Saturday, October 13, 2007
I think that Clinton is right in this issue. We should try to end the conflicts in the Middle East as soon as possible. We need to bring the troops home and decrease the costly prices for oil. By ending the conflict, the economy would not be in danger of a oil blockade and needless bloodshed would be avoided.
Friday, October 12, 2007
I think that Arnold is right in vetoing this bill because gay marriage is such a hot-button issue to so many people. For him to please gay marriage advocates would also be to upset opponents of gay marriage. So, the issue should be left to the voters of California. What irritates me about what our governor did is that he says Californians "should not be discriminated against based upon their sexual orientation," even though he just vetoed a bill that would have approved gay marriage. I don't know about you, but I hate hypocritical politicians.
P.S.: VOTE FOR RYAN LANDIS!
This is indeed another twist in the "War on Iraq" saga. These new developments make the war seem even more complicated and gives the Bush administration a bad image. Maybe its time for Bush to step up and suck in some pride and say that the war should be ended immediately.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
I know the issue of whether or not the U.S. government should pull troops out of Iraq has been brought up a lot. But if Shiites don't even get along with other Shiites, how is the American presence in Iraq helping? Is it ever going to be possible for the U.S. to stop the violence. I don't think so.
This dispute brings up an many old questions: To what degree should government and church be separate? Should there be some references to one's faith or should there be none at all? If separated, would it be infringing on one's freedom of speech and religion?
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Personally, I am against illegal immigration and strongly encourage tougher border control. The ruling by this judge seems to be very unnecessary and unfair considering it is already illegal for employers to hire undocumented immigrants. I think it is obvious that this judge has personal motives for his decision because these new rules are a good way to punish businesses for the hiring of illegal immigrants and would certainly not hurt documented workers in any way. Why would this judge order this injunction?
Changes that Bush have listed include :
—Give local leaders more flexibility and resources.
—Offer other educational options to families of children stuck in low-performing schools.
—Increase access to tutoring programs.
—Reward good teachers who improve student achievement in low-income schools.
—Expand access to advanced placement courses.
—Improve math and science instruction.
Shouldn't the government help fund for this program? It makes all these changes that would require even more funding than the original legislation and yet does not have a provision for helping the states with money? All these changes look great on paper, but without proper funding, they are useless and putting the pressure on the states to raise the funds is not a great idea.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Well, it's a good thing that someone finally intervened in this situation and put their foot down, which says a lot coming from a federal judge. But why in the world does a judge have to stop the Pentagon from sending a detainee to another country to be tortured? All humans have rights, whether they are terrorist suspects or not. Why does the government think that they can disregard anyone's rights they want to?Although the judge stopped this detainee from getting tortured in another country, shouldn't the judge do more? Shouldn't there be more judges trying to intervene in this situation?
This bill would also replace the "Protect America Act of 2007", which allowed the government to eavesdrop without United States communications without the court's consent. Are all these kinds of legislations actually necessary? Would we benefit from spying on other parts of the world? More importantly, do we actually NEED this?