Re: Murdering, with no punishment?

Abortion. That single word has sparked an amazing controversy throughout the whole of the United States - although it's not so much the word as the meaning behind it. If one turns to the dictionary for a definition, you will find an abortion is "the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus." The dictionary has never been one to mince words, and yet you'll find thousands of pro-abortionists trying to soften the meaning of what is, ultimately, murder.

Now that I have your attention: my fellow classmate posted a blog on this rather touchy subject just a few days ago, aptly titled "Murdering, with no punishment?" The author discusses their opinion on the subject, which is quite plain and straightforward - abortion is wrong. In the conclusion, it is even suggested that "it is time that the United States put a ban on abortions," because women should be "[taking] responsibility for what they have done."

I don't think I could more wholeheartedly agree with this. Although, yes, there are always difficult circumstances that pro-abortionists bring up ("What if the woman was raped? What if she or the child could die in the process of giving birth?"), aren't there difficult circumstances like that with any rule? There will always be moments that laws seem unfair or wrong, but without the laws, we have nothing to hold our world in place. If people would just stop beating around the bush and look at the issue of abortion, they'd see it for what it truly is. Abortion means taking a living being - a small fetus that would grow up to be someone just like you or me - and ending it. Just like that. Not even giving it a chance to see who it could be. Just making the decision for it. And I will always see that as being wrong, as being murder, ban or no ban.

They say it's the woman's choice, right? Well, this is mine.

But Is it Right?

Immigration laws have been needing reforms for quite some time now. But the latest news with our Commander in Chief is that Obama has decided to put the immigration changes on hold until next year, 2010. Is he making the right decision by waiting?

On the one hand, we have to consider that he has his plate fairly filled as it is, without throwing immigration issues into the mix. Among other things, he can list the infamous health care dilemma, and "energy and financial regulation." These are both taking up huge amounts of time, not to mention all the little, unnecessary things he's getting involved in, such as the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Gates.

But on the other hand, we really need these changes soon. Though the health care issue is important, it's beginning to drag out. What if the debate lasts longer than expected, and President Obama is forced to set back the immigration laws again? If he gets into the habit of pushing things back now, it could turn into a big problem. From what he's telling us, these laws would mean "strong border security and an orderly process for people to come in," as well as making the "pathway to citizenship" more open. The United States could definitely do with a decrease on illegal immigrants; overall all these policies would do nothing but help. 

Perhaps Obama could do something to balance his different assignments, or just somehow move the immigration laws further up on the list. Unless the things he's already working on start moving forward, this new decision to push the immigration law passage into 2010 may only move Obama backwards.

Resource: The New York Times

Re: President in chief, or sitcom host?

A popular topic as of late has been the involvement of President Obama in an arrest of prominent Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates by a Sgt. James Crowley. According to reports, Crowley was following up a break-in possibility at Gates' house, but was met with resistant behavior from Gates when the professor refused to show his ID. Opinionated blogs seem to have split down the middle, one side accusing the sergeant of unfair and racist acts, the other standing behind him and affirming his actions as the right thing to do. One such classmate's blog stands firmly with the former, having posted a commentary entitled "President in chief, or sitcom host?"

This post has further taken into account Obama's response to the arrest. The author verbally shakes their head at the president for focusing all his power on such a small, local issue, saying that "sad days loom ahead for the U.S. if [he] can't focus on the bigger picture." And this is true. Whether or not Gates is an acquaintance of Obama's, our president should be focused on more national issues, rather than a mere arrest. Considering the amount of news coverage this one situation has generated, it seems as though everything has been blown massively out of proportion.

Another question the author of the commentary raises is whether it's "fair game to pull out the race card for any matter now." And this is yet another provoking topic. Racial discrimination has gone back for centuries, and America has done its best to overcome the problem. But apparently we still live in a time where people will indeed pull out the race card, even if it doesn't apply. When Crowley told Gates he was looking into a break-in, Gates' response was "Why, because I'm a black man in America?" It's really quite sad that he managed to turn the whole scenario into a problem of discrimination, when he could have simply cooperated and given the police is ID, rather than a "difficult time."

Ultimately, I agree with the opinion the author of this blog post offered. President Obama should focus on the things he's actually supposed to be involved in, and Gates should cooperate with law officials in the future instead of accusing them of racism.

Yellow Ribbons

For years now, the war in Iraq has been a subject of amazing controversy throughout America. But are our troops really coming home? Could the end at last be in sight? Recently, a memo was made public that has sparked the writing of several articles and a lot more debate. Apparently there is talk of American troops finally withdrawing. Though there has been plenty of discussion about this possibility in the past, we have some further feedback on the situation - this time from the troops themselves. Colonels and generals alike have made their opinions known to the American public; specifically from a Colonel Timothy Reese, the author of the memo. He ultimately states that Iraq can be handling things by themselves now, and our soldiers should finally head home. As public as the memo is, it has of course influenced many disagreements... but could Reese be right?

The States officially declared war on Iraq in 2003, roughly a year and a half after the tragic events of 9/11, when the World Trade Center fell to terrorist attacks. Since then, we have spent close to six years sending men and women alike past the enemy lines. At this time, we have close to 130,000 troops in Iraq, attempting to fix Iraqi government and other such things. Another general, Ray Odierno, proposes that they stay through the national Iraqi elections (January 2010), and then gradually head home after that. And at this point, it seems like the best idea.

We have been in Iraq long enough. Initially, after 9/11, of course, it was the right thing to do, but at this point we are simply overstaying our welcome. It's been six years. We've done what we could to make things better, and we're tired of the news reports about the deaths in Iraq. 2010 isn't that far away compared to having no end in sight. Maybe it's not peace, exactly, but having those soldiers home will at least show those yellow ribbons meant something.

Resource: The New York Times

Today The Internet, Tomorrow The WORLD!

Since its conception, the Internet and its providers have done wonderful things for America - giving us access to a whole world of information and allowing enhanced contact with friends and family. But as of late, issues have risen concerning the way providers (specifically, AT&T) have begun to censor "which Web sites its customers can access." AMERICAblog news writer John Aravosis posted an article on this subject just today, plainly titled "Is AT&T censoring the Net."

Aravosis, an author on a left-leaning, liberal blog (with a similarly thinking audience), is  asking his readers to think about AT&T's actions for themselves. In his short article he posts links to other articles with firmly negative stances, saying the Internet "would not be the same without" some of the websites being censored. The writer himself does not outright state his definitive opinion on the subject (as he is seemingly more concerned with sparking debate among his readers). His word choice, however (particularly the accusatory "censor"), leaves little to the imagination. 

Aside from his summary of the problem, Aravosis does raise some interesting questions. Among others, he asks, "What if the [censored] sites are calling for the murder of specific abortion doctors, or calling for people to hurt you?" Logically thinking, however, we will always have that danger as long as we have the Web. It would be nearly impossible for an Internet provider to track down and censor every single site with offensive or violent content. This could lead to lawsuits and childish arguments consisting of phrases such as, "If my website is blocked, why isn't his?" Not to mention that allowing the providers to carry on like this could mean censorship to the point of invading our freedoms in the future. If we don't take a stand against this problem now, it could get out of hand - maybe in five years all left leaning blogs (AMERICAblog among them) would be censored, forcing the public to read the right-leaning. Censorship is ultimately wrong in this scenario, and should be stopped.

Smoking Guns

Gun control has always been a smoking hot topic in the States, if you'd excuse the pun. Now is no exception, seeing as the Senate is voting on a new bill concerning ownership and public safety tomorrow (July 22nd). As that date is less than twenty-four hours away, The New York Times of course wanted to get its two cents in before the Senate makes the final decision. Just yesterday an editorial entitled "Gun Crazy in the Senate" was featured under "Opinions" on their website, blatantly arguing against the passage of this newest amendment. 

The author jumps right in by first laying down the basic facts: Republican Senator John Thune (of South Dakota) has introduced a "radical measure" to "nullify the laws of almost every state." (He is presumably speaking to an audience in states that would be influenced by the passage of this bill, such as Alaska.) The author goes on to accuse this amendment of having a great many negative effects. Among other reasons, the author states it would mean more danger for police officers and just a greater risk for gun violence in general. There is also increased difficulty in differentiating between "legal and illegal possession of a firearm" to consider, as well as a possible boost to illegal gun trafficking. The author even goes on to remind his audience of statistics concerning people who had died at the hand of those with concealed handgun permits - clearly if the bill is passed, it is safe to assume that these numbers would only multiply. 

After all the evidence is laid out, he makes a valid point. Laws should ultimately be put into practice to keep the United States safe - but according to the article, allowing this amendment to be passed would mean greater risks, not safety. The author clearly only has America's best interests in mind, and he is trying to be sure his readers understand the graveness of this possibility. Passing the bill would mean a great many dangerous changes in American gun possession, whereas rejecting it would mean that we could at least stay safer, if not completely safe. If the Senate had any sense, they would reject this bill as the author is urging them to, before it is too late. 

Just Not Jason Bourne

An article posted just today by the Los Angeles Times has revealed that the United States government was training the CIA to take down dangerous terrorists, in much the same way that the infamous Bourne did in the book series-turned-movies. Though their web of connections did span significant miles (even reaching countries like Pakistan), their high hopes of putting an end to the likes of Osama bin Laden were ultimately dashed - in much the same way that Bourne's true identity evaded him time and time again. The unsuccessful program, put to rest just a month ago, is already causing serious debates among Republicans and House Democrats alike - the Republicans upset about its end, and the Democrats in turn angry about the secrecy, to the point of invoking a possible investigation. The article went on to further discuss the workings of the program and why it was ended. 

Those who have an interest in CIA operatives and the situation of terrorism will probably be roped in by the title alone. Definitely worth a read.