If it aint broke, don't fix it

 In reviewing on of my classmate's blogs, I came across this article titled, "To Attack or to not Attack." I really like how Melissa handled this issue and I feel the she presented some great points. Please take the time to read her article, as I feel this is a great point of view on how we should handle foreign scuffles with other countries.

I like Melissa's point of view in the issue on the tension between Iran and the US. Her opinion on the matter reminds me of the phrase, "if it aint broke, don't fix it." Such an attack on Iran to protect Israel is sure to muster up a world of chaos United States that it is not ready to handle. Barely having emerged from the war in Iraq, our country doesn't have the finances, soldiers, or the confidence to enter into another scuffle. 

As Melissa noted, although Iran is threatening to make an attack on Israel, they aren't showing signs of intense preparation. Knowing that there's a possibility of an attack on our ally, I feel that we need to prepare ourselves for a confrontation if the situation arises, but we should not be the opponent to cast the first stone.

Melissa's second point is a great one that I hadn't even though of and its a large part of the reason why the United States should try to avoid this confrontation altogether. She states that, "the war will not only be with Iran." Considering the allies of Iran, this could end up being a giant war over something that could have been solved by negations and peace treaties. 

Overall, I stand firmly with Melissa on the issue and I feel that she made some wonderful points to consider. While we need to protect our allies, we must also look out for the well-being of our own nation. In order to avoid confrontation, the United States needs to tread lightly and avoid stepping on any toes, while at the same time asserting that it will protect Isreal if attacks are made by Iran. 

Wiretapping - Is it really that bad?

Ever since the public was enlightened to the wiretapping fiasco surrounding the Bush presidency after the terrorist attacks on September 11, people have been quick to shun the idea of wiretapping as if it were the black plague. Critics claim that wiretapping is an invasion of privacy and that it violates our rights as citizens, but in reality wiretapping does much more good than harm.
Following the attacks on September 11, the Bush administration made efforts to help secure our nation from within. One of those efforts included trying to pass a bill referred to as FISA (Foreign Intellegence Surveillance Act) that would allow wiretapping to monitor the conversations of US citizens via phone. Three amendments were presented and then denied by the House and Senate. Determined to push this amendment through legislation, the Bush administration tried one more time, and their bill was approved, allowing wiretapping between the years of 2001 and 2007 to monitor private phone conversations.
When the bill passed, critics were in awe. Many citizens felt that the idea of the government eavesdropping on their personal conversations was not only daunting, but scary. Others took the bill more personally and insisted that it was a complete violation of their rights. Former Vice President, Al Gore, expressed his distaste for Bush and his new amendment in a public speech by saying, "the President of the United States has been breaking the law repeatedly and consistently," by permitting wiretapping in this country. Even our own current President has changed his point of view on wiretapping. Previously, Obama advocated that he was against the FISA bill and that he would fight against it. However now, he is supporting the bill, despite the widespread criticism he is getting for changing his views. Its possible that he now sees the potential for this amendment as well.
Although Bush was nowhere being our greatest President, I feel that he did make amateur efforts to pass this bill with good intentions. The government wasn't making efforts to gather secret intel about grandma's secret recipe, or the latest gossip around Valley High School. The government could care less about such petty information.
In reality, the government was aiming to protect our nation, by guarding itself against people from within. By monitoring phone conversations, the government opened itself up to a new world of information. If even one of those phone conversations revealed any hint of another future terrorist attack, they would likely be able to control or at least buffer the situation. So in reality, wiretapping had the potential to save countless lives. And at what cost to us - nothing. In this situation, we must ask ourselves, is giving up a little privacy worth possibly saving thousands of American lives? Absolutely.

Political bloopers aren't just funny - They make us look stupid

When I first started reading my classmate's blog about a political blooper, my immediate first though was "Awesome, another rambling student complaining about our national nominees because of a simple slip-up." However as I read on I was pleased to read that this wasn't simply about political blunders or debate bloopers, but rather the impression that these people are making as our leaders. 

So Santorum made a live TV oopsie, big deal. But when we look at the big picture of all of these "oopsies" played out by our soon-to-be leaders, I'm left in awe at the stupidity of some of these people. Apparently Obama thinks that there's 57 states in the United States. Apperantly Dan Quale believes that Pheonix is in California. I understand that when giving a speech, these men are under a load of pressure. They are given long scripts and are expected to read them with accuracy. I get it, mistakes happen. 

However, when other countries start making fun of your own country because your political leader can't speak proper grammar on live television, you become the laughing stock of the world. It is at this point, that we must take a look at who we are allowing to run our country and reconsider the situation.

This student gives some great ideas on how we can help fight this stupidity that seems to be leading our nation into an unfair game of dodgeball, in which we are the nerds, targets of comedy in the eyes of more literate countries. Just as others have suggested, he suggests that we implement government participation, "a civil service to ensure our continued prosperity." He points out that we currently pay Congress hearty salaries for a few weeks or work out of the year in which they seem to make little progress. Those salaries need to be reduced, and the duties should be placed partially in the hands of the citizens. I agree that we need common men, who are part of our local communities to bring some down-to-earth knowledge to the political arena. This student isn't just encouraging us to vote because our votes matter, he's encouraging us to vote for the sake of our nation. We can't leave it all up to the politicians, who have a hard time remembering the number of the states in this nation. I agree, we need to take some initiative to ensure that our country stays successful.

So you want health care like in Canada? They can't even pronounce their letter "O"

One of the hottest topics in politics today is how to handle our country's health care. In an effort to try to solve the health care crisis, which has left many citizens with huge medical debts, some people argue that the US should adopt a form of health care like that of Canada. Supporters say that widespread health care that can be accessed by everyone will make society healthier and less likely to be left with medical debts. Advocate, Donald Trump, acknowledged that "doctors might be paid less than they are now, as is the case in Canada, but they would be able to treat more patients because of their reduced paperwork." 

I'm sorry to say that Canada's system of health care is not our answer. In fact, its a system what we should steer clear of at all cost. Increased numbers of health care services would lead to longer lines, less quality doctors, and an overall decline in the efficiency of our medical services. The increased numbers of people utilizing the medical services would overload the health care system, causing it to fail. In the case of Shona Holmes, a Canadian resident, she was failed by her country's system. After learning that she had a tumor in her brain, she sought immediate attention to have it removed before it caused fatal blindness. Sadly, the doctors in Canada were ultimately too busy treating the massive amounts of other patients who were exercising their right to free health care. She was put on a waiting list and it was estimated that she could be seen in 4-6 months. In an attempt to save her own live, Shona came to the US where she had to pay out of pocket for the procedure to have her brain tumor removed. "Thats the stuff I find so tragic - having dinner with my friends and I know how much money I owe them," she says with tears.

This is a prime example of why we cannot put our faith in a system of health care that will provide equal service to anyone and everyone. I hate to be the pessimist, but this is a world that lives on the survival of the fittest theory. While better health care is a step forward, free health care for everyone is not our answer. Our country simply cannot handle such a strain, and a free health care system will only fail us in the end. 

Obama: I don't like you, but I trust you

I came across this blog and my first thought was "This is another one of these Obama's making the world a better place blogs, isn't it?"To my surprise, there was actually some thought behind what this lady said. She wasn't just waving her red, white, and blue flag of hope with Obama's face pasted all over it. She seemed to present her ideas in a level manner, which would probably appeal to most audiences. She didn't come across as biased, like myself, but rather informative. Although I can't account for the credibility of the author, Heather Taylor, I believe there's some meat-and-potatoes to what she's got to say. From various polls and surveys, Tayor collected information that clearly suggested, people want to see Obama's clean energy plan. He won us over with his hope and change preaching, but now we need to actually see what's going on in that dome head of his. Although as a nation we all agree "clean energy is better," we need to know why and at what cost will clean energy be beneficial. Obama didn't explain that the Keystone Pipeline would only create 2500 jobs and that it would cause a significant increase in gas prices. As voters, we want to hear the whole story and not just the glitz and glamour of their ideas. We need to know it all, the dirty and bad information that could potentially affect us down the road. Simply stating the obvious isn't going to get us anywhere. Spreading the knowledge about the effects of his plan will at least get the ball rolling. Heather Taylor seems to have the same point of view as me, where we agree with progress, but we want to know more about it. Lets hear the game plan, Obama!

Police Questioning: Are they Interrogating or Performing Inception?

I'm sure most of us have seen the television show "Law & Order," a dramatic crime series that bases its episodes on the twisting patterns of events that make up the crime in New York. In nearly every episode, the main characters sit down with a suspect in the interrogation room and drill them for answers: "Where were you that night? What happened to the girl? Did you kill her?" In most cases, the suspect is frightened, as he should be since his future is now hanging in the balance of the NYPD detectives. When the suspect begins to spill information, we usually take what they say at face value. However, what happens when they admit to committing a murder for which they are not responsible. At that point in time it may seem like the best idea to confess, since that's what they detectives are hoping for - a confession.

In an article by David K Shipler in the New York Times newspaper, Shipler expresses his concerns about these false confessions and how numerous they may in fact be.The Innosense Project has determined that 24% of the 289 convictions that were overturned by DNA analysis, were in fact proved to be false confessions. So we ask ourselves, why do these suspects admit to these crimes of such severity? Shipler things that a lot of it has to do with age or mental maturity. People with mental disorders or social anxiety, as well as younger children were more apt to falsely confess under immense pressure. Some mature adults have also falsely confessed but their numbers are slightly less. Shipler also believes that the way in which officers are permitted to interrogate their suspects is also a reason for the disturbing number of false confessions. Officers are permitted to use tricks such as "mentioning" miranda rights in normal speech, rather than directly reading them to their suspects, making their rights appear less evident. Officers are also allowed to lie to their suspects by doing things such as presenting false fingerprints as evidence to the suspect to convince them that they have been caught. Such actions can cause a suspect, whom is already under immense stress, to crack under the pressure. In efforts to avoid being tortured or harmed, Shipler believes that many false confessions were made out of fear. 

In order to reduce the numbers of false confessions, Shipler suggests that we do away with these loop holes that officers are attempting to make to convince suspects of their guilt. He suggests that by clearly explaining rights, by asking straight forward questions, and by providing a simple environment, people will not be apt to admit to something that have not done. Coming from a man who has studied numerous governments, mostly those under Arab and Jewish rule, I feel like he has a pretty good grasp on the various methods of interrogation, and which ones do and do not work effectively.

I support what Shipler suggests, however I feel that he is awfully hard on the officers who interrogate suspects. We must also not that he is talking about one class of unworthy officers, not all officers as a whole. Thus, he is making a broad and general statement about how officers cheat the interrogation system. When we narrow it down to the few unworthy men who perform these actions, I believe that Shipler is spot on with his opinion and suggestion. These actions must be put to and end immediately, as these are the lives of our citizens, not actors on a TBS television show like "Law & Order." We must uphold our law that states that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and by scaring our suspects into falsely admitting to a crime, we are violating that law, because we are treating them as if they were guilty already.

Ellen Turns Negativity Into Motivation

In life in general, we need to be able to stand up for what we believe in. Without that quality, we become objects pushed around by contrasting viewpoints. I had the opportunity to read an article posted on Crooks and Liars about Ellen DeGeneres and her "battle" with the Anti-LGBT group. The article explains that the Anti-LGBT group had been pushing JC Penny to drop Ellen DeGeneres as their spokeswoman because she was lesbian. Luckily, JC Penny exhibited great strength in refusing to fire Ellen simply because of her sexuality. In response to the anti-gay group, Ellen openly thanked her "haters" on her show, stating that they were in fact her motivation for her openness. The article, although not directly correlated with government or politics, prompted me to think about how I wish politicians acted. In the past few years of my adult life, I've noticed and studied how politicians and their governments acted in order to develop my own political opinion. It appears that some, even many politicians tend to promote ideas that the country supports. Although in a bigger picture, this seems appropriate, I fear that they are promoting these ideas for the wrong reasons. In some cases, politicians have been known to support things such as lower taxes and anti-abortion rights, but I wonder if they are supporting those ideas because they truly believe in them, or if its because that's what will allow them to win the election. Ellen's ability to stand up and acknowledge and even thank her competition, despite their objection, gives me confidence in mankind's ability to stand firm in what we believe in. I simply hope that our modern day politicians have the balls to follow suit.
I strongly suggest that you give this article a gander. It's a quick read, and it shows a great quality in Ellen that I wish more of society possessed - confidence. After reading the article, I want you to think about how government might be different if our politicians didn't base their views on the possibility of success, but rather based their views on what they honestly and truly believed in.