I agree that this past years presidential campaigning has gotten a little out of hand, with the opponents constantly trash talking about each other, especially in the democratic race. They would rather be disrespectful than being a representative and acting like a true leader. I do disagree, however, that there has been government intervention in the campaign on the social site "Facebook."
Facebook originated in 2004, and has become one of the most popular, and widely recognized social networks in the world. People from all over the world can interact with each other, and share different opinions on world issues while never even meeting. I don't believe that the news and groups on Facebook is government mediation, rather just the people voicing their opinions and trying to find out other people's thoughts on different issues. It is the right of any person in the world to assert issues that they feel are important, and to have their beliefs heard.
Original Editorial: http://governmentblogger.blogspot.com/2008/06/presidential-campaigning-gone-too-far.html
Monday, June 30, 2008
Friday, June 27, 2008
Should they get the Death Penalty?
A recent debate on Capital Hill is whether or not child rapists can be given the death penalty. The house just voted and decided that they were not going to pass the law that would have made that possible. I completely disagree with this decision, not just because rape is illegal and a hideous act, but because of the immorality of someone who would commit such a crime.
Most recently in the house "Jessica's Law" was passed, which made a minimum sentence of fifteen years in prison for aggrivated rape of a child sixteen years old or less. I even disagree that this is too small of a minimum sentence. I feel that something like rape, especially that of an innocent child, should be a sentence of life in prison or death. There is no justification for commiting a crime like rape, and there should not be a "minimal" penalty. Every person that breaks that law should suffer the worst penalty possible, death.
Most recently in the house "Jessica's Law" was passed, which made a minimum sentence of fifteen years in prison for aggrivated rape of a child sixteen years old or less. I even disagree that this is too small of a minimum sentence. I feel that something like rape, especially that of an innocent child, should be a sentence of life in prison or death. There is no justification for commiting a crime like rape, and there should not be a "minimal" penalty. Every person that breaks that law should suffer the worst penalty possible, death.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Was it the woman or the Clinton?
I have heard conversations and arguments about the reason why Hillary Clinton lost the Democratic presidential nominee race. One that has come up the most and surprised me by far, is she lost because she is a woman. I couldn't disagree with this statement more. If you honestly believe that people were casting their vote based on the sex of the nominee, you need to rethink the real issues in politics. It's about what candidate can and mostly fully fulfill the duties as president. Its about policies, and goals, and where they think they can take the country during their term. Politics isn't based on equality, its based on the ability's of a person.
I feel the reason why Hillary Clinton lost, is the past history of her last name. The President of the United States is supposed to be a representative of every American person in the public. Who wants someone representing them that is knowingly sleeping around, and not taking his job seriously? Who wants a representative that lies to you under oath? We've already had one bad Clinton represent the American people in office, why would we want two?
I feel the reason why Hillary Clinton lost, is the past history of her last name. The President of the United States is supposed to be a representative of every American person in the public. Who wants someone representing them that is knowingly sleeping around, and not taking his job seriously? Who wants a representative that lies to you under oath? We've already had one bad Clinton represent the American people in office, why would we want two?
Are we getting our rights?
In the Supreme Court now there is a case pending on the legality of a gun sweep throughout the United States. The main question and concern is would it be impending on our second amendment rights to bear arms. The right to bear arms has been a long standing issue on capital hill, particularly the debate to allow concealed handgun licenses (CHL).
I feel that it is a natural right to bear arms, whether it be for pleasure or protection. Many people depend on a rifle to feed their families. There is a natural right to protect yourself and those who surround you as well. I do understand the argument against concealed handgun licenses, however I don't believe that they are not needed. There are a lot of people who would have no way of defending themselves in particular situations without a handgun. My best friend's father got a gun pointed at him in his work parking lot when he was getting into his truck. He let the man get in and the pulled out his own gun and shot his front tire out and pointed it the man who was trying to steal it. The guy dropped his gun and ran off. If he hadn't had his CHL he would have gotten his truck stolen, and would not have been able to do anything about it.
The right to bear arms has been a mantra of this country since its very beginnings. To defend farms and cattle men always had a rifle at their side in the plains. The Indians developed strict tactical methods and weaponry to defend their villages. The natural instinct to be capable of defending ourselves has been around for thousands of years, meaning its not going to leave us now in the modern day.
I feel that it is a natural right to bear arms, whether it be for pleasure or protection. Many people depend on a rifle to feed their families. There is a natural right to protect yourself and those who surround you as well. I do understand the argument against concealed handgun licenses, however I don't believe that they are not needed. There are a lot of people who would have no way of defending themselves in particular situations without a handgun. My best friend's father got a gun pointed at him in his work parking lot when he was getting into his truck. He let the man get in and the pulled out his own gun and shot his front tire out and pointed it the man who was trying to steal it. The guy dropped his gun and ran off. If he hadn't had his CHL he would have gotten his truck stolen, and would not have been able to do anything about it.
The right to bear arms has been a mantra of this country since its very beginnings. To defend farms and cattle men always had a rifle at their side in the plains. The Indians developed strict tactical methods and weaponry to defend their villages. The natural instinct to be capable of defending ourselves has been around for thousands of years, meaning its not going to leave us now in the modern day.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Out of Iraq
I believe the United States national government needs to set up a five year plan to get out of Iraq and stick to it. I know that we have started to try and set up a democratic system of government there, holding elections and having public officials voted by the people, but why is the government so dependent on U.S. forces to help maintain peace and order? Right now I believe the United States has too much influence on the government. I feel that we are trying to force something onto a country that has been forced in the recent past to abide to an autocratic leader's every wish. We in a way are forcing our beliefs and political views on a society that has never had freedom of choice in their entire lives. Why cant we let the people in Iraq choose their own system of government?
I also feel that the men and women of the United States military are also suffering from our government's choice to stay in Iraq. Tours of duty are being doubled and tripled for some regiments, and I think that is hindering the effectiveness of our troops. Without the comforts of home and family, moral starts to drop, and the drive of the soldiers lowers as well. I think that there needs to be shorter deployments for troops, so that revived men and women can go back overseas to help fight, rather than tired and lonesome soldiers staying.
We need to get out of Iraq as quickly as possible because the longer we stay the more dependant the government will be on our national government to assist in regulations and safety of the public.
I also feel that the men and women of the United States military are also suffering from our government's choice to stay in Iraq. Tours of duty are being doubled and tripled for some regiments, and I think that is hindering the effectiveness of our troops. Without the comforts of home and family, moral starts to drop, and the drive of the soldiers lowers as well. I think that there needs to be shorter deployments for troops, so that revived men and women can go back overseas to help fight, rather than tired and lonesome soldiers staying.
We need to get out of Iraq as quickly as possible because the longer we stay the more dependant the government will be on our national government to assist in regulations and safety of the public.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Stage Six
If the country began to set up new oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico it would cause in instant increase in pollution. That increase would kill more fish, harm the natural habitats and coral reefs, and risk extinction for some species that live in close proximity to the wells. I think that it is an absurd idea to knowingly increase the amount of pollution in the largest body of water on the face of the planet.
I don't disagree that oil and gas prices have become ridiculous, but I think that this time period of constantly increasing prices will be a short one. Automobile sales are at a ten year all-time low. More people are starting to use public transportation, or carpool and make gas more efficient. Other people find other means like bicycles, scooters, or electric vehicles that use little or no gas to react to rising oil prices. Companies are becoming more "green" and starting to recycle, or use recycled products. Most people are doing their part to conserve energy to avoid rising prices.
I believe that this will be a short time period of inflation and rising prices in the trade market, and eventually end up back in a stable economy. With reasonable prices and more effecient ways of conserving energy and the natural resources needed for the world to operate, the world will be a cooperating community working together to make living affordable. I don't believe there is a true need to drill off the shores in the gulf, because it will just cause competition and prices to keep increasing.
I don't disagree that oil and gas prices have become ridiculous, but I think that this time period of constantly increasing prices will be a short one. Automobile sales are at a ten year all-time low. More people are starting to use public transportation, or carpool and make gas more efficient. Other people find other means like bicycles, scooters, or electric vehicles that use little or no gas to react to rising oil prices. Companies are becoming more "green" and starting to recycle, or use recycled products. Most people are doing their part to conserve energy to avoid rising prices.
I believe that this will be a short time period of inflation and rising prices in the trade market, and eventually end up back in a stable economy. With reasonable prices and more effecient ways of conserving energy and the natural resources needed for the world to operate, the world will be a cooperating community working together to make living affordable. I don't believe there is a true need to drill off the shores in the gulf, because it will just cause competition and prices to keep increasing.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Will We Have our 1st African-American President?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/04/obama.nominee/index.html
Barack Obama could possibly be the first African-American President in United States history. On Tuesday when Hillary Clinton dropped out of the Democratic presidential race, Obama officially clenched the Democratic nomination for the presidency. Bill Clinton had a strong following from his presidency, helping support his presidential hopeful wife, Hillary. Obama revealed during his campaign that he sometimes believed that he was fighting for the votes from his opponent's husband rather than her. Many questions were raised as to the abilities of Obama, his experience, his lack of directness, his race, but all have been overcome at this point. He has proved every critic wrong and become the presidential nominee. But coming back to the "1st African-American President," means that in today's day and age we are still caring about race. I feel that too much of this Democratic primary has been focused on race relations, and not enough on the specific topics relating to the American public. Shouldn't by this point in the time of "unity and equality," we not look at race or religion, but rather just the abilities of the candidate?!
Barack Obama could possibly be the first African-American President in United States history. On Tuesday when Hillary Clinton dropped out of the Democratic presidential race, Obama officially clenched the Democratic nomination for the presidency. Bill Clinton had a strong following from his presidency, helping support his presidential hopeful wife, Hillary. Obama revealed during his campaign that he sometimes believed that he was fighting for the votes from his opponent's husband rather than her. Many questions were raised as to the abilities of Obama, his experience, his lack of directness, his race, but all have been overcome at this point. He has proved every critic wrong and become the presidential nominee. But coming back to the "1st African-American President," means that in today's day and age we are still caring about race. I feel that too much of this Democratic primary has been focused on race relations, and not enough on the specific topics relating to the American public. Shouldn't by this point in the time of "unity and equality," we not look at race or religion, but rather just the abilities of the candidate?!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)