Megan Meier, a 13 year old girl in Missouri, killed herself last year after "Josh," an 18 year old boy she had met on myspace and had begun to like, told her that the "world would be a better place without [her]."
Little did Megan know, that "Josh" was really an 18 year old girl who wanted to know what Megan thought about her neighbor.
Today Missouri prosecutors ruled that no charges would be sought in the case however, those involved will be punished. Missouri law does not state any part of this case in its harrassment statute therefore there is nothing to be charged with.
Many young teens such as ourselves use Myspace, Facebook, and other networking sites on a weekly, if not daily, basis. If this had happened to someone close to you, wouldn't you want the person involved to be severely punished? And if so, in what way do you think is appropriate?
Do you agree with the prosecutors ruling?
Even though, there was no reason to charge the accused according to Missouri law, what would you have done if you were in the prosecutors position?
Monday, December 3, 2007
Iran and Nuclear Weapons
A new U.S. report concluded that Iran stopped development of a nuclear weapon in 2003, but still remains a threat.
"We judge with moderate confidence that the earliest possible date Iran would be technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium for a weapon is late 2009, but that this is very unlikely," the report says. A more likely time frame for that production is between 2010 and 2015, it concludes. "
"We have good reason to continue to be concerned about Iran developing a nuclear weapon even after this most recent National Intelligence Estimate," he told reporters at the White House. "In the words of the NIE, quote, Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons if a decision is made to do so."
"Sen. Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the fact that Iran was several years away from nuclear weapons capability meant "the international community has a significant window of opportunity in which to act to avoid the stark choice between going to war or accepting a nuclear Iran."
It seems really hopeful that there is time to find out about Iran's enriched uranium plants, and also time to decide what a smart plan for dealing with this situation because Iran won't really be a threat for the next few years. We can only hope that with the government has learned from the Iraq war and won't enter into a war without really thinking through the coincidences, and making sure the country is truly a threat.
Do you think that Iran will turn into another Iraq?... Or will we repeat history(as often happens), and make another brash decision, which enters us into war? Is Iran a big enough threat to us that we need to seriously consider entering before they become a bigger threat?
Link to article: http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/03/iran.nuclear/?imw=Y&iref=mpstoryemail
"We judge with moderate confidence that the earliest possible date Iran would be technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium for a weapon is late 2009, but that this is very unlikely," the report says. A more likely time frame for that production is between 2010 and 2015, it concludes. "
"We have good reason to continue to be concerned about Iran developing a nuclear weapon even after this most recent National Intelligence Estimate," he told reporters at the White House. "In the words of the NIE, quote, Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons if a decision is made to do so."
"Sen. Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the fact that Iran was several years away from nuclear weapons capability meant "the international community has a significant window of opportunity in which to act to avoid the stark choice between going to war or accepting a nuclear Iran."
It seems really hopeful that there is time to find out about Iran's enriched uranium plants, and also time to decide what a smart plan for dealing with this situation because Iran won't really be a threat for the next few years. We can only hope that with the government has learned from the Iraq war and won't enter into a war without really thinking through the coincidences, and making sure the country is truly a threat.
Do you think that Iran will turn into another Iraq?... Or will we repeat history(as often happens), and make another brash decision, which enters us into war? Is Iran a big enough threat to us that we need to seriously consider entering before they become a bigger threat?
Link to article: http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/03/iran.nuclear/?imw=Y&iref=mpstoryemail
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Bush wants Congress to wrap it up before Christmas
Bush has assigned Congress three big issues that he wants figured out before Congress leaves for Christmas. The President wants a $196 billion request for war funding passed "without strings," which is probably not going to happen before Christmas (if at all) because the Democrats are refusing to send Bush a war spending bill this year at all. Bush is also asking for for legislation to change alternative minimum tax (AMT), which was created so that wealthy people could not use tax breaks or deductions to avoid paying any taxes. Bush wants to change this slightly so that middle-class Americans aren't affected. President Bush also wants Congress to extend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which allows domestic eavesdropping without warrants. "The original law required a court order for any surveillance conducted on U.S. soil, to protect Americans' privacy. The White House argued that the law was obstructing intelligence gathering because, as technology has changed, a growing amount of foreign communications passes through U.S.-based channls." (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/01/bush.radio.ap/index.html) I feel that the war funds and domestic eavesdropping are especially big issues that will probably take a lot of time to sort out. The tax issue doesn't seem too complicated, but the other two issues have a lot more depth to them what with the war and terrorists. I guess Bush just has too high expectations or something, but I highly doubt that Congress can finish all this before Christmas.
What do you think Congress should decide about these issues?
What do you think Congress should decide about these issues?
Guantanamo Bay case reaches the Supreme Court
This week the Guantanamo Bay case will go the the Supreme Court. The central issue of the case is whether or not non-Americans have the right of habeas corpus. Is it okay for Americans to hold non-citizens in jail without a trial? This trial would help determine if the detainee camp(used for holding suspected terrorists) will be shut down, either releasing prisoners or keeping them locked up.
No matter what you think about the legal aspects of this situation, would you really want for these people to be released? Should principle or safety come first? It's been stated that "so far 30 released detainees are believed to have returned to terrorist activities."
Then there's also the issue of the abuse. It's been well publicized that there has been mistreatment of prisoners there. How will this play into the case?
I also thought it was interesting that as this article says, "So intense is the interest in the case that the court has ruled it will take the rare step of issuing audio recordings of opening arguments," being that the Supreme Court is usually not very friendly with the press; as we read in the last chapter of the textbook. This shows how seriously this case is to Americans.
Credit for cartoon: http://www.andydavey.com/Images/03-056%20Guantanamo%20cow.jpg
Does diversity matter?
It's been a tradition for the Iowa caucuses to kick off the presidential nomination process. A lot of what happens in Iowa can help to influence the rest of the state's votes, contributing to candidates' momentum throughout the primaries. Yesterday, Democratic candidates met in Des Moines to discuss diversity. Immigration policy, the disproportionate amount of minorities incarcerated, college costs, and Cuban relations were brought up.
It's not a coincidence that Iowa was chosen because there has been much talk about the lack of diversity within the caucuses there. The question came up: Are caucuses with only 8% minorities representing the U.S.? This is less than a third of the country's non-whites. The answer is obviously no, but does should caucuses like these really have so much influence in the beginning of the presidential primaries? Do they have a lot of influence in the election, or is Iowa's influence on the election exaggerated? Should another, more diverse, state be the first primary held? Is it racist in itself to even question diversity?
For anyone who read Hardball, you'll remember how Matthews talked about the advantage of winning early primaries being that the nominee will have their image improved and influence other states' votes. Iowa's caucuses will be held on January 3rd for both the Democrats and Republicans.
Here's a link to the Wall Street Journal article on Saturday's meeting: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119660870919510917.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
It's not a coincidence that Iowa was chosen because there has been much talk about the lack of diversity within the caucuses there. The question came up: Are caucuses with only 8% minorities representing the U.S.? This is less than a third of the country's non-whites. The answer is obviously no, but does should caucuses like these really have so much influence in the beginning of the presidential primaries? Do they have a lot of influence in the election, or is Iowa's influence on the election exaggerated? Should another, more diverse, state be the first primary held? Is it racist in itself to even question diversity?
For anyone who read Hardball, you'll remember how Matthews talked about the advantage of winning early primaries being that the nominee will have their image improved and influence other states' votes. Iowa's caucuses will be held on January 3rd for both the Democrats and Republicans.
Here's a link to the Wall Street Journal article on Saturday's meeting: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119660870919510917.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Negative Campaign Ads 2008
As the presidential election nears, campaign ads are beginning to increase. With so many candidates hoping to win their party's nomination, it is very clear that this coming year's advertising will include political attack ads that could try to ruin a candidate's campaign.
Unlike other election years, though, the internet will be used as another tool for anonymous and unregulated campaigning.
There is a debate over whether negative ads change voter opinions and benefit voters by "helping them understand where candidates differ"or if they really do not affect voter opinions at all.
Do you think negative campaign ads will affect this coming election at all? If so, will they hurt certain candidates more than others?
Unlike other election years, though, the internet will be used as another tool for anonymous and unregulated campaigning.
There is a debate over whether negative ads change voter opinions and benefit voters by "helping them understand where candidates differ"or if they really do not affect voter opinions at all.
Do you think negative campaign ads will affect this coming election at all? If so, will they hurt certain candidates more than others?
Venezuela Votes!
Venezuelan voters cast ballots today to make a constitutional change which, according to the NY Times, "would abolish presidential term limits, extend [President Hugo] Chávez’s term to seven years from six and raise the threshold for recalling him." Chavez also wants to make Venezuela a socialist state. People opposed to this change argue that it will make Venezuela more totalitarian than democratic, as Chavez argues. Voter turnout was surprisingly low. Lines, if any, were short and the streets were empty except for the few voters who had just cast ballots.
Criticized by many people for his proposal, President Chavez has "ordered troops to occupy oil installations over the weekend, threatening to cut off oil exports to the United States in the event of American interference in the referendum."
Unnamed sources stated on Sunday night that Chavez had won the referendum.
If Chavez did truly win, how do you think the changes to the constitution will affect the country in the long run?
Will the U.S. stay out of it, in order to ensure that they continue to receive oil?
Are Chavez's proposals really more democratic or totalitarian?
Criticized by many people for his proposal, President Chavez has "ordered troops to occupy oil installations over the weekend, threatening to cut off oil exports to the United States in the event of American interference in the referendum."
Unnamed sources stated on Sunday night that Chavez had won the referendum.
If Chavez did truly win, how do you think the changes to the constitution will affect the country in the long run?
Will the U.S. stay out of it, in order to ensure that they continue to receive oil?
Are Chavez's proposals really more democratic or totalitarian?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)