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.