expect the government to help them, when really the unemployed need to just help themselves. However, I disagree that the unemployment benefits are a totally futile cause. If a family is suffering, and the government uses taxpayers' money to help them, isn't that a good thing?
The Seattle Times on July 7th reported that Representatives in Congress pledged to stop using earmarks. Yet, Rep. Dicks, D-Bremerton, has funneled more than $20 million to a business, under the guise of giving the $20 million to the UW. This business then donated $26,000 to his campaign funds.
ReplyDeleteI am not saying that government stimulation of business development is bad. I think it is bad that individual representatives are reaping $26,000 dollars worth of benefits by giving a business $20 million of taxpayers' money.
This article is very interesting since the issue has troubled America since the beginning. What I don't understand is why America cannot get past the issue of race. During the Civil Rights Movement, black leaders were more concerned with justice and equality for all people. Now it seems they are more focused on barraging the government and political world with past events which they use to their advantage; not actually helping those that they advocate or getting personally involved. Anyway, what are your ideas or thoughts on the current racial discrimination and is there really a call for a new Civil Rights Movement?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128461367
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128386757
ReplyDeleteThe article addresses the mounting issues of the economic downturn's start to bounce back and how it impacts the people across the nation. Yes, it is slowly recovering but there is a serious issue arising with regards to the states as housing prices fall and in fact explains how states complain of not receiving enough attention while they set limits upon their cities and counties. A quote stated ends with "the state governments are worsening", which leads into that the worst has yet to be seen. Now, more problems have surfaced including budget cuts, bankruptcy, and further cuts in the cities.
Los Angeles for instance is cutting its police force to lessen the stress of money troubles, in this article t asks what a city is for, how can a city cut an essential portion of its city? Is this a good plan as riots are exploding left and right?
Many cities are cutting back on the "excess" such as paving roads, police force, and fire and others like summer camps and such. Is this truly necessary? If you were mayor would you want the roads to go on with huge dips and holes or have havoc lash out due to the loss of police and fire force? What about the children? They are losing the fun and innocence of going to camps and having planetariums...
In response to Connor's post, I don't see this as a racism issue but on about America's own welfare as a whole due to the jobs being taken from actual American citizens. I am not saying it is the best thing to do but is definitely an attempt to better America first before trying to take in foreigners because of the current economic hole we have dug ourselves into. I will then need to say there should not be a need for a new civil rights movement because like the past it was only used for those legally residing in this nation and thus would and should be given the same rights. There is a line between this and what is occurring at the present, the past civil rights was given to those who were a part of the U.S and the people in question today are not. It is as simple as that.
ReplyDeleteIn responce to Thomas Rothschild, I agree with what you said about the wrongs in sending 20 million dollars of taxpayers money for the benefit of big business. This instance reflects the people losing their rights in a way because it shows how the people's money can used by other people in order to help them and not the ones paying the taxes. I find it rather sad and sickening that this happened because the money should be used to help the people and not the individuals who wish to put it into their campaigns. Is this not using the people for their own reward at the people's expense?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/07/13/bahamas.barefoot.bandit/index.html?hpt=T1
ReplyDeleteOkay, so I know many of you have heard about the barefoot bandit... Here is an update of his being caught and retrieved from the Bahamas. I have been questioning how in the world this teenage boy, not that much older than ourselves could have gone so long without being caught, is this a worry to the U.S.? I mean if some teenager, really a kid go about the nation on a cdrime spree and then into the Bahamas without being caught in any sort of way... I mean, honestly what does this say about our internal security if this young man can go rampant about the cities and leave definant traces of his being there... So go about discussing this concern and maybe bring up some of your own opinions on this rather odd case.
In response to Mary's above post.
ReplyDeleteI believe that this does not really show a proliferation of internal security issues as much as it shows that the police have higher priorities. Colton Harris-Moore did not hurt anyone physically, and all the material damage will be covered eventually by insurance. My family was actually almost a victim of his ime spree, as he started out on Camano Island, where our family's cabin is. I believe he tried to break in to our cabin, but did not succeed. He did however succeed in breaking into the house next to ours on Camano, and stealing a few small things. It definitely isn't acceptable that it took so long to catch him, but there are only a few cops that even patrol Camano, so he was essentially free to roam the island. I don't mean to sound insensitive, but the airplanes that he stole and crashed can be replaced. I commend the police for putting actual naional security above caching a 19 year old vagrant-criminal that hasn't harmed anybody.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38310914/ns/us_news-security/
ReplyDeleteI read this article, and agree with the increased border security. The government should enforce its laws; otherwise it seems weak. The real thing that stood out in this article was all the comments below about the article and the issues. The comments were very racist and derogatory, especially toward our government and our Mexican neighbors. I think as a people, we Americans need to remember that many illegal immigrants are jumping the border out of necessity to feed their families. Granted, some are not, and are running drugs or other stuff. But overall, I don't think that we need to use "deadly force" as one of the commentators advocates. These commentators sound racist and un-American to me. They need to be more loyal to our Constitutional ideals of pursuing happiness and especially equality.
In response to Thomas, I agree with you that the many people commenting this article are going against what this country stands for and its foundation on equality, promoting the good, and justice. America is not simply about helping those inside its borders but those outside and even though they are not considered true American citizens, is it not the job of all people to look at the good in people and give them a chance to escape poverty in their homeland? Is that not what occurred when the colonists first arrived? They came to run away from persecution. I can't believe some of the comments posted about blowing the heads off of people and what not just for wanting to come to America, the land of the free.
ReplyDeleteI was just shocked...like, REALLY people, you sound so spoiled...they have no thought for anyone but themselves it seems like. The real question is, how can we enforce immigration laws, without condemning innumerable illegal and future illegal immigrants to suffering? Where do we draw the line between sacrificing the jobs of some of the people in our country and helping our neighbor?
ReplyDeletePlease look at my most recent post on the gun control issue: I posted a link that has to do with our safety here in Washington because of that decision. The question I have for you now is this: should the right given by the Second Amendment be changed in any way and if so, why and how or why not?
ReplyDeleteThis one should be difficult to answer because of the multiple ways that the right to bear arms can take effect. The link is just one of the ways. What are some others?
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4292988/members-of-congress-supporting-arizona
ReplyDeleteThis is a video clip about Arizona’s immigration law and the resulting law suit by the federal government. California’s Congressman Brian Bilbray brings up a valid point that in suing Arizona, the federal government is “suing the persons that has been mugged.” The federal government is not enforcing the immigration law, and many illegal immigrants are flowing into the United States through Arizona. The tax payers of Arizona are hurt by this, because they are paying for the illegal immigrants that are going to the schools, receiving medical care, and being in jails in Arizona. Illegal immigrants are also taking away job opportunities from American citizens. The crime and violence caused by illegal immigrants endanger American citizens’ right to life, liberty, and property. This is a foreign invasion. The federal government is not enforcing the immigration law, so Arizona created a law with the same principals, basically implementing the federal law on the state level. Federal government is also claiming that foreign relations are being harmed because Mexico doesn’t like Arizona’s new law. Arizona is just trying to uphold the laws of immigration that are being ignored by the federal government. Then there is the aspect that Obama’s administration did not even read Arizona’s new law before deciding it was unlawful. Arizona is accused of creating their own immigration policy by allowing officials to require someone to show them their papers when they are being accused of another felony. Cities such as Seattle are sanctuary cities because they will not enforce the immigration laws and try to send them home, creating their own immigration policy. Why is it that the federal government is suing Arizona for creating their own immigration policy when they are not also suing sanctuary cities for doing the same thing?
So, you advocate sending home all the illegal immigrants? But where do you send them home to? they have no home. they have no money. that is the reason they came here. Their lives are already bad in the U.S. and they will be much worse in Mexico.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet I agree with the points you have made, about taxes and job opportunity. It isn't fair to Arizina, or the rest of the taxpayers in the nation.
We need to encourage businessmen to stop hiring illegal immigrants. Then the immigrants won't want to move here illegaly, because they won't be able to get a job. Then, they will be more motivated to become legal immigrants.
In response to Thomas' link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38310914/ns/us_news-security/), I completely agree with the increased border control. The violence over drugs has escalated to the point that extra border control is needed. While I understand that many of our Mexican neighbors have peaceful, honest intentions when crossing to the United States (such as for jobs or children), the increasing violence taking place right outside the border is not something to be forgotten. Even if increasing border security means that many well-meaning people are caught trying to enter the States, at least the threat of the current drug-related violence in Mexico would be lessened and would have less of a chance occurring in the US. However, while I support increased border control, I COMPLETELY disagree with many of the opinions of those who responded to the article. Just as both Thomas and Mary stated, their opinions go against many of the basic principles of the Constitution. While I do understand people feel strongly about the issue, it is not fair to condemn every person to be “shot on the spot”. In my opinion, that goes in direct opposition of what increased border control was meant to do: stem the threat of any violence entering the United States.
ReplyDeleteHowever, this then prompts the question of what to do with illegal immigrants already in the United States. Emily brought up the current issue in Arizona regarding SB1070, the new immigration law stating that suspicious people are able to be questioned in regards to their immigration status.
•http://www.examiner.com/x-37114-Salt-Lake-City-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m7d26-Arizona-residents-want-it-both-ways-tough-immigration-law-and-amnesty
•http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/amnesty.html
•http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1630168,00.html
•http://www.examiner.com/x-2684-Law-Enforcement-Examiner~y2010m5d18-Immigration-amnesty-will-undermine-American-workers-say-experts
The first link discusses the obvious divide in opinions of the residents of Arizona. While many feel that illegal immigrants should receive amnesty (62%), others want to see illegal immigrants taken back to their native home (31%). The next link discusses an immigration reform bill that was turned down this year. It describes what the bill would have done in regards to immigration amnesty. The third link, while dating back to 2007, brings up very valid points concerning the issue of what to do with the thousands of illegal immigrants already in the US. The last link, a much more current discussion, lists the cons of Barack Obama’s push towards new amnesty laws for immigration. Given these links, I’m curious as to what you (my fellow classmates) think about the issue. Is Obama’s push towards reviving an amnesty program going to benefit or harm our society? Are there any other solutions to the current illegal immigrant situation that you feel would be a favorable idea?
In response to Amanda-
ReplyDeleteOur Mexican neighbors have not necessarily been peaceful, in referring to the violence within the country itself. [See link: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/07/28/1749436/this-is-our-war-too.html for more info.]People find that motive enough to immigrate to the United States, and as they may have the right motives, it is not beneficial to continue to have the escalating problem of illegal immigration. If actually desiring to protect their children or secure a job, they will need to go through immigration as any other person from another country would do.
And Thomas-
It is a tough situation that we are faced with. The US government has already sent home more illegal immigrants with the Obama administration. [See link: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128826285] So, if illegal immigration is a crime, according to some, it's better than keeping them in American jails and they just need to get out. I don't see it the same way, we may need to just take the illegal immigrants and put them through the procedure of immigration if they are indeed coming here for legitimate reasons.
Back to Amanda-
I don't necessarily believe that catching people at the border will be able to stop the drug related crimes occurring in the country as well; those have been developing for over a decade and were even an issue during the Clinton years. Other Latin-American countries have suffered as well but have only been able to stem off these problems due to their totalitarian regimes and dictatorial leaders.
On Arizona-
I had always been wearing of the terms of SB1070, as it seemed too flexible and gave too much freedom to local enforcements. But, yay for late breaking news that changes many aspects of this discussion. [See link: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0728/Solution-to-Arizona-immigration-law-troubles-Safe-passage-home] Basically, immigrants would be sent back, as we discussed may not be the best policy. However, this seems more tasteful than having to have some proof of citizenship on your person at all time and being subjected to someone's superstitions on your appearance. Amnesty has its ups and downs, and it appears that is what the government desires to do. Giving illegal immigrants the chance to become legal may be an overbearing and drawn out process, but I believe it could become more worthwhile in the long term years to come.
[Another article I just found, see more: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0728/Why-Judge-Susan-Bolton-blocked-key-parts-of-Arizona-s-SB-1070]
BP has been looking to drill in Libya for quite a few years. Lybia has refused BP until recently. BP is now allowed to dril off the coast of Libya.
ReplyDeleteIt is belived that this is because of a prisoner transfer agreement involving the Lockerbie Terrorist.
In December of 1988, Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, a terrorist from Libya killed 270 people when he bombed a flight from London to New York over Lockerbie. The Lockerbie Terrorist was then released in August of last year because of health conditions. It has been over a year and he is doing fine in Libya. I think that it is quite strange that they would let a person out of Jail because of sympethtic reasons when they killed so many american lives. However, this is not the American government that let him out of jail... it was completely out of our hands what they did with him. Yet the U.S. Government said that they supported letting this man out of jail and to set him free in Libya. All of this is too much of a coincidence for my belief. It seems to me that BP has convinced the british governemnt to let the Lockerbie bomber out of Jail as a trade off for them to have the rights to drill for oil reserves in Libya. Corporation are taking over!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20100720/pl_mcclatchy/3572074
In response to Amy, I agree that the safe passage proposal of your third link seems like a much more tasteful and effective way of containing illegal immigration. Though this can't eliminate the problem, it would help reduce the violence and job impact here at home. We need to make it easier for immigrants to come legally so that the ones who truly want the opportunity and will use it responsibly are able to. If the safe passage proposal was put into effect, those that are motivated could leave and come back on the right terms. Only after the responsible immigrants are allowed to return without consequences should we enforce laws on those that remain. This is no doubt a complicated issue, because the illegal immigrants often come out of desperation for a better life, but we simply cannot let our country be overrun by it.
ReplyDeleteWhile watching the news this morning, I saw a story on the new aviation bill passed by the Senate today. The bill was created in response to the crash of the Continental Connection Flight 3407, where 50 people were killed. I was stunned to hear that the “captain of the flight had flunked five flight tests in his career and had only 209 hours of flight in the commuter-style aircraft”. Not to mention, the co-pilot – a young woman from Maple Valley – was extremely tired and had to commute from Washington to the East Coast for her job each week. I have never really put much thought into the training requirements of a pilot. I’ve always assumed that the requirements were very strict, and only the best would be entrusted with the lives of 50 or more people. Knowing that tomorrow I’m getting on a plane, it makes me nervous that my life might be in the hands of a person who has failed multiple flight tests. Because of this, I completely support this new bill. Requirements for pilots need to be stricter. In fact, even though the required number of hours to become a pilot has been multiplied 6 times, that may still not be enough. My questions to you are:
ReplyDelete•Are the requirements addressed in the new bill enough of an improvement, or are they too much?
•Do you think President Obama will sign the bill? (The deadline is August 2nd )
The link is: http://www.king5.com/news/House-passes-bill-to-boost-commuter-airline-safety--99625139.html
In response to Jessie on bp/Libya-
ReplyDeleteSome ideas on this would be an understatement…
First, you are correct at pointing out that the majority of the people killed were US citizens [190/259 passengers and crew] and that he is/was not being held in a US prison. [It was Scotland, so the Scottish released him.]
Here's some more background on the bombing that may be useful [I have this from debate files].
~~~M. Shane Smith is a graduate student in the Political Science Department at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and Research Assistant at the University's Conflict Research Consortium. “Sanctions: Diplomatic Tool or Warfare by other Means?” April 2004. From BeyondIntractability.org.
On December 21, 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 disintegrated in the skies over Lockerbie, Scotland, after a bomb ripped a hole in its fuselage. The Qaddafi regime of Libya was accused of the attack and of harboring two suspects, Amin Fhimah and Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. Led by the United States, the United Nations Security Council passed resolutions that threatened international sanctions including military embargoes and prohibiting the sale of industrial equipment to Libya unless it handed over the suspects. Qaddafi resisted for years, but in 1999 succumbed to global pressures. The trial found al-Megrahi guilty of the murders, while his colleague was acquitted.~~~
In essence, Libya succumbed to the demands of the United Nations via US pressure due to the economic sanctions placed on their country in order to have al-Megrahi and his associate put on trial. These sanctions were placed on the country as a whole, and did their job. The country prospered for awhile afterwards, but 9/11 occurred a decade later. Then President Bush placed more sanctions on several terrorist groups, including the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group [More info, click on the PDF on this page from the US Treasury: http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/programs/terror/terror.shtml]. This group was established after the Lockerbie bombings, but still gained extreme power in Libya as the most powerful jihad faction in the country.
So where do the two link? Read this link, and I'll explain my theory [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3151095.stm]. The link states that sanctions were being placed on the entire country as well, not just the jihad group and although the US no longer keeps these sanctions on the entire country, Libya is still in the negative limelight and looked up as a state that harbors terrorism and supports it. As seen at the bottom of the link, Gaddafi, their leader [with no real official title due to him taking over the government in a coup], wants to negotiate and be given some respectability back so he can achieve his own goals of leading Africa into a continent of power. Gaddafi was the man who proposed a "United States of Africa", NATO or SATO-like organization to be founded [it would eventually become the African Union].
So, it could be possible that bp influenced the Scottish government to release the Libyan prisoner. There may be unseen or unheard negotiations that have occurred with Britain and Libya so bp would be able to attain more oil and Libya would obtain some more of their desired "respect", I agree with you on that. However, the US sleight of hand comment saying that it would be okay to release him is not that much to be concerned with in my point of view. The US certainly doesn't support all of bp's actions [Gulf of Mexico] but probably is just partial to Libya's cooperation with the "modern" world. Plus, your article sites Obama's displeasure, so I'm sure there are two sides to everything, especially on this issue.
In response to Amanda, I believe the President will sign this bill. It is clear that the regulations on pilots are not currently stringent enough to ensure the highest possible safety. Though accidents will always happen even with the most experienced pilots, stricter requirements could decrease them. Multiplying the required hours by six seems a bit excessive to me and could become cumbersome, but may be necessary for safety. If anything defeats this bill I think it will be this vast increase. I definitely support the proposal to change pilots' schedules to allow them enough rest to properly operate the plane. While I was traveling to France, the flight attendants had become so tired that they made a few mistakes in our requests. I expect the pilots were under a similar condition and had the potential to make errors. Even the best pilots cannot be expected to perform well while exhausted. Though a bit strict, this bill should be an improvement on current safety standards.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128873444&sc=nl&cc=nh-20100801
ReplyDeleteHere is a link expanding on the idea of human trafficking, which does not only land on the thought of prostitution but of slavery... Recently, Washington came forth to cut back this terrible crime so that it would punished greatly and thus spurred 44 other states to take action. Then it enters a story of a woman who experienced such a tragedy, she was turned into a domestic slave who held no hope or freedom and whose family was at risk if she did not proceed with her assigned work.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/us/28spill.html?th&emc=th
ReplyDeleteAbove is a link to some fairly recent news on the BP Oil Spill in which the amount of oil has lessened a lot more than thought but the trouble beneath the surface is still quite unknown. This was such a tragedy that it is amazing how much the ocean has dissipated the amount of oil. The true worry now comes with environmental effects due to the massive oil spill but still there is no clear answer as to how much damage has been done. It sickens me to think of the impact of this oil spill but I am thankful that it has been reduced in size. I have a few questions for you :
how could this have been stopped from occuring in the first place?
How should the United States react to the damage done in the ocean?
How would you punish the ones at fault for this happening?
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/02/student-facebook-tirade-against-teacher-is-protected-speech/
ReplyDeleteHere is a link about a recent court case regarding freedom of speech on the internet. A student made a Facebook page about her teacher and stated that the teacher was the worst teacher she'd ever met. The court ruled that the student's right to post this was protected by the first ammendment. My question is how far do these rights go? What is and is not acceptable for a person to post online? How will the interpretation of the Constition adapt to our new technologies that were not even invented when the Founding Fathers wrote this document?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128646896
ReplyDeleteHere is a link about the debates over the firing of Shirley Sherrod. She was an Agriculture Department employee who was fired because of a quote of hers that a blogger published onto the internet. Out of context, the quote made Sherrod appear racist towards a white farmer. She was immediately fired by President Obama. Later, it was discovered that her entire statement had not been racist, but the portion published made her seem to be.
In terms of freedom of speech, how can the bloggers actions be justified? He used a quote that Sherrod made, but because it was out of context, her career is now ruined. Should this type of incident be covered by the first amendment? How can innocent people protect themselves against anothers rights to freedom of speech?
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/02/waters.ethics.charges/index.html
ReplyDeleteI found this article on CNN and found it interesting because of the topic of ethics. Ethics and politics, lots of controversy there. It's hard to say sometimes what is ethical and what isn't and how ethics should be considered and used in politics, especially when there is a lot of differing opinions on ethics themselves. It looks like these two members of Congress have violated some rules. Representative Charlie Rangel apparently violated 13 rules of the House. Is this too many? Is that ethical? Shouldn't something have been done about this by now? What happens when the rules are violated? Should he be allowed to participate in Congress still, or are punishments necessary? Granted, from this article, we have no idea what rules he did break, but the rules must have been in place for a reason. Rules are there to make government fair and help it to run smoothly. If they are broken, what is the outcome? On the other hand, Maxine Waters helped a private bank (one which her husband has investments in) to receive $12 million. Was this a good move? Or was it unfair for her to help this specific small bank? Was it ethically and/or politically just for her to help this certain bank above others? I'm curious to see what the courts decide about her and Rangel's actions.
In response to Emily, freedom of speech must be maintained regardless of the new forms in which it is now available. As long as this page was kept separate from the classroom, it cannot be controlled by the school. It is ultimately no different than a group of students complaining about or discussing this teacher on their own time. However, if it was a dominant conversation topic in class or was shown in the classroom, the teacher and school would have a right to interfere. They have the right to discipline, but only within their own walls. Also, if the page had suggested any violence or crime that was truly threatening, the school would have had a right to work with the parents and student for proper discipline. Since it was simply a matter of opinion and sharing ideas, the student had the complete right to do so. New technologies will no doubt continue to make freedom of speech a vague and difficult matter, but this constitutional right cannot be infringed. Speech is speech, whether on the internet, in person, or in published works.
ReplyDeleteJumping back up to Amanda's airplane article:
ReplyDeleteI looked up the requirements for a commercial airline pilot, those can be found going to this link, look at Code 61.159 specifically: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=40760189a03dfea0b501608f33820a45&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.1.2&idno=14#14:2.0.1.1.2.7
So, five-hundred hours is required of a pilot and this pilot obviously did not spend that amount of time in training. However, pilot error crashes have been steady throughout commercial airline history, not increasing at any one point. I see no problem in increasing the amount of training maybe two-fold but by six times seems ridiculously overbearing. More people are killed in the world by donkeys than commercial aviation crashes, something that is over exaggerated in the press due to its dramatic and uncontrollable appearance of "terror in the sky".
On resting and the sleep conditions of the pilots, I completely agree with setting new, stricter precedents. Many accidents in human history have been attributed to people under a loss of sleep, one famous one being the Exxon-Valdez oil tanker spill in Alaska. The investigation report of the NTSB [National Transportation Safety Board] on Flight 3407, the flight mentioned in the King5 video clip, is quite fascinating. Around the 120’s, pilot sleeping habits are detailed up to how many yawns were counted during in-flight procedures: http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2010/AAR1001.pdf
Overall, I believe Obama passed the bill due to its supposed clear nature and the optimism that our skies will be safer with these guidelines. We can only wait and see if that will be the case, looking now and years into the future.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128963348
ReplyDeleteThis story is about an Arizona sheriff that made many raids on companies that he believed to have been employing illegal immigrants. Sheriff Arpaio is not cooperating with the US Justice Department in this case. He was first confronted by the department 17 months ago and has not cooperated since. His actions appear to be unjust as he even made raids when there was no law permitting police to ask for proof of citizenship. He is violating many people’s rights by disturbing their lives in looking for illegal immigrants. Yes, he may be finding some without proper documentation, but he is finding many other people that are not illegal immigrants. In my mind, there is no question that his actions are not being carried out the proper way. He needs to modify his methods as to not disrupt as many people and businesses without adequate proof and results. On the other hand, he is also being uncooperative with the government. Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the sheriff’s office agreed “to allow examination of relevant records by the Justice Department.” At this time, Arpaio is not cooperating with the Justice Department in allowing them to see his records. Why is he not cooperating? Should the government sue Arpaio? What should be done and what consequences should he face?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/technology/05chip.html?_r=1&hp
ReplyDeleteThis article discusses the recent settlement between Intel and the Federal Trade Commission. It prohibits anti-competitive practices that were hurting other companies and partially allowing them to maintain a monopoly on the computer chip industry. Some of their actions included "paying customers to buy its computer chips exclusively" and "redesigning its chips purely to harm a competitor." This settlement will be completed once they have received public input. The Commission does not have the power to fine Intel, but the company has agreed to a fund to help customers it may have hurt in the past. Clearly Intel had overstepped its position as a powerful company, but how do we keep a balance between regulating business and maintaining the ideals of our capitalist society? Which business practices qualify as unjust and which should be allowed as a freedom of a company? How much say should the government have?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128970984
ReplyDeleteI came across this article on npr.org. It's exploring both sides of this issue of the Bush Tax Cuts that are set to expire soon. The tax cuts were passed when the economy was stronger. Now with the recession, if President Obama allows the cuts to expire, it could possibly tarnish the Obama Administration. Some financial experts agree that the cuts should not be permitted to laspe. Others, like Former Federal Chairman Alan Greenspan ("When Alan Greenspan talks, Wall Street listens.") says that we cannot allow the tax cuts to continue with "borrowed money". As of now, President Obama claims that he will probably allow some of the tax cuts to remain, but he may not permit the tax cuts to continue for the top 2% percent of the "highest-earning Americans".
What do you guys think? Should President Obama allow the Bush Tax Cuts to continue, should he allow them to laspe forcing American families to pay significantly more, or is his current economic stance correct-only lift the tax cuts from the highest-earning Americans in the United States?
P.S.: If he does do this, how are the interests of the minority being protected (the highest-earning Americans)? My bet is they won't be pleased with this if it happens...
Hot from the press: California's Prop 8 has been overturned and has been considered unconstitutional. One of the many articles that can be found online is listed below:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/01/11/bloom.same.sex.marriage/index.html
Questions: What does this mean for the future of other states in the United States? Do you believe that this will result in a changing of the Constitution? Do you think California is headed in the right/wrong direction? Will this be a change that will actually last long term as well?
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/04/obama.ahmadinejad/index.html
ReplyDeleteThis article discusses an offer by Iran's leader, Ahmadinejad, to debate world issues, particularly of his country's nuclear program. Obama's campaign promise to meet with him therefore may have a chance of being fulfilled. Sanctions by the U.N. and the United States have put a financial strain on Iran, which may be giving him motivation to act more peaceably. However, the White House has said that he "isn't serious about discussing its nuclear ambitions." This doubt is logical because the regime has been adamant about refusing to negotiate in the past. If Ahmadinejad is serious about this, do you think it would be worthwhile for Obama to meet with him? Will it make any difference? Is it a good idea to negotiate calmly or will it make Iran too comfortable and encourage them to continue on their current path?
to Melissa, on taxes.
ReplyDeleteThe tax cuts that expire are only on the highest income Americans. The ones who can afford to pay a little more. I think they should pay a little more. They are rich, and the rich have the responsibility of helping the poor (Andrew Carnagie, Wealth of Nations). Now it is up to our government to make sure that our nations tax money is put to the benefit of the people that are paying it.
About Proposition 8.
ReplyDeleteI have nothing against homosexual unions for those who desire. And yet I agree with Proposition 8 and think that the California Supreme Court was wrong to overturn the Proposition.
The advocates of Prop. 8 aren't being prejudiced against homosexuals. They are simply pointing out that marriage, a very old tradition, and to many Americans a religiously sacred act, should remain between male and female. So lets leave marriage the way it is, and have a new term for homosexual couples.
This is in response to Emily's question about the freedom of Speech.
ReplyDeleteThe freedom to express one's beliefs has always been fought over in this country, whether it be the freedom of speech, religon, or even of the press. If the constitution grants the people of the United States the ability to express a hatred for the president and the people in leadership positions then it most definitely grants students the opportunity to reveal their dislike for a teacher. It is irrelevent on what type of medium the expression is made. There is no difference between articles in the paper expressing opinions and articles over the internet. To say that the facebook page may disrupt class because of discussions about the page, is also irrelevent. The very fact that class is being disrupted because a teacher is hated perhaps shows the school administration that students have some right in determining the eligibility of their own teachers. It is granted to the people by democracy that we can decide who leads us, and don't teachers lead us in terms of our education. All the student was doing was demonstrating her democratic right, being of voting age at the time, to decide for herself who should guide her education.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/webcam-spy-scandal-broadens/
ReplyDeleteAbove is an article about a school alledgedly using their distrubuted laptops to take pictures of the students. This seems to severally violate privacy rights and brings up several questions. Such as are punishments for the violation of privacy rights harsh enough? Was the school within its rights to take such pictures? If not how can such invasions be monitored in the future? If yes then where is the line drawn to protect privacy rights?
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/scocca/archive/2010/08/03/islamic-community-center-project-ground-zero-mosque-meme-both-going-strong.aspx
ReplyDeleteThis article is about the proposed building of an Islamic community center in Lower Manhattan, about two blocks from Ground Zero. While the article itself does not provide very much information, it gives several different links that present several strong points of view on the issue. After reading about angry Americans insisting the mosque "glorifies victims" and that it is a "9/11 victory mosque," I was shocked at the accusations and hatred directed at innocent people trying to worship. I thought that people had overcome hate towards Muslims after realizing that the terrorist attack was carried out by a small group of people.Protesting the mosque being built encourages the racism that our country worked so hard to defeat after the prejudices made after 9/11. A mosque nearby Ground Zero is not a message of hate, victory, or direspect towards the victims of 9/11, and it is tragic that racist Americans accuse them of otherwise.
Is the Islamic community within their rights to build there?
Are Americans overcoming the prejudices towards Muslims that increased after 9/11?
In response to Amy's link on the overturning of Prop 8:
ReplyDeleteI believe that the courts were right in overturning Proposition 8. I believe that the current discrimination of homosexuality is merely a part of a large cycle that has been repeating throughout all of history and it is only inevitable at this point that gay marriage will be allowed nation wide. In a similar manner to how anger is being expressed toward gays, throughout human history, and even American history we can see a vicious on-going cycle of certain groups being horribly discriminated against, only to become generally accepted as equals in time. If you look at the civil rights and women's rights movements, it began as certain individuals being granted less rights then the general majority, (marriage in this case) only to gradually grow until becomming equals under the law and constitution. In this manner, I believe that the overturning of Prop 8 is the beginning of a turn of events that we will be seeing a lot more of in the near future.
In response to Thomas' response to the same link:
Although I do understand where you are coming from in protecting the time-honor tradition of marriage that has been around for years, I believe that it is not in any way gays who are having a negative impact on the sanctity of marriage. From the beginnings of the tradition, marriage has already been altered plenty. For example, at one point divorce was actually illegal in marriage. Therefore, I do not believe that allowing more people who are truly in love to be married will have a negative impact on marriage. In fact, I believe it would be very positive. It is not gays getting married that is negatively impacting marriage, but the way marriage is becomming a joke, mostly through the media with reality shows such as "The Bacholorette," dumbing down true love into commercial entertainment.
Going way back to Emily D.'s post about the Arizona immigration laws, I agree with what you are saying about Arizona's right to make its own decision about immigration laws. Because of Arizona's location right next to the Mexican Border, their economy is negatively affected by illegal immigrants more than other states can understand. However, I do not completely agree with the racial implications of the post. Referring to Mexicans searching for jobs to feed their families as a "foriegn invasion" and bringing up the obligation of Arizona tax payers to pay for illegal immigrants "being in jail" is a little stereotypical. While the post makes a very good point about immigration, it is overshadowed by what can appear to others as prejudice.
ReplyDeleteIn response to John's post about privacy: The school district photographing students brings up several different issues. I strongly believe schools do not have the right to take pictures of students, especially because they do not have the authority to punish kids for actions done outside of school. As soon as the students enter school campus, they can be watched by video cameras and even searched as it is school property and necessary for the safety of other kids. This power the school has over students does not exist once the student is off campus. The decision to spy on children once off campus is not within the rights of the school at all, and it is very scary to think that we are unable to control schools from spying on students.
ReplyDeleteresponse to Rina's link.
ReplyDeleteThe very idea that the community center and mosque shouldn't be built because of the proximity to Ground Zero reveals the true ignorance of many American people. First of all, only a very small percentage of islamic people are resposible for the attacks, and even believe in the ideals of the extremists. One cannot judge an entire community based upon those deemed the worst. If the reason for denying rights to people and hating them is because we hate the most violent in their community, then we too must be looked upon with hate. If someone attempting to judge the character of America looked at our most violent, then we would be deemed as murderers, rapists, thieves, and extortionists. Secondly, to deny a group of people the ability practice their religon based on the name of the religion is not only showing prejudice and undeserving hatred, but also a lack of knowledge of the constitution. The bill of rights guarantees the freedom of religion to everyone. We as a country seem to have forgotten this country was founded upon colonists searching for freedom of religions they were persecuted for. Anyone attempting to deny the rights of this Islamic community are going against the original ideals of this country before it was even a country.
In response to Rina's link regarding the Mosque being built near ground zero of the 9/11 terrorist attacks:
ReplyDeleteI am in complete agreement that the muslims have full right to build a mosque near the site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and in fact view it as an honor for them to do so. Unfortunately, the prejudices toward Muslims throughout our society are very rampant and are at an all time high do to the attacks. This is largely do to the media's response toward the Islamic religion. 99% of the time when Muslim's are depicted in the media, they are of the less then 2% belonging to radical extremists groups, giving the American people only a brief glimpse in to the very worst of the religion. A large part of this, however, is do to the fact we are currently at war in two Islamic countries.
One way to unite a nation and get them working under you has always been to find a common enemy. When the people have a common enemy, they will often unite under their country moreso then they would anyway. Unfortunately, today's common enemy of the typical Muslim terrorist is enforcing great bias among the people against the entire relgion, not just the extremeists.
If one truly looks in to the Muslim religion, they will see that the Islamic religion at the core is one of peace, just as much as Christianity or any other religion. In the Quaran, it is explicitly stated that the deaths of innocents is completely and udderly morally wrong. As with any religion, however, extremeists manage to find ways to bend and twist the words in order to find ways to "justifiably" carry out violence, as the extremists twist the meaning in to any non-muslims being "not-innocent" and thus there deaths are okay, despite the fact that according to the Quaran the prophet Muhammed asked for the specific protection of Christians and other religions. This same type of manipulation can be seen in any religion, however. Just look at incidents such as the Mountain Meadows Massacre that was carried out here in the United States. Unfortunately, however, since Muslims are currently being used as our nations "common enemy," we are only depicted those minortiy radical groups within the media, and thus many Americans only relate the innocent muslims who want to build the mosque to the radical muslims who carried out the attacks, although there is no true fair correlation.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704657504575411821009660954.html?mod=WSJ_NewYork_NewsReel
ReplyDeleteThis link is about the banning of the hiring of new firefighters in New York because some believe that the exam taken to become a firefighter "discriminated against minority applicants." While this seems to be an extroadinary risk for the people of New York to take, the question is, is the ban legal? Is the ban worth the risk of lives as the staff is currently 200 people short?
In response to Amy
ReplyDeleteYes, I do believe that California is headed in the right direction. I think they are making a move to accept people for what they personally believe in. I also think that eventually the rest of the country will begin to accept and legalize gay marriage. Based on our country's history we see that there has been discrimination against many groups such as African Americans, women, religious affiliations and many others. As a whole our country has moved forward giving these people the rights that they deserve. Sooner or later I think the same will happen for homosexuals.
In response to Thomas
I personally believe that the California Supreme Court was right to overturn Proposition 8. I consider it discriminatory to not allow a same sex marriage to take place. Homosexuals should have the right to be married and receive the benefits that the institution of marriage provides. The argument that marriage is a sacred and a holy union may be true for some, however, the article mentions a woman who has been married 23 times and that a murderer can be married in prison. Both of these examples don't seem particularly holy to me and diminsh the sanctity of marriage, yet no one is restricting their right to be married. Politicians should not use their personal beliefs and opinions about marriage to restrict people's constitutional rights. Changing the name of the marriage to something different for same sex couples seems discriminatory considering that it would be the same basic act with just a different name.
There have been lots of posts regarding illegal immigration, here is a link that takes a different perspective:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/04/navarrette.arizona.reaction/index.html
The author refers to "the sins of the employers" by providing jobs for the illegal immigrants therefore encouraging more to come just for the benefit of their businesses. What is the culpability of these businesses? If they hire illegals what is their fiscal responsibility to US citizens? Should they be punished for their hiring practices?
Are illegal immigrants really taking away the jobs from American citizens? The article quotes an immigrant who says "Americans are lazy. They don't want to work." Would there be enough American citizens willing work these jobs at that pay?
In response to Kathryn's post: You make a very important point about illegal immigrants. Because of the negative affect they recently have had on the economy, Americans do not understand that illegal immigrants are actually a vital part of the economy. This is especially applicable in agriculture. Because most are willing to work for significantly less money than American workers, they allow business owners to produce food for a lot cheaper and therefore keep fruit and vegtable prices low. While it is very true that the amount of immigrants in the United States needs to be watched because they cause less jobs to be available for citizens, their impact on the country is not completely negative.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2010/aug/01/missouri-voters-get-shot-at-health-care-law/
ReplyDeleteEven though this link is about Missouri voters, it is still extremely relevent to controversies involving the health care reform Obama is enforcing. A key provision of the new federal law is that starting in 2014 all Amricans are required to buy health insurance. On Tuesday there was a statewide ballot proposal in Missouri rejecting this requirement. While federal law usually trumps state law, this message is an indicator of Democrats losing support and even losing congressional majority in this years midterm election.
In this situation, does state or nation have the right to make a decision?
Should all Americans be required to purchase insurance?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/us/politics/06kagan.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=kagan&st=cse
ReplyDeleteSomething that hasn't been touched on yet, the Senate confirmed Elena Kagen to become a Supreme Court Justice in an extremely partisan vote. She's being sworn in today as well.
Questions: What will be the upcoming direction of the court with Kagen added? Will her position as Solicitor General impact her decisions greatly? How do you feel about having three women, a new record, on the Court? Does the partisan vote broadcast an overarching lack of unity in the Senate or reflect badly on the Obama administration, or decision to nominate Kagen in the first place?
In response to Johns post, the situation regarding the firefighters in New York brings up a difficult point. First of all people may wonder how the exam itself can be discriminatory aginst certain minority groups.This shows the exact opposite of affirmative action.By banning the exam it brings about even more problems by putting the safety and protection of citizens of New York at risk in order to make a political point. Although that fact alone could provide pressure on those responsible for the exam to change their discriminatory ways. The city also has to make other changes to compensate for the understaffing of fire fighters, including the costs of overtime, and this money has to be taken from some other department that also needs the money. The importance of the safety of the residents of New York can overpower other needs such as education.There is a gray area between what should be done in this situation but the more time spent on trying to resolve the situation is time that could put people at risk. If the resolution was as simple as administering a different exam would this problem have be solved years ago?
ReplyDeletehttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703339304575240313102644330.html?KEYWORDS=oil+spill+affecting+tourism
ReplyDeleteThis involves one of the many affects of the BP oil spill in the golf, not only has it been causing widespread damage to the oceans and wildlife but it may also have a negative affect on the economies in the surrounding areas.
Many local buissnesses depend on tourism as their main source of revenue including a number of hotels. According to a survey that was done back in May some Hotel owners believe that the spill has caused many guests to cancel their reservations.
How would the damage from the oil spills continue to harm the buissnesses surrounding the golf as the problem escalates?
What widespread affects could the spill have on the overall economies of near by cities and towns?
Should the government step in to help mend the economies?
Dear Peter: this is Rina! You used the term udderly in your argument instead of utterly! Like cow udders!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38605719/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/?GT1=43001
ReplyDeleteThis link refers to the U.S. giving the control of combat duties to the Iraqi security forces.
Is this transition long overdue?
Are the Iraq forces ready to take on the struggle that has already claimed so many American lives?
How will this affect American involvement in the War?
In respnse to Rina's post. I agree that they should be able to build anywhere. And it is their right as American citizens to do so. Other religious groups had the same opportunity to purchase the land and create their own place of worship near ground zero.Many protesters are complaining that the Islamic relgion. By law religious freedom must be respected, and those who speak about the building of this mosque as being built at the site of "their conquests and victories" is completly discriminatory. The religion itself is not responsible for the atricities commited at 9/11.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to Emily P's post about the Agriculture Department Employee being fired. The fact that she was fired should be a problem because the people who actually fired her didn't check the validity of her statement, if it was in fact taken out of context. As a blogger, a person would still have teh right to free speach of course, but that does not mean that everything they write about is the truth. If this woman was truly victim the misinterpretation of a comment she should be able to regain her job. People always have to be careful what they say when they are in the public eye. Since these bloggers words were taken so seriously against the words of the womans, what made her employers chose to follow the bloggers words over her own. I guess this just points out the seriousness of racism in todays society.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Amy's post:
ReplyDeleteFirst, I found it interesting that NPR stated "Her appointment is not expected to change the court's current philosophical balance". I think her being the Solicitor General will impact her views more towards the United States side of arguements when it's involved, just because that's what she has been doing, fighting for the US. Being a woman shouldn't make much of a difference, key word there is should'nt, but I think it shows some big changes occurring, when 3 of the 4 women ever to be in the Supreme Court are breaking the record for most at one time! The unsettling fact is that whichever side has majority in senate can swing the vote, and I like how you put it, it shows a "lack of unity". A unity to fight for a common cause, get back to basics and do what's right for the people. Having Kagan in the court will be interesting, especially since the lack of confidence from the Republicans for her "lack of experience", seeing how she is the only one to not have served as a judge.
In response to Kathryn's post: I agree with Rina, immigrants cheap labor does keep prices low. The sad thing is, sad atleast in my opinion, that most Americans don't care if the immigrants got deported and unemployment went down, they would care that their grapes went up in price 50 cents a pound. That is a generalization backed by my opinion, but generalizations usually are true for a majority. If a teenager still in highschool can hunt for a job and find one, then someone who graduated should be more apt to stumble upon one unless they have passed by the opportunities to work for minimum wage. The good jobs may be taken, shoveling manure is still gonna be better than sitting around collecting welfare. As for the immigrants, one of the interviewees says that Americans are ignorant, as are most who illegally cross the border- they have either a lack of awareness for the laws, or a lack of determination to TRULY live the American dream. He says that we don't know how hard it is to come here legally, but maybe he doesn't realize that an estimated $2.7 billion is what Arizonan taxpayers lose from illegals. Way back when, my great grandpa and my other great great great grandpa had to sacrifice a lot to come over to America so their families could happily live out the dream.
ReplyDeleteThe article I found that number in also said that when raids occured that those areas salaries went up because the Americans getting work demanded higher, more competetive wages.
Here's that article, its pretty good:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/17/immigration-costs-rising-rapidlty-new-study-says/
In response to Morgan's post I believe that it is time for the American government to give control to the Iraqi security forces. And as to the question of are the Iraqi security forces really ready I believe so. At what point will they be completely ready, we can not have control their military and government always; there has to be a point where we slowly release our grip and allow them to become a self sustaining nation. And as to how it will affect American involvement within the war, I believe that it will gradually decrease American involvement. Another question to bring up is that if these important steps aren't taken soon how long will American, as in the people, support remain?
ReplyDeleteAlready large amounts of people are against the War in the middle east.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128932882
This link is shows this within the Afghan war.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128994525&ps=rs
ReplyDeleteThis is a link discussing Gay Marriage. I found it very interesting. I support Gay Rights and I was wondering what people's opinions were about Gay Rights?
This response goes back to Emily P.’s questions about freedom of speech on August 2. Freedom of speech is guaranteed until the point that it becomes libel. Freedom of expression is synonymous with freedom of speech, and not only guarantees free verbal speech, but also “any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.” This being said, whether the opinion was stated online or in person doesn’t matter because every medium of communication is covered in this freedom. Although technology offers more opportunities to share opinions, it doesn’t change the interpretation of the Constitution. The First Amendment of the Constitution states that “Congress shall pass no law…abridging the freedom of speech…” However, this does not protect the individual from any punishment on private terms that may come of his or her words.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/us/08mosque.html?_r=1&src=mv&ref=homepage
ReplyDeleteThis article is about people protesting the building of mosques throughout the nation. The most famous being the one occurring near ground zero however this article focuses on smaller protests in California and Tennessee. These protestors first said that the mosques would cause lots of noise and traffic in the area but later admitted that they were against the Islamic faith. They believe that Muslims want to take over and replace the constitution with their own so the protestors say it’s not about religion. At the protests they brought dogs knowing it was offensive to the Islamic religion.
Do the Muslims have a right to build mosques in these areas?
Are the protestors breaking the constitutional right to freedom of religion?
What are your opinions about the people's way of protesting?
In response to Morgan
ReplyDeleteI believe that the oil spill is a huge problem for the businesses and the economy. Since many of the businesses in the area are based on tourism and the oil spill is stopping tourists from coming the owners are negatively affected. I don't think it’s fair that they are losing business and money because of BP's mistake. Not only are business owners affected but so are fishermen and other people who had businesses based on the ocean and sea life which is now being destroyed by the oil. I think that those people should be compensated for their lost money and that BP should step in to help. As the situation escalates I believe that it will have negative impacts on surrounding cities and towns as well as the ocean and sea life in it.
In response to Kathryn, I believe that Muslims the right to build mosques in those areas just like any other religious group would have the right to build their form of place of worship. How I see it is that the protestors are not breaking the constitutional right to freedom of religion, but they are expressing their opposition to that right. In the article it said that the protestors were against the Muslims wanting to "replace the constitution" when the protestors don't seem to support the constitution much anyway. I also feel that most protestors use something in their protests to insult what/who they're protesting about.
ReplyDeleteIn response to John
ReplyDeleteI think the ban on hiring firefighters is legal because the judge ruled that the test was discriminatory. However it doesn't seem fair to the people that they are at a higher risk because the fire department is short of firefighters. Also the firefighters who were expecting a job have had to wait before they can start working. Many of the people in the article said that they felt the test was fair and not at all discriminatory. I don't think that they should continue to have a test if it is discriminatory but I think they should come up with a quicker solution because making people wait three years for a better test isn't fair to the people or firefighters.
About Proposition 8: The First Amendment to the Constitution states that “Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion…” Therefore, the fact that for some, marriage is a religious thing can not be a basis for legal decisions about who can marry who, according to our own law. Marriage should be allowed to any two people who love each other. No one decides how they feel or who they love. If someone who is in jail for murder is granted the right to marry, people who are innocent of crime should definitely be guaranteed that right. To deny a couple the same benefits of marriage just because they happen to be of the same sex is wrong and discriminatory. Overturning Proposition 8 was a step in the right direction, because it promotes equality. In American history, groups that were discriminated against such as African Americans and women were able to petition and fight for their rights, and eventually got them. Following this pattern, same sex couples will most likely gain the right to marry, and the overturning of Proposition 8 helps them achieve these rights
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/25/inside-the-black-panther-case-anger-ignorance-and-/?page=1
ReplyDeleteThis article is written by former member of the Department of Justice. Adams resigned after his superiors told him to drop a case concerning the voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Party in the 2008 election. In the article Adams says that some say the case was not worthy of federal attention because it was an isolated incident. Even though this case deals only with Philadelphia, it affects the entire nation because there was voter intimidation at the presidential election there. Just as in the Arizona immigration policy, the most important case files were not read. Is there due diligence at the Department of Justice before they are administering actions? Or is the Department of Justice being directed by political motives rather than the administration of justice?
Responding to Emily:
ReplyDeleteTo me it seems like the Department of Justice is doing their job and giving precise information about issues concerning the nation. It is the negligence of those in power such as Mr. Rosenbaum and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. that lead to such irrational decisions. How can you make a decision without even reading the most important evidence in a case? Because of this I completely disagree with the dismissal of the New Black Panther case. They were obviously in violation of voter intimidation and should have been put on trial. The article also says that, "Some have called the actions in Philadelphia an isolated incident." As can be seen by numerous incidences presently, this incident is not isolated. The irrationality of those making decisions is obviously having an adverse effect on people all over as can be seen by the Arizona immigration law or the horrific economy everywhere.
Responding to Kathryn:
ReplyDeleteYes I do believe that Muslims building mosques is constitutional, however the protesters should not try and take away that constitutional right even though their methods of protesting were constitutional. I can understang the protestors views dealing with the mosque being put in by Ground Zero since the radical terrorists were spurred by their religion. However, the Muslims still have the right to practice their religion wherever they want. To me, building a mosque is just like building another church for Christians. For this reason the protestors opposition becomes reasonable. Would there be no opposition in the Middle East if we just moved in and started putting up churches everywhere? Obviously they have a different law and could act accordingly, but here America was built on freedom of religion which is why Muslims should be able to worship anywhere.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129038514&ps=cprs
ReplyDeleteThis short article is about the California Attorney General calling for a motion to block gay marriages even after Proposition 8 was overturned. So even though the ban was revoked, gay people can still not be married in California. And now, there is no set date when this issue will be looked into by the man who overturned Proposition 8. Why do you think Walker, who overturned Prop. 8, would implement this block on gay marriage? Should other states allow the union of gay couples?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/us/09students.html?_r=1&ref=politics
ReplyDeleteI like this one because I can't pick a side! This article is mostly about illegal immigrants who are enrolled in school and if they should be deported or not. I find it difficult to take a stance because they are being what a good citizen would be and were brought as a child so didn't really know they were doing wrong. Why can illegal immigrants enroll in schools without being deported, or atleast looked at? Should exceptions be made for illegals that are doing something good? Like the article says, should criminal immigrants be targeted instead of general population? And something that confuses me is that a woman she "can’t take certain jobs or scholarships", why can she take any? If we're serious about getting illegals out then why not cut them off? Lastly, does the judgement of illegals on the spot or even after some condsideration as to staying or not even though they are illegals show weaknesses in the enforcement or even the Obama administration?
On Proposition 8: Each state has the right to determine marriage laws, it does not fall under the jurisdiction of the federal governemnt, however many believe that this case will soon be brought before the Supreme Court. Opinions aside, if this is a country by the people for the people, then the overturing of Proposition 8 is unjustified, because 7 million California voters established that marriage should remain between a man and a woman. Therefore,Judge Vaughn Walker thought with his heart, not his head. The people of the state of California VOTED on the issue because the STATE of California needed to make a decision on their marriage laws. The will of the people was denied by the overturning of Proposition 8.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/world/asia/09food.html?pagewanted=2&ref=global
ReplyDeleteIn this article it gets a debate going in India about whether it should get rid of the old government food distribution system and just hand out money for food for the poor. It explains how a family is too poor to feed their children and the government will not give them food. The four year old weighs 20 pounds and the two year old weighs only eight pounds. This way of life is something hard to comprehend from living in America my entire life.
I believe that it would be pointless for patients who can't afford anything to be able to get medical care but not get any food. The medical care that the patients would recieve would be pointless because even if they survived their illness, the lack of food would hurt them or kill them.
What is the reasoning for the government of India to do this?
What is your views on this issue?
Responding to Joshua!
ReplyDeleteThis topic is very difficult to have a side on! I feel as though if they're going to make every illegal immagrant go back, they can't make exceptions for anyone. However, for those people that have a conscience, it seems wrong to punish somebody for doing something good. I don't necessarily think that there is a correct answer for this, nor will there ever be. Though eventually there will be a winning side. There has to be... right?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129028587&ps=cprs
ReplyDeleteI came across this link today and I found it very interesting. It basically discusses how many people will willingly hire illegal aliens and do not care if that is a felony in itself. Is this right? Why should or shouldn't we tolerate the continuous exploitation of illegal aliens? Do illegal aliens really play as big a role in the American economy as this article implies?
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/06/martin.fourteenth.amenment/index.html
ReplyDeleteThis analyst seems to take things a little too far, but in the beginning he talks about some people in Congress who are suggesting that the 14th amendment be repealed. This seems absolutely insane since this amendment is one of the main reasons that America is the way it is; a place where people can immigrate to and raise a family in a free land. Now because of the issues with illegal aliens somehow people have gotten this idea that repealing one of the most important amendments is the only way of dealing with the immigration problem. What are your thoughts on this and should this idea even be considered by Congress?
In (short) response to Conner's above post,
ReplyDeleteThis mentality arises quite often if you have been following politics for the last few years as I have. This mentality usually propagates in liberal thinking groups. Back to the article, this man clearly does not understand how amending the constitution works. He implies that we can just "edit" or "change" the amendments as we see fit. He is clearly wrong. To amend the constitution, 3/4 or at the moment at least 38 states would have to agree upon it. Still, we cannot change amendments once they have been ratified. We can repeal previous ones or add on to them by creating and ratifying new ones, but we cannot simply delete amendments. This man is clearly venting with no common sense at all. To quote him,
"Let's junk the 22nd Amendment. If we've got a great president, why limit how long he or she can serve? I don't mind a four or five-term president. As long as the people are happy, let 'em keep handling our business!"
This man's ranting clearly discredits his opinions and I am not exactly sure why CNN would even post this....oh...wait...they agree with him....never mind.
I hope I have made my point clear.
Here is an updated article on the issue of Gay Marriage and Proposition 8.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/us/politics/16prop.html?_r=1&ref=politics
This updated article is still talking about the debate going on between the state of California and gay marriage laws.
In response to Amy's questions, I believe that the overturning of the proposition was a good thing. In relation to what others have already said, one cannot help who they fall in love with. The law should not punish those who are of the same sex from not being allowed to get married when those who are of different sexes can get married no questions asked. In response to Melissa, it may be that there was a vote that stated no same sex marriage, but it's not constitutional to tell someone "Oh I know your in love with each other, but becuase I don't believe the same way as you I'm going to oppose your marriage and make it illegal." I believe that those of the same sex should have the same amount of rights as those couples of the opposite sex. In response to Peter, I agree that allowing those of the same sex to marry wouldn't cause harm but might benefit the nation because it would cause fewer problems and fights for the right for homosexuals to marry and gain their rights. And potentially lead to a more understanding and accepting nation. And although it is an old tradition for marriage to stay outside of same sex couples, as time goes on, things change and people need to be accepting of those changes.
If you were someone whose rights were being limited and were madly in love with someone of the same gender wouldn't you want to have the option to propose marriage and be lawfully wed?
I don't think this issue has come up yet. This link focuses on the issue of the pull out of Afghanistan.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/world/asia/16petraeus.html?ref=politics
While Obama has set the date to withdraw of the 100,000 troops from Afghanistan by July 2011 there is debate whether or not this is a good or bad thing. General David H. Paetraeus believes that it is not in the best interest to pull out of Afghanistan and could cause troubles while Obama feels that it is the right thing to do. Paetraeus believes that a quick removal could cause potential problems as the Taliban may make a move and a more gradual decline would be best if necessary. I believe that something major may happen if a removal of the 100,000 troops takes into effect quickly.
What are your views on the removal of troops from Afghanistan? Do you side with Obama or do you side with General Petraeus? What, or who, would the removal do or benefit?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHere is an interesting topic: Government corruption.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129279687
This article basically discusses how it can be a challenge to convict a government official on corruption charges alone. The reason being, many jurors believe that all government officials are corruptible and it is therefore to be expected and even to a point, tolerated. Thus the line between bad judgment and illegal behavior becomes somewhat fuzzier. Such is the problem in the case against Rod Blagojevich (and no, spell check, I don not mean "Archipelago", I mean "Blagojevich")
So,
What do you think?
Is corruption in government to be expected (or tolerated)?
What is the legal difference between bad judgment and illegal behavior?
Is there one?
In response to Kara's post on the removal of troops from Afghanistan, I believe a quick removal will do more harm than good. By setting a specific date for removal, the Taliban will get the impression they will be able to do as they please after it occurs. If there are no conditions for removal, there will be no motivation to cooperate with the United States. There is no doubt that this is a costly war and loss of life should be avoided, but it is simply not feasible to remove so many troops in so little time. A gradual decline will help promote a more stable situation in Afghanistan after the troops leave. I believe we should try to avoid this situation that also has occurred in Iraq in the future, but as we are already stuck in the war we have to act responsibly and carry out the mission that we started. As far as the debate over whether a counterinsurgency approach focused on protecting civilians or a strategy of hunting and killing insurgents is more effective, I think that some element of both are needed. It should always be a main priority to protect civilians, but the goal of stopping insurgents cannot be sacrificed. A more aggressive approach could be quite effective if it does not overly endanger the welfare of the citizens.
ReplyDeleteThe class has recently completed the reading material on the constitutional construction of the three branches of the government. At least some of you, in your exercises, had to describe in what ways you think the constitutional system of checks and balances of the three branches has worked and in what ways has it been compromised. I have a challenge for all of the students to think about in their studies of the constitution. Perhaps, one of you exceptionally bright students will be able to arrive at a more convincing answer than last years students were able to do.
ReplyDeleteRecent presidents have relied heavily on the use of presidential signing statements when signing a bill into law. According to http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.php#q1 a signing statement is
“a written comment issued by a President at the time of signing legislation. Often signing statements merely comment on the bill signed, saying that it is good legislation or meets some pressing needs. The more controversial statements involve claims by presidents that they believe some part of the legislation is unconstitutional and therefore they intend to ignore it or to implement it only in ways they believe is constitutional. Some critics argue that the proper presidential action is either to veto the legislation (Constitution, Article I, section 7) or to “faithfully execute” the laws (Constitution, Article II, section 3).” To be very clear, a presidential signing statement is not the same thing as a line item veto. With a line item veto a person can strike a provision from a bill and then sign the rest into law. Although many state governors have this available to them the president does not. The signing statement says that I (as the president) am going to sign this bill into law but I am (basically) not going to administration enforcement of the items mentioned in the signing statement.
To many people this is disturbing in that it seems to dismantle one of the checks and balance engineered into our system of government by the U.S. Constitution. The president can decide what part of the new law he is going to honor and what parts he will ignore.
Do you think that presidential signing statements are unconstitutional? What provision in the constitution permits them?
Inquiring minds want to know?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete•http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/26/us/politics/26bai.html?_r=2&ref=politics
ReplyDelete•http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/f/federal_budget_us/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier
These are two links concerning the federal budget and the severe debt the country has accumulated. Many people are strongly opposed to making cuts to the federal budget. Groups such as Strengthen Social Security have already began work on countering any proposals Obama’s bipartisan panel may bring up after November elections. This group, as well as many individuals, fears a reduction in the Social Security benefit if the decision to make budget cuts comes to fruition. They feel that Social Security will be the central issue on which the bipartisan panel will focus on as it is “in fine fiscal shape.” But others, like Representative Earl Blumenauer, feel the need for a budget cut. Blumenauer argues that to continue to support and justify programs in spite of Republican attacks, Democrats need to rationalize and adjust the spending on such programs. If this does not occur, conservative critics will be that much more opposed to new investment proposals.
My question to you is: Do you think a cut to the federal budget is necessary? If so, do you think it is reasonable to reduce Social Security benefits as a result of a budget cut?
If you are interested, here is a link that lets you look at the budget for the fiscal year 2011.
•http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/index.html
In response to Luther, I believe the use of presidential signing statements to accept only part of a law is unconstitutional. Since the executive branch is responsible for administering the laws through agencies, congress does not have much power to ensure that their legislation is utilized to their full intention. It has some control over the bureaucracy through the ability to appropriate their money; create, consolidate, or eliminate agencies; and establish requirements for holding office. However, many of the officers of federal agencies are appointed by the president and therefore have much loyalty to him. The ones that are appointed through the merit system may keep this influence in check, especially career civil service employees who need not fear the loss of their jobs, but it is still a risk of excessive presidential power. The president is meant to have the power to influence the legislative agenda, but ultimately to execute the laws. If the president has the ability to use the legislation in whatever way he pleases, the power of Congress as the most representative branch is heavily undermined. The executive branch does not necessarily have to abide by the president’s orders in a signing statement, but will by nature tend to follow them as the president leads the executive branch. Laws should be either vetoed or accepted in full, allowing Congress to exercise its full power as the lawmaker.
ReplyDeleteSomebody once asked Harry Browne, the libertarian candidate for president in 1996 and 2000, that if he was elected president what would be his criteria for nominating a Supreme Court justice. His response was… “can they read?” His rationale for using this selection filter was if they could read, then they would be able to read the Constitution. For example, they would find that the second amendment to the U. S. Constitution states that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” To Harry Browne (and other people like him, i.e. that could read) the second amendment means that all 20,000 federal gun laws were unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteApparently Frank Miele, author of Taking Back the Constitution Piece by Piece (http://www.dailyinterlake.com/opinion/columns/frank/article_5be8faa8-b301-11df-b890-001cc4c03286.html) also thinks that more people should ‘literally’ read the Constitution. He states that the fourteenth amendment is clear on who can claim American citizenship. According to Frank, the fourteenth amendment “..is where the doctrine of ‘birthright citizenship’ supposedly originates---except it doesn’t.” The practice of ‘awarding’ American citizenship to anyone who is born in the United States has been a long standing practice because of “…feckless adherence to judicial precedent…” with no valid constitutional justification. The practice of ‘awarding’ citizenship in this manner is in contrast to what our founding fathers thought (circa 1770s) and the fourteenth amendment (circa 1860s), the latter clearly stating that citizenship is restricted to “.…persons.. subject (emphasis added) to the jurisdiction thereof (the United States)…”
Senator Lindsey Graham (D-South Carolina, and circa 2010) has propose initiating a national discussion and perhaps making changes to the US Constitution which would preclude foreign nationals and illegals from coming to the United States and either accidentally, or intentionally, ‘anchoring’ birthrights giving their babies claim to citizenship. If one were to believe the arguments made in ‘Taking Back the Constitution Piece by Piece’ then Frank Miele is claiming that as far as unqualified birthrights status the ‘emperor has no cloths.’ As such, un-amendments to the constitution are not needed. One only has to be able, frankly, to read.
Somebody once asked Harry Browne, the libertarian candidate for president in 1996 and 2000, that if he was elected president what would be his criteria for nominating a Supreme Court justice. His response was… “can they read?” His rationale for using this selection filter was if they could read then theycould read the constitution. For example one would find that the second amendment to the U. S. Constitution states that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” To Harry Browne (and other people like him that could read) the second amendment means that all 20,000 federal gun laws were unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteApparently Frank Miele, author of Taking Back the Constitution Piece by Piece (http://www.dailyinterlake.com/opinion/columns/frank/article_5be8faa8-b301-11df-b890-001cc4c03286.html) also thinks that more people should ‘literally’ read the constitution. He states that the fourteenth amendment is clear on who can claim American citizenship. According to Frank, the fourteenth amendment “…is where the doctrine of ‘birthright citizenship’ supposedly originates---except it doesn’t.” The practice of ‘awarding’ American citizenship to anyone who is born in the United States has been a long standing practice because of “.…feckless adherence to judicial precedent…” with no valid constitutional justification. The practice of ‘awarding’ citizenship in this manner is in contrast to what our founding fathers thought (circa 1770s) and the fourteenth amendment (circa 1860s), the latter clearly stating that citizenship is restricted to “…persons.. subject (emphasis added) to the jurisdiction thereof (i.e. the United States)...”
Senator Lindsey Graham (D-South Carolina, and circa 2010) has propose initiating a national discussion and perhaps making changes to the US Constitution which would preclude foreign nationals and illegals from coming to the United States and either accidentally, or intentionally, ‘anchoring’ birthrights giving their babies claim to citizenship. If one were to believe the arguments made in ‘Taking Back the Constitution Piece by Piece’ then Frank Miele is claiming that as far as unqualified birthrights status the ‘emperor has no cloths.’ As such, un-amendments to the constitution are not needed. One only has to be able, frankly, to read.
Somebody once asked Harry Browne, the libertarian candidate for president in 1996 and 2000, that if he was elected president what would be his criteria for nominating a Supreme Court justice. His response was… “can they read?” His rationale for using this selection filter was if they could read then theycould read the constitution. For example one would find that the second amendment to the U. S. Constitution states that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” To Harry Browne (and other people like him that could read) the second amendment means that all 20,000 federal gun laws were unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteApparently Frank Miele, author of Taking Back the Constitution Piece by Piece (http://www.dailyinterlake.com/opinion/columns/frank/article_5be8faa8-b301-11df-b890-001cc4c03286.html) also thinks that more people should ‘literally’ read the constitution. He states that the fourteenth amendment is clear on who can claim American citizenship. According to Frank, the fourteenth amendment “…is where the doctrine of ‘birthright citizenship’ supposedly originates---except it doesn’t.” The practice of ‘awarding’ American citizenship to anyone who is born in the United States has been a long standing practice because of “.…feckless adherence to judicial precedent…” with no valid constitutional justification. The practice of ‘awarding’ citizenship in this manner is in contrast to what our founding fathers thought (circa 1770s) and the fourteenth amendment (circa 1860s), the latter clearly stating that citizenship is restricted to “…persons.. subject (emphasis added) to the jurisdiction thereof (i.e. the United States)...”
Senator Lindsey Graham (D-South Carolina, and circa 2010) has propose initiating a national discussion and perhaps making changes to the US Constitution which would preclude foreign nationals and illegals from coming to the United States and either accidentally, or intentionally, ‘anchoring’ birthrights giving their babies claim to citizenship. If one were to believe the arguments made in ‘Taking Back the Constitution Piece by Piece’ then Frank Miele is claiming that as far as unqualified birthrights status the ‘emperor has no cloths.’ As such, un-amendments to the constitution are not needed. One only has to be able, frankly, to read.
Relating to the recent discussions of Proposition 8, here is a link describing a court ruling in Texas prohibiting divorce for gay couples because gay marriage itself is outlawed there.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129562909
A justice stated that "A person does not and cannot seek a divorce without simultaneously asserting the existence and validity of a lawful marriage." The couple in question had married in Massachusetts, where it is legal. They have the ability to void their marriage in Texas, but only a legal divorce provides for spousal support and community property laws. Do you think the Texas court was justified in refusing them the right to a divorce? Do you think we are moving in the direction of making marriage laws a federal power rather than one reserved for the states? How can we resolve these types of disputes with the varying laws between states?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletehttp://gretawire.blogs.foxnews.com/czars-under-fire/
ReplyDeleteHere is a video clip regarding Obama’s czars. Obama has selected over 30 czars that have unchecked and unregulated power. There was a hearing in 2009 arranged by Senator Feingold (Democrat, Wisconsin) about the legality and constitutionality of czars. The Obama administration did not send anyone to speak as a witness. Is the act of creating czars constitutional? Should czars be confirmed and overseen by Congress like most other positions of authority in the executive branch? Do czars have authority over aspects that correlate to those of the Secretaries of the Cabinet?
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Debate+over+immigrants'+U.S.-born+kids+gains+steam%3b+14th+Amendment%3b...-a0233566283
ReplyDeleteI read this article in the Seattle Times a long time ago, and kept forgetting to blog about it. Anyway, it's another article about immigration concerning whether or not children born in the United States should automatically become US citizens even if their parents are illegal immigrants. The 14th Amendment states that all people "born or naturalized in the United States" are citizens. Jeff Sessions, from Alabama stated that he doubted the writers of the Constitution meant that "somebody could fly in from Brazil and have a child and fly back home with that child, and that child is forever an American citizen." I know that we talked about this at our meeting, but to me it's really hard to say what is right in these situations. What was really meant by the 14th Amendment? Should people be able to have their children here just so they can be citizens? Is that even fair to the children, because they have no say in the matter? Personally, I believe that there should also be rules about the birthright to citizenship - especially that they must live in the US for a period of time, just like when people are naturalized. There are also issues of dual citizenship because each country has a different policy. What are the constitutional ideas of dual citizenship?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2012750829_nevada29.html
ReplyDeleteThis I also read in the Seattle Times, and actually found it quite amusing. Assemblyman Harry Mortenson wants a resolution introduced at the 2011 Legislature stating that two pronunciations of the word "Nevada" are acceptable. Mortenson says that the residents of Nevada pronounce it "Nev-vaah-da" while out-of-towners pronounce it "Nev-add-da." He, along with others, finds it a nuisance to correct all these people that are saying "Nevada" wrong. I find this quite outrageous that he is asking for a resolution because there are so many other issues that he, and other representatives, could be focusing on. It seems like a petty issue that should not be brought to the legislature. But, on the other hand, it is completely constitutional to do so. What are your thoughts? Should his suggestion be brought to the legislature? Is it the type of thing the founders planned for and would have wanted brought up? Is it worth it?
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local-beat/Students-Silenced-for-Singing-Anthem-at-Lincoln-Memorial-100443134.html
ReplyDeleteHere is an article regarding freedom of speech and expression. A group of students were singing the national anthem at the Lincoln Memorial. A member of the US Park Police approached them and told them they were not allowed to sing the national anthem because the area was “content neutral.” Is this in violation of the First Amendment right to the freedom of speech and expression? Is it ok to prohibit certain displays of expression because of any implications, in this case political, that they make?
In response to Mollie,
ReplyDeleteIt is not worth the efforts of the trying to get legislature passed about the pronunciation of a word. There are many more important issues that the representatives could be focusing on that would benefit the people. Legalizing two different pronunciations does not benefit anyone, or change anything, seeing as both pronunciations were used and accepted already in society. People elect representatives that they trust to make educated decisions and put focus on issues that are of concern to the people, not to waste taxpayer dollars trying to legalize a word's pronunciation. The Founders would not have anticipated this type proposal, or even want attention brought to something as trivial as this. With all of the issues in society today, legislative representatives should be representing the needs and desires of their constituents, not trying to get unimportant measures passed.
In response to Emily Marie Duerson, I believe this is a violation of the First Amendment. Freedom of speech is protected as long what is being spoken, or sung, is not hurting anyone or being treasonous to the government. Singing the national anthem, I think, would be encouraged. They were at the Lincoln Memorial, which one could say the memorial itself was a political statement, so why could they not sing a song. The memorial was patriotic, and so was their song. How is that wrong? If the government can say that they were disobeying the law, they would also have to say that the Lincoln Memorial itself is an act of disobeying. Also, the article states that the group said that their singing was not planned, so their actions weren't really a demonstration. One officer said that the all demonstrations must be content-neutral. One thing I don't understand is, how can a demonstration be content-neutral? What exactly does content-neutral mean?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Katie (about gay divorce/marriage), I think that as the law stands, it seems OK to me to not allow gay divorce if they don't allow gay marriage. The Constitution doesn't state anything about marriage having to be between a man and a woman, so I don't think the government should limit gay marriage in anyway. The Constitution does state that there is a separation of church and state. Marriage is traditionally a religious undertaking, so constitutionally, the government should not limit this church activity. Getting back to Katie's question though. The government (at any level) should not be allowed, constitutionally, to limit the rights of people to love who they want to and marry who they want to. If it is OK for Texas and other states to not allow gay marriage, then it must be OK for them to not allow divorce of gay couples. I don't think either is constitutional, but if one is allowed, the other is equal in action and should also be allowed.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Conner on August 18,
ReplyDeleteCorruption in government can be expected. Humans have a selfish tendency to make decisions and act in ways that will promote their self preservation and better their well being. This being said, it is not unlikely that many politicians’ votes are influenced by bribes and contributions from others who want the vote to go a certain way, and other acts of corruption. However, corruption should not be tolerated. The goal of the government is to protect their rights to life, liberty, and property. The government is in place to protect the people and execute their will for America. If politicians are corrupt, they are not able to reflect what the people want, but rather reflect what they want and what will give them more power, money, or popularity in life. Illegal actions are always a result of bad judgment or lack of care, but bad judgment does not always mean the act is illegal.
Mollie,
ReplyDeleteContent neutral just means that in order to not offend anyone, no one can express opinions in that area. A demonstration can't be content neutral, because that is the point of a demonstration, to express one's opinion. But the Lincoln Memorial area is content neutral so that it is an all inclusive atmosphere so everyone feels welcome. This does go against the First Amendment though.
In response to Emily D, and Mollie about the singing of the National Anthem outside the Lincoln memorial. I believe that this is a direct violation of the First Amendment of freedom of speech because any one person should have the right to say, or sing, what they feel. I believe that even if the Lincoln Memorial was deemed "content neutral," this unplanned act wasn't meant to harm anyone in anyway so why should they have thier right of speech taken away when the song they were singing in the first place is patriotic to the nation? This was by a memorial of a President, someone who helped lead the nation and these students were just expressing their thoughts by singing. If it were any other song would the officer have told them to stop? Maybe, or maybe not. If it's not directly harming anyone without complait I believe that they were within thier rights to sing the Anthem.
ReplyDeletehttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2012772799_obama01.html
ReplyDeleteThis is the most current link posted about the removal of troops in Iraq. President Obama has stated that the removal of troops from Iraq will give way for a restoration project for the economy of the United States. He is quoted stating that "today, our most urgent task is to restore our economy and put the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs back to work."
Although Obama has not been very keen on the war because of the cost and the casualties, many men and women have given their lives to fight for a better life for those in another nation. No one has "won" the war in Iraq. In another section, many felt that Obama wasn't giving enough credit to former president George W. Bush as he helped stabilize the situation in Iraq.
Do you believe that Obama is removing troops from Iraq because he believes that overall it was a bad decision to send our men and women to Iraq in the first place and so they should be back home or do you believe that he is doing the right thing and that this will cause peace and a new path towards a "fixed" economy?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2012772646_healthretire01.html
ReplyDeleteThis article talks about the issue of health care and "early retiree" funds. This is a 5 billion dollar program that is supposed to help ease into the new health care law and encourage employers to maintain coverage of their early retirees and families until 2014 when health care exchanges are set to take place.
Do you believe that it is a good idea for this health care system to be set up and take place for early retiree's? Will the creation and follow through of this place a heavier burden on the econonmy or do you believe like Obama does that it will help the nation and improve health care by stopping the decline of employers that do not offer coverage?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129553748
ReplyDeleteChris Drew, a Chicago artist and free-speech advocate, was protesting in an "off-limits" area when police arrested him. He was charged with two misdemeanors, but he wasn't expecting to be charaged with a felony. Apparently, he violated an eavesdropping law. He had had a recording device on his person and recorded his arrest. It is currently illegal in some states (including Illinois) to record an on-duty police officer. Now, common citizens are subject to recordings by the government. Tell me, is it fair that the people cannot record the government? Even members of the government are not exempt; they must adhere to the same laws. This case is now going to a federal court. Do officers really have a legitimate concern with not wanting to be recorded when they are arresting someone? Or is it because some officers may be ashamed of the way they conduct their arrests? Is it a power play? Can citizens reciprocate government actions- by recording certain occurances?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/02/us/politics/02count.html?ref=politics
ReplyDeleteForget Joe the Plumber. Joe Miller of Fairbanks, Alaska, a Republican, won the primary because Senator Lisa Murkowski conceded. This came as a shock to everyone. Due to some rapid-fire, last-minute campaining (who says procrastination is a bad thing?), Mr. Miller, who seemed to be down in the polls even just a few weeks back, had a decent lead over Murkowski. Since Alaska is heavily Republican, Miller is favored to win. Miller is backed by many Tea Partyists. This is still a relatively new concept. If Miller gets the Senate seat in November, how do you think these Tea Party ideals will influence him, thereby influencing Washington? Also, do you think it was right of Murkowski to drop out of the race because she seemed to be losing? As a political figure, does she have the obligation to "stick it out" for her supporters?
Most importantly (of all), where does Levi Johnston fit into all this? I think it'd be cool if he were senator, that way we could watch Senate proceedings on his reality show (and not C-SPAN). Cool beans.
In response to Kara's post regarding the removal of troops from Afghanistan, I agree with General Petraeus. The country is "too fragile" for us to abandon it. Sometimes, the easy thing to do, isn't the right thing to do. It is no secret that Obama's ratings have been falling. Could the removal of troops be more political than anything? Just to appease the public? Just because we changed administrations doesn't mean we can simply wave our hands and make the actions of the last administration just disappear. Whether going into Afghanistan was right or wrong is not the issue. How can we expect to leave it in the condition it is in? Once Afghanistan has some semblence of stability, that should be our opportunity to leave, but as of now, leaving would seem to make a bigger mess of things. Afghanistan is its own country, but by invading it, it became our responsibility, our burden. Even soldiers agree that leaving is not the ideal option in the near or immediate future.
ReplyDeleteFor the purpose of padding my post count and adding to the confusion, I'd like to share yet another link:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.npr.org/blogs/watchingwashington/2010/09/01/129574353/obama-s-oval-so-what-was-all-that-about
The above link is to a story regarding the president's recent oval office address. The main message of his address was that America's presence in Iraq is shrinking. He addressed numerous war-related issues, but unfortunately the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq are not of large concern to the American public. The article references a poll that showed less than 1 in 10 (that's less than 10%) of Americans believe that the wars in the middle east are one of the larger concerns facing the Nation. President Obama then went on the talk about what he called his "central responsibility", that being the recovery of the American economy. He failed, however, to suggest any action that could be taken to aid the economic recovery.
So.....
What do you think?
Is the diminishing American presence in Afghanistan a political tool, or something that is really worth bragging about?
Should the president be doing more to aid the economic recovery of America? Or is it best to let the economy heal itself?
Is any of this even still worth discussing? Or have we not beat the dead horse enough yet?
In response to Conner, I can understand why the war in the middle east has started to diminish in American's minds.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129566875
The link above shows many people's relief that the troops are finally coming home. Personally it seems that with the time that these wars have been going on people have just lost interest. I find it very interesting though that less then ten percent of the people found it a major issue. One would think that it would be more on the minds of Americans, as to how many of our soldiers were in the middle east.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129553748
ReplyDeleteI found this a very interesting link; it has to do with laws against Eavesdropping and wiretap. The article more specifically talks about if it sound be illegal for citizens to record audio or video of police officers without the consent. The article questions the how the law should be interpreted. To draw from the article directly:
"Three years ago, lawyer Simon Glik flipped open his cell phone and recorded Boston police officers as they used what Glik considers excessive force in an encounter with a young man.Glik was arrested after an officer asked if he had recorded any sound and Glik answered that he had."
My question is, as we are starting to learn methods of interpretation, what do people think about this article and the interpretation issue?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/01/education/01teacher.html?pagewanted=1&ref=us
ReplyDeleteHere is a link describing the efforts of many school districts to improve student learning by assessing the improvement provided by each individual teacher, or value- added modeling. If students' standardized test scores improve from year to year, it is inferred that the teacher added to their knowledge and ability. This is often inconclusive because other factors, such as outside tutoring, also have an effect on learning and standardized tests are not a perfect gage of student ability. Teachers' bonuses and employee status are then determined by their judged value for the students. These measures have been deemed necessary by the No Child Left Behind Act which appropriates funding based on the success of the school in teaching. Though the federal government has no constitutional authority to control education, it has gained influence by making certain requirements for receiving federal funds. Do you think this value- added modeling is an accurate way of judging teachers? Does this assessment help or undermine the ideals of a valuable education? Should the federal government have such a large influence over an institution previously reserved for the states?
Responding to Katie and Mollie's discussion on Texas Court ruling against the permission of divorce amongst gay couples.
ReplyDeleteThe Constitution permits for all states to make laws that do not directly conflict with what has been established under the constitution and it gives each state their own sovereignty over the people within its jurisdiction. When ever the Federal Government tried to dictate that a certain state laws should be given special discretion from other states when citizens cross borders proved to be very controversial. One can look at the Fugitive Slave Laws and see how the northern and southern states conflicted with each other on such issues. No one likes to be subjugated to laws they do not desire nor voted for, so when Jody Scheske argued "that his client was entitled to a divorce because he had a valid marriage." he clearly did not take that into account.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/01/another-victory-for-the-tea-party-movement-and-palin/
ReplyDeleteI remember that at our first "class" at Mrs. Wulfing's house we had a quick discussion of the Tea Party.
This is a link I found on CNN about the Tea Party and how, it seems, Sarah Palin is a big advocate for this party. Also, Miller is wining big votes up in Alaksa as a Tea Party-er and it seems that the Party is getting very popular. Due in large part to Sarah Palin.
I was curious as, it appearred to me, Palin was almost made a big joke (on SNL, and in the tabloids) during her run along side McCain in 2008; and how her approval of this party will boost, or degrade, this party's image among the american people. Do we all see Palin as a role model and spokesman for a party on the brim of it's real beggining in America?
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/08/27/thailand.tiger/index.html?npt=NP1
ReplyDeleteOkay, whlie this story does take place in another country-it sparked me as interesting. This story is all about a Thai man, who was going through security on his way to Iran, and they found a two month old sedated tiger cub in his luggage. There are strict laws for the trade and killing of endangered animals; especially tigers.
I was curious, from all of you, why are there no amimal cruelty laws in the constitution? Or any laws at all that regard to animals-I realize the constitution is for the people, by the people. But animals are a man's best friend :)
I was just curious what you thought.
•http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38939407/ns/politics/
ReplyDeleteHere is a link regarding the current roadblocks to Obama’s federal healthcare reform. Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty directed state agencies to deny their participation in the reform, which instigated “roadblocks” for Obama’s cause. Essentially, Obama aims to provide health insurance to all American Citizens. While the issue on health care has been brought up before in the blog, do you feel it is right that Governor Tim Pawlenty wanted state agencies to deny participation in the healthcare reform? Also, do you feel the President has the right to require every American to purchase health care regardless of their financial situation? Are there any Constitutional provisions that support or go against this?
http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/01/what-exactly-did-u-s-gain-by-going-to-war-in-iraq/?iref=allsearch
ReplyDeleteAt the end of this piece is a question that asks "What exactly did America gain going into the war?"
It has been 7 years, 700 billion dollars, 4400 deaths, and 35000 injuries. And the government and safety of Iraq is quite similar if not worse than when we went it.
Obama tried to rejoice that we have gotten 100,000 troops out of there-but most of these men are getting pushed over to Iran; where the real terror and real pain will begin. Not to mention, there are still 50,000 troops in Iraq.
The war seems futile-it was. And my question is; as many other have stated (Connor and Chelsea); American support that fueled the war and the soliders has diminshed. People don't care, some don't even know. Personally-I have a 9 year old sister and she doesn't even know there is a war. While ignorance is bliss, it seems that the American people have left this war behind. And while there is no good coming out of it-it is curious to wonder what good AT ALL came out of this war.
People argue that Bush's whole plan for Iraq was to steal the oil and the money.
But, then why, is it that just now the troops are being allowed to leave Iraq and being forced to go to Iran.
It is just one bad war after another, with no obtainable goals and many deaths in the future.
I say, come home!
(If that didn't amke sense, I'm sorry. I was kind of went on a tangent there).
Do you think anything good came out of this war? And if so, do you think anything good will come out of Iran?
In response to Katie:
ReplyDeleteI completely disagree with the idea of value-added modeling. It is in no way an accurate tool to classify the effectiveness of teachers. The diversity in students makes such a system invalid. Factors such as work ethic, study habits, and situations outside of school are not taken into account when assessing each child. For example, a teacher who does not teach as well as another may be ranked higher simply due to naturally gifted kids who score high on the exam. This does not reflect the teacher’s efficiency in the classroom, but rather a group of kid’s motivation. Another instance would be if a perfectly capable teacher had a classroom full of children who simply lacked the drive to study and do well on tests. This teacher would then suffer the consequences, even if the best attempts were made to help the students. I also feel that this system undermines the ideals of a valuable education. I feel that classes have focused more of their attention on passing a test rather than actually learning the material. If a teacher’s salary and job rests on the ability of their students to pass a certain test, than more emphasis is placed on the test. While being able to pass the test suggests knowledge, it also suggests that certain parts of the learning material may have been overlooked. It is not just about the specificity of the knowledge, but rather being able to know a lot about as much as possible. In my opinion, teaching for the test undercuts every parent’s idea of a valuable education. In response to Katie’s question as to whether the federal government should have such a large influence over education, I actually feel that it is fair. While I understand every school is different in each state, one must also consider the fact that certain tests are administered throughout the nation. This being true, there has to be some level of connection and similarity between the states and their approaches towards education.
In response to Amanda's post on roadblocks for federal healthcare reform.
ReplyDeleteThe Government of the United States is based on a system of checks and balances that ensures the safety of the rights of the citizens. We often have the view that the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the government check each other, but what about the state and national government? Governor Tim Pawlenty is using his executive power of the state to ensure that the national government does not ignorantly cost his state more money than it is able to compensate for.
As for the requirement for the purchase of healthcare, I feel that Obama is over reaching the powers that a government possesses over the citizens. To me it seems that this goes against a persons natural right to property. A person should be able to dictate whether or not what they need to buy. To have a government that tells its citizens what to do with their wealth and property seems dictatorial.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100901/pl_nm/us_oil_spill_moratorium
ReplyDeleteDistrict Court Judge Martin Feldman blocked the Obama Administration and their off shore drilling ban they had implemented after the oil spill. Hornbeck filed a lawsuit against them after ordering a halt on deep water in the Gulf of Mexico. Feldman blocked the second drilling moratorium claiming it did not offer "substantial changes" from the first moratorium. Feldman put on hold the moratorium, because he believed that the administration did not consider the economic impact on the surrounding communities.
Should the federal government be able to halt businesses from the continuation of drilling because of one incident going awry. It is understandable for them to want to control the situation and ensure that no other problems could occur, however knowing the cost on the communities economically would it be wise to hinder the drilling companies?
In response to Chelsea's article of recording and video taping police officers, I do not believe interpreting the no wire tap laws should prohibit a person from the use of any recording device if it is on there person. Must people be purchasing concealed recorder permits as well as concealed weapons permit now. In response to the police being able to arrest Simon Gilk for the recording of a potential crime of police brutality, I find it odd that a witness could be charged for a recording they could use in court to prove their testimony before a judge.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jeremy:
ReplyDeleteWhether or not the Government should be allowed to halt business is not the issue, but rather does the constitution give the President the power to halt business he finds detrimental to our economy. The answer is a very thorough no, he doent have the right. The right to business is one that can be found in natural rights philosophy within property. That being said the business is the property of the owner and as long as what the owner is doing is not illegal, then he has the right to his business. If Congress passes a law that makes off shore drilling illegal then the business can be revoked on the grounds that it is breaking the law.
In response to Amandas post:
ReplyDeleteThe Constitutionality of Health care reform is one that is continously argued. The problem is that it can be taken from two sides. On the one hand you have the argument were helath Care is a form of Porperty and it must be protected. However, the flaws within that idea are that the Government would not be taking away their right to own property but rather, changing what property they can own. There is no difference between forcing someone to get a particular kind of insurance, and preventing the ownership of certain types of weapons and drugs. There are those that would argue they are different because the weapons affect others, but so does Health care. If one person has extremely good health care then they are cared for before someone with simply adequate health care. Therefore, those with good health care harm the survival chances of those that cant afford the most expensive tpe of health Care. Therefore, because their are laws passed restricting drugs and weapons, theere can also be laws passed on health Care.
In response to John and Jeremy:
ReplyDeleteAlthough John makes a good point that the Constitution does not give the President the right to halt business, it has to be considered that the oil spill is not an incident that we can afford to happen again. While it may be costly for the company to be unable to drill, the oil spill had such a negative affect on the environment and citizens of the surrounding area that the federal government has a right to step in and prevent further mistakes in any way they know how. While it endangers the safety of the environment and even United States citizens, the government should have the right to stop businesses from further damage.
In response to Angela: I don't think the war overseas is pointless. After 9/11, Bush and the government saw that it was necessary to send troops overseas to demonstrate America's power and show that a terrorist attack would not be ignored. Also, while this is controversial, the United States has helped Iraq move forward. No longer are the people oppressed by religious extremists such as the Taliban, and they are now beginning to form their own successful government. Other important changes include changes for women, as many now can get an education. While America has paid a huge price for the war, it has not been a waste of money and American soldiers.
ReplyDeleteIn response to John to Amanda; the claim that the healthcare debate is a two-sided issue is a controversy in itself, firstly I do not believe that any majority party views healthcare as a sort of property, but rather an individuals rights, the right for a citizen to make healthcare a personal decision rather than a federal decision. Johns assessment of the similarity between healthcare is correct in nature but for the wrong reasons, some would state it much more like this: Telling someone that they must buy healthcare and use it if sick, is like telling someone that they must buy a gun, and use it if someone breaks into their house. While neither point of view is wrong inherently; government should have not the right to demand people to pay money for something they don't feel they need-just like it isn't mandatory to own a toothebrush even though if you don't your teeth could rot.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/30/glenn.beck.rally.monday/index.html?npt=NP1
ReplyDeleteThe article talks about the Christian Radical leader Glenn Beck, who recently staged a rally at the lincoln memorial. The event is inspiring for some, but a great dissapointment for those who consider it to be a washed up, and superficial recreation of the "I Have a Dream" speech by MLK Jr. This is a prime example of First Amendment rights be flexed by a very opionionated group, its encouraging to see people gathering and exercising freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. Regardelss fo whether or not the actions were grass roots or a complete sham; like the Snuggie.
http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20100901/US.Illegal.Immigration/
ReplyDeleteThis link is about statistics revealing that illegal immigration in the United States is declining, and has dcreased by eight percent since 2007. Reasons for this include the bad economy and encreased enforcement making it harder to cross the border. It is ironic that such information comes during the continuation of the bitter debate about Arizona's immigration law, which is now being challenged in federal court.
Why is illegal immigration such a hot topic in the news while it is actually decreasing?
Does this new statistic change anyone's opinion of Arizona's strict immigration law?
http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-politics/20100901/US.US.Iraq/
ReplyDeleteThis article talks about Vice President Joe Biden's announcement to network news shows that he's confident Iraq will slowly transition into a stable country, now that the U.S. combat role there has ended. While he did acknowledge that the United States owed it to troops to make sure the transition worked, he continued to say that it was time to "turn the page." He then hopefully talked about the time and money spent on the war to instead be spent on America's economic issues.
Are the factions of Iraq rady to come together and form a stable government independent of America's help?
Is the economy the most important thing America should be focusing on right now?
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/31/bergen.iraq.results/index.html
ReplyDeleteAccording to Peter Bergan the war in Iraq was a failure. Although the Iraqi people were liberated Bergan points out that America was fighting a war on terrorism. Since the war he started he points out that terrorist attacks have increased.
Do you believe that the war in Iraq is a failure?
Was fighting against terrorism in Iraq worth the increased attacks throughout the world?
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/17/rodriguez.14th.amendment/index.html?iref=allsearch#fbid=jX2ufD3Dg4Q&wom=false
ReplyDeleteHere is an interesting link regarding debates on a possible amendment to the constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment grants citizenship to anyone born in the United States. When our nation was founded and was full of European immigrants and slaves imported from Africa, this clause was crucial to both the growth of the nation and the existence of slavery. Now however, it seems that this clause is sometimes taken advantage of. A recently arising problem is that illegal immigrants from Mexico are said to have come to American hospitals to give birth to their children, thus making their children American citizens. However, the application of the Fourteenth amendment is disputed in this instance due to a number of factors. First, should this right apply when the parents came to America illegally? And secondly, how can the government justify using tax-payers dollars to provide medical care for mothers who are here illegally? There was a clear need for this clause in the past when huge numbers of immigrants were arriving here, but due to changed circumstances and the issue of illegal immigration, should this clause be evolved to match our ever-changing American society?
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/08/copyright-troll-expanding/
ReplyDeleteThis article reveals a Newspapers attempt to sue many bloggers for posting their articles on their blogs. This brings up several questions that are difficult to interpret within the Constitution, because it existed before the internet. Is the Newspaper in its legal rights to sue a blogger because he posted an article? What amendments need to be made to the Constitution to incorporate the virtual world we live in?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129553748&ps=cprs
ReplyDeleteThis article explains that a man was charged with a felony for recording himself being arrested. Although it is legal to video tape police officers in some states it is illegal to audio record them. The article points out that if the government can record citizens, should people have the right to record the government. However Mark Donahue states that allowing audio recording would impede police work as they would have to worry about people constantly watching them.
Should people have the right to reocord the government?
If the recordings are legal, is it fair to obstruct government officials?
@John
ReplyDeleteIf the newspaper has given the blogger explict permission to express his blogs on their website then he is within his own right to do so. However, since he has not garnered the consent of the newpaper to express his opinionated articles then the newspaper is quite within his legal bounds to sue him. The purpose of the newspaper to come across with their views and their articles not for the bloggers to use.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2010/09/kerry_applauds.html
ReplyDeleteThis article talks about palestinian and israel peace. The two sides have been fighting for a very long time and kill many people with their weekly attacks and counter attacks.
Do you believe that the isreali government should cede some of their land for the palestinians or should they keep denying the palestinians of their once held land?
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2010/08/excerpts_from_p.html
ReplyDeleteThis article is on how President obama has officialy announced the complete withdraw of combat oriented troops in Iraq.
Do you believe that the troops should have stayed in Iraq to completley irradicate the terrorists or that sending the troops home would be a more fruitful-endevor?
I think that some changes need to be made to the fourteenth amendment however they should be limited. I believe that people born in the United States should still be granted citizenship because this was the founding fathers intent. Also the fourteenth amendment allows for the continuation of our country’s diversity. However I don’t think that the children of illegal immigrants should be legal citizens. Changing the fourteenth amendment to allow only the children of legal immigrants to become citizens might help to lessen illegal immigration.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/08/facebook-owns-book/
ReplyDeleteThis article deals with facebook suing another web site called Teachbook for using the book in its name.The argument is that the new site is using Facebook's name for its own good. Now several questions arise from this problem. How far does the protection of property go? Are issues surrounding the internet to be handled by the Supreme Court due to the different state issues?
In response to Amy and Amanda’s comments about the recent aviation safety legislation: I agree that it is important to have experienced pilots flying our commercial planes but I am not sure that increasing training by six times will achieve this result. It is clearly established the pilot involved in the particular crash that sparked this legislation was not adequately qualified to fly commercially. However, in the majority of situations, I believe airlines hire better qualified individuals than this man. Furthermore, this particular crash is likely due to his lack of training, but I recently read that most airline crashes can be attributed to one of two things. First, a combination of little things going wrong can make a crash more likely to happen. One of these things alone would not necessarily cause a crash, but make accidents more likely when combined with other factors. For example, having poor weather, a tired pilot, or an unfamiliar route can easily be adjusted for individually, but all together are more likely to cause a problem. The other situation that causes increased crashes is poor communication. In the past, Korean Air has had a very high number of crashes. Analysis has shown that this is because the Korean culture is very much instilled with respect for one’s superiors. For this reason, co-pilots would not feel comfortable being assertive about situations going on with the aircraft, but would only hint to the pilot if things weren’t right. After the airline began having employees use English to communicate, the social barriers were removed, therefore communication improved and crashes were greatly reduced. Since these two factors are more likely the cause of the majority of aircrafts, increasing training by six times will not necessarily reduce accidents. However, I believe that more training cannot hurt and it would be important to educate pilots about how most plane crashes occur. The Continental crash may have been due to the pilot’s lack of training, but this doesn’t mean all pilots are under qualified.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Luke regarding the plan to withdraw troops from Iraq;
ReplyDeleteYou asked in one of your questions if you believe the US should stay their until we fully eradicate the terrorists, or would it be better to withdraw our troops.
In response to your question, I do not know if now is the time to withdraw the troops, but it is not for the reason we need to eradicate the terrorists. The problem with the type of insurgent troops we face is that they cannot simply be "eradicated," and to even presume we could come close to eradicating them is, in my view, simply unrealistic. The problem we face with this enemy, is it is very hard to tell any of them apart from the regular citizens until already in combat, and there are unfeasible numbers of them. As long as the system of the Taliban exists, so will the specific terrorists, and they cannot be stopped merely by an invasion. Now that this cycle has begun, the only way to help it is to arm the Iraqi's so that they may possibly have the military power to help take care of the problem from the inside. The problem with this, however, is this is how the Taliban got started when we armed them to help fight off the communist russians during the Cold War, and thus we enter another cycle.
Now to answer your question regarding full withdraw, I do not believe that now is the time to discuss taking all troops out of Iraq. I do not necessarily believe we ever should have gone in the first place, but now that we have gone in and attempted to establish a form of order as well as brought many allies in, it is our responsibility to see it through as best we can and to avoid leaving the country in our own brought upon chaos. Yes, we should withdraw troops wherever they may not be needed anymore, but a full withdraw would only be leaving the country in arguably worse condition then when we arrived there.
In response to Rina
ReplyDeleteEven though illegal immigration has been declining I consider it to be such a hot topic because of the controversial Arizona immigration law. The amount of illegal immigrants has been dropping but there are still many people crossing the border. I also believe that it is possible for the illegal immigration rate to rise once the economy gets better. I think that the Arizona law was created even with the decline of illegal immigrants because officials felt that the federal law was not being enforced. So they needed to impose their own law to stop the illegal aliens, no matter how many attempted to cross.
In response to John's article regarding blogger's posting articles from the newspaper:
ReplyDeleteThe article is fairly unclear about how the bloggers exactly are using the articles, whether or not they site the newspaper properly and what-not, but especially if they are not siting the newspaper properly then they have full right to sue the bloggers.
This does not mean, however, that I agree with the laws put in place that allow them to to so. If the bloggers are siting the newspaper properly, then they should be able to use the articles to help further their own points, as long as they do not claim the article's information as their own.
One primary fear of the newspaper would be then people could just read the blogs and no longer need to buy their papers, but I believe a complete opposite affect would happen. I believe that if the people reading the blog see an article they like sited in a blog, they are far more likely to go out and purchase the paper as a whole for themselves. In this way, the blogs themselves act almost as advertisements in support of the blogs, and will ultimately help bring in more money and purchases for the newspaper company, and is, I believe, a much better method then suing your own loyal costumers.
A similar controversy has been very apparent throughout the music industry, and primarily the case involving Napster.
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-245828.html
Similar to this case, sites such as Napster allow music to be swapped for free over the internet, with the music industry claiming to be losing millions.
On one hand, many argue that swapping free music allows the people an easy way to discover new music, and are in turn more likely to buy more CD's, whereas the other argues the opposite.
How does this controversy relate to the constitution and how can the constitution be amended, if need be, to resolve such a complex issue? Can a truly pure art form such as music be classified under the law similarly as say, a newspaper article when it comes to ownership?
http://www.silive.com/eastshore/index.ssf/2010/06/backers_of_staten_island_mosqu.html
ReplyDeleteWe all know the common controversy of the Mosque being built near the site of 9/11, but now all over the country this controversy can be seen, with people opposing the creation of Mosques in general, regardless of location.
While the first amendment clearly allows for freedom of speech, it also clearly allows for freedom of religion, and states that the government cannot favor one religion over any other.
My question is, if a group of people is utilizing their freedom of speech, given to them by the bill of rights, in order to attempt to make laws taking away others rights given to them in the bill of rights, should they be allowed to do so with no limit, or must a limit be put in place on their freedoms to preserve the freedoms of others? Are they allowed to continue pushing for reform of something that is basically set in stone within the constitution?
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/capital_punishment/index.html
ReplyDeleteHere is an interesting article about the current status of the death penalty in America. I think that capital punishment should be eliminated in our society. The death penalty is mostly used in cases where an individual has causes the death of one or more other citizens. Some people believe that it is only fair for the criminal to die as well. However this logic doesn’t always make sense. If a child stole something from a store, his parents wouldn’t steal something from him to punish him. Punishments should not reflect the same behavior that is being disciplined; a good example should be set instead. A further argument is that in some cases, it is discovered years later that the party considered guilty is innocent after all. If an individual has already received the death penalty, there is no way for them to be repaid for this injustice. What are your views on the death penalty? Is it fair to give punishments equal to crimes committed? Or should alternate punishments be given for these types of cases?
In response to Angela regarding Healthcare,
ReplyDeleteYou act as if healthcare is a right of the American people. It is most definitely not. If it were a right then it would be mentioned in, say, the Constitution maybe? Or the Bill of Rights? Healthcare in fact is a privilege. I assume that you, or at least your family, as some sort of health insurance. My family does too. The fact is, Americans that have it take it for granted. As a result, Americans that cannot afford to have it feel cheated. Again, the fact of the mater is that Americans have a right to healthcare *If they can afford it*. That being said, the government cannot deny us healthcare if we can pay for it. Your assessment that government cannot force it upon us is correct. The US Government is increasingly becoming a "Nanny State." That is, the government is overstepping its boundaries and strapping regulations on to just about everything. That is the real problem. Would you agree?
You also mentioned Glenn Beck as a "Christian Radical Leader." I do not agree that it was a superficial reenactment of Martin Luther's speech. Mr. Beck claims that it was a coincidence that his rally fell on the anniversary of Luther's speech. That point is probably debatable. Thats not what I wish to talk about though. I was wondering, was this worth posting? We can find an example of "First Amendment rights being flexed" just about anywhere. Let's start by being accurate. Glenn is extremely common sense. More so than just about any news figure. That makes him seem radical. Radical however is the incorrect term. He is most definitely not liberal, and radical would be the term applied to a far-left activist. Glenn is more conservative. Being an activist, he could be classified as reactionary. I however would not call him either. He is more of an activist for common sense, and smaller government. I don't agree with everything he says, but most of his assessments of the state of the American political system are spot-on. Would you agree with that as well? To agree, you would have to actually read some of his work without any preconceived notions of his activism.
In response to Emily about the death penalty.
ReplyDeleteIt appears that there is no limitation to the death penalty in the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment mentions the death penalty without restricting it. Consequently, it seems like an issue of States' rights then...each state can decide whether or not to have the death penalty or not. As for punishment equal to a crime, it seems that logically it would make sense to deter a person from committing that crime.
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/July/10-opa-776.html
ReplyDeleteThe federal government has sovereignty in terms of laws regarding immigration. But, if the Arizona law doesn't go against any of the federal immigration laws, then the federal government has no authority over it, does it?
This article suggests that the Arizona law interferes with federal apprehension of higher valued targets. But if it is a state law, then only state resources will be used, right? so the feds can just keep catching terrorists while the Arizonian police catch illegal immigrants.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36001783/
ReplyDeleteThe State attorney generals are arguing that the government has no right to require citizens to buy something.
But the feds are already doing that with Social Security.
And isn't that what taxes are anyway? we are buying roads, buying police etc...
Congress has the power to tax the people to "provide for the general Welfare of the United States". Also, the commerce clause, used by the state attorney generals to argue against mandatory health insurance, gives Congress the power to regulate commerce. And health care is a massive industry. If people don't have health insuarnce but need care, then taxpayers pay for it anyway. so why not make them pay for it themselves?
Responding to Emily Pierre.
ReplyDeleteI really like the analogy you used about the young child stealing and the parents doing the same to him as he had done. However, capital punishment is one of those topics where it is very easy to agree and completely understand both points of view.
I completely agree with what you're saying Emily. Why would we do to them what they have done to others? By doing so it brings the government to their level. An argument that I have often heard is that without the death penalty prisons would start to get over crowded with criminals. Although, I don't think that most people realize that in 2008 only 37 people were executed and in 2009 only 51. These numbers are so small that there will not be a noticable difference in occupancy.
here is a link that I encourage you to look through.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions-united-states
-After looking through this website do you think this system is really the best choice for the United States?
-How do you think things would change if capital punishment no longer existed?
Replying to Luke regarding the removal of troops in Irag.
ReplyDeleteTo answer your first question...
Terrorism is something that could never be irradicated. This so called "war" that we have been fighting has had very little to do with terrorism. However, the majority of Americans were scared into believing this war was really about terrorism in the first place which then gave George Bush the support he wanted. I'm not saying that terrorism doesn't exist, just that it was not the main concern for George Bush at the time.
Even though President Obama has stated that the troops will be coming out of iraq and that the war is over, I believe that we will still be there for a long time for reasons other then terrorism.
Responding to Kathryn:
ReplyDeleteI believe that the "war on terrorism" was a failure. Like I previously said in my last response, terrorism is something that can not be destroyed. Therefore, the second George bush ordered the troops to begin the war we had already failed. In this article they talk about the intelligence finding out that Saddam was not an ally of the al queda like George Bush had insisted in the beginning of the war. However, this wasn't the only thing that George Bush had mistaken from the beginning. One of his major topics of conversation was that we needed to fight this war to get rid of the weapons of mass destruction which never existed in the first place as the intelligence agencies found out later on. This is one of the many mistakes that were made before this war even broke ground. This article proves the lack of weapons of mass destruction.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0317-03.htm
Do you think Bush knew all along there were no such things as weapons of mass destruction?
What do you think the real reason was for the "war on terrorism"?
http://www.points2shop.com/?ref=uin1300704543
ReplyDeleteTake a look at my gnarly profile in ROBLOX, a FREE online virtual world
ReplyDelete