On Alexandra's post named, "Immigration," she discusses a $600 million dollar bill that the House and the Senate passed. "The bill includes $176 million for 1,000 new border patrol agents to form a strike force to be deployed at critical areas, $89 million for another 500 customs and immigration personnel, and $32 million to deploy unmanned aerial vehicles or drones."
There are major problems along the U.S.-Mexican borders and its only getting worse. The drug cartels are spilling over into the U.S., specifically in southern Arizona. There is about 3,500 acres along the Mexican borders that officials have been forced to close to U.S. citizens. Pinal County sheriff Paul Babeu said, "We need action. It's shameful that we, as the most powerful nation on Earth, can't even secure our own borders and protect our own families." The police are out manned and out gunned and are not able to stop the drug cartels themselves.
In a Mexico City prison, the warden was arrested for letting inmates out nightly to commit drug related slayings. Corruption is everywhere. The people that are suppose to help are being corrupted by these drug lords, receiving pay-offs to look the other way. Recently in Tijuana, 62 police officers were arrested for having alleged links to organized crime and drug cartels. How is anything going to get better if we can't even trust the very people that are suppose to protect us? With everything I have read it is almost like we are at war yet all the president will give is $1,500 agents.
I do agree that this is a start but feel our effort to secure the border needs to be combined with a comprehensive immigration reform. ICE Director John Morton said, "You've got to have comprehensive reform that recognizes a need for strong border security, a need for strong interior enforcement, but also a means for families and workers to come here lawfully ... and an ability for people who've been here for a very long time to get right with the law by paying a fine and learning English and paying their taxes, and getting to the back of the line."
I partially agree with Alexandra when she said, "to have light on this issue is a good thing and I see a good outcome in the future concerning our border patrol." I feel that the government has finally started to take steps in making our borders safer, but it will take more than beefing our borders up to stop all the illegal immigrants already in America. One thing is for sure, Arizona has the attention of the government, as well as, the entire U.S..
Friday, August 13, 2010
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Repeal--"Don't Ask Don't Tell"
The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue, Don't Harass" policy is a practical ban on gay men, lesbians and bisexuals serving in the military. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is the only law in this country that authorizes the firing of an American simply for coming out as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. If one of the service members at anytime reveals his or her sexual orientation to anyone it could lead to being discharged from the armed services. Commanders or
appointed officials aren't suppose to ask and members are not required to reveal their sexual orientation. There are many who are ineligible to serve our military because of inadequate education, criminal records, or health issues but the qualified, smart, law-abiding and physically fit who want to serve, are being excluded just because of their sexual orientation.
In the blog, ThinkProgress, Igor Volsky writes an article about a cadet who came out to her superiors and offered her resignation. Cadet Katherine Miller is among the more than 13,500 service members that have been discharged under the law since 1994. In her statement she explains how she was trying to hide who she really was, going as far as to make up a story about her heterosexual dating history so she would be excepted as well as no one cluing in on her secret.
Miller said, "I have created a heterosexual dating history to recite to fellow cadets when they inquire. I have endured sexual harassment for fear of being accused as a lesbian by rejecting or reporting these events. I have been coerced into ignoring derogatory comments towards homosexuals for fear of being alienated for my viewpoint. In short, I have lied to my classmates and compromised my integrity and my identity by adhering to existing military policy."
What's so interesting is her blogging under the pseudonym, Private Second Class Citizen, for the velvet park website. Miller reported on the “underground” lesbian culture in the Academy and the harassment she underwent to remain in the closet. In my opinion, this policy is ridiculous because basically they want and allow gays to join the military they just don't want to know about it. A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that 75 percent of Americans support gays serving openly in the military as well as 73 percent of military personnel are also comfortable with lesbians and gays. We have made great strides in our society growing more excepting of gay and lesbians and we need to move forward to repeal the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy. The Pentagon has taken the first steps toward repealing the military's controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy, yet it could take a year to finalize. The ultimate decision on whether to repeal the policy rests with Congress. Obama has already expressed the desire to repeal the law.
appointed officials aren't suppose to ask and members are not required to reveal their sexual orientation. There are many who are ineligible to serve our military because of inadequate education, criminal records, or health issues but the qualified, smart, law-abiding and physically fit who want to serve, are being excluded just because of their sexual orientation.
In the blog, ThinkProgress, Igor Volsky writes an article about a cadet who came out to her superiors and offered her resignation. Cadet Katherine Miller is among the more than 13,500 service members that have been discharged under the law since 1994. In her statement she explains how she was trying to hide who she really was, going as far as to make up a story about her heterosexual dating history so she would be excepted as well as no one cluing in on her secret.
Miller said, "I have created a heterosexual dating history to recite to fellow cadets when they inquire. I have endured sexual harassment for fear of being accused as a lesbian by rejecting or reporting these events. I have been coerced into ignoring derogatory comments towards homosexuals for fear of being alienated for my viewpoint. In short, I have lied to my classmates and compromised my integrity and my identity by adhering to existing military policy."
What's so interesting is her blogging under the pseudonym, Private Second Class Citizen, for the velvet park website. Miller reported on the “underground” lesbian culture in the Academy and the harassment she underwent to remain in the closet. In my opinion, this policy is ridiculous because basically they want and allow gays to join the military they just don't want to know about it. A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that 75 percent of Americans support gays serving openly in the military as well as 73 percent of military personnel are also comfortable with lesbians and gays. We have made great strides in our society growing more excepting of gay and lesbians and we need to move forward to repeal the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy. The Pentagon has taken the first steps toward repealing the military's controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy, yet it could take a year to finalize. The ultimate decision on whether to repeal the policy rests with Congress. Obama has already expressed the desire to repeal the law.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Response to: Obama: The Post-Race President
I would like to respond to Luke's blog: Obama: The Post-Race President. I feel everyone hoped Obama becoming President would be the one who would end the racial tension in America. His election created a great deal of change in attitudes, but the change didn't last long.
I agree with you when you said, "if American racial tensions were really over, why would we be excited about a black president?" I think it was a sorry excuse for a quick cure for racism as well as false hope. Maybe for African Americans it is hope that everything will be okay. Or maybe for some having an African American President gives them hope for their future. In a poll conducted by PollingReport.com reports, about 40% of people think Obama's presidency has improved race relations, with blacks more likely to see positive change.
The election of a black man to the U.S. Presidency did not mark the beginning of post-race society but instead seems to have ushered in a hyper-raced society.
I really liked what you said below and agree wholeheartedly.
"If we really want to prove that racism in America is dead, we have to show that we really truly don't care about people's skin color. People who vote for Obama because he is African-American are in my eyes just as racist as those who refuse to for the same reason. Let the man be judged on his policies and his ethics, as any other candidate is, and not by his race. This is America, aren't we all supposed to be created equal? Obama is not the post-race president."
Racial problems are still rampant across America, and Obama's presence in office is doing nothing to stem the flow. Instead of voting for a president because of his skin color we do need to concentrate on his/her policies and ethics. Think of how many voted just so we could have the first black President. I hope that one day we will be able to say that race (color) isn't an issue but it is going to take more than one person to make a difference. I sure wish it was that simple. I feel in order for there to be less racism we have to teach our children to be respectful of every race. There is no quick cure to end racism but I do feel that having Obama as our President has proven that America has come a long way to overcome racism.
I agree with you when you said, "if American racial tensions were really over, why would we be excited about a black president?" I think it was a sorry excuse for a quick cure for racism as well as false hope. Maybe for African Americans it is hope that everything will be okay. Or maybe for some having an African American President gives them hope for their future. In a poll conducted by PollingReport.com reports, about 40% of people think Obama's presidency has improved race relations, with blacks more likely to see positive change.
The election of a black man to the U.S. Presidency did not mark the beginning of post-race society but instead seems to have ushered in a hyper-raced society.
I really liked what you said below and agree wholeheartedly.
"If we really want to prove that racism in America is dead, we have to show that we really truly don't care about people's skin color. People who vote for Obama because he is African-American are in my eyes just as racist as those who refuse to for the same reason. Let the man be judged on his policies and his ethics, as any other candidate is, and not by his race. This is America, aren't we all supposed to be created equal? Obama is not the post-race president."
Racial problems are still rampant across America, and Obama's presence in office is doing nothing to stem the flow. Instead of voting for a president because of his skin color we do need to concentrate on his/her policies and ethics. Think of how many voted just so we could have the first black President. I hope that one day we will be able to say that race (color) isn't an issue but it is going to take more than one person to make a difference. I sure wish it was that simple. I feel in order for there to be less racism we have to teach our children to be respectful of every race. There is no quick cure to end racism but I do feel that having Obama as our President has proven that America has come a long way to overcome racism.
Friday, July 30, 2010
"The Silicon Valley of Pot"
A measure to legalize marijuana in California has enough signatures to qualify for the November 2010 ballot. The proposal would legalize possession of up to one ounce of marijuana for adults 21 and older. Residents could grow "pot gardens" in their backyards if they want to as long as it isn't larger than 25feet. The city hopes the new plants will produce 70,000 pounds per year and become a major source of tax revenue and jobs. California, the U.S. state that first allowed states of medical pot, in 1996, may take away all restrictions on adult use of the drug in the November vote, giving local governments the option to regulate sales and growing of marijuana.
In my opinion, kids who use prescription drugs justify use because a physician has prescribed them. I feel that legalizing pot could have the same results. The passage of a legalization law would not only send a message to our youths that it is okay to smoke pot, it also could ultimately lead to more people in the state possessing both legal and illegal marijuana. Mark Kleiman, director of the Drug Policy Analysis Program at UCLA research shows that when marijuana began being sold legally in smoke shops in Amsterdam, teen use surged, even though it was illegal for minors to possess or smoke the drug. I support the use of medical marijuana solely for patients that are in dire need of pain relief, when other measures have not been successful. I don't think a positive message is being sent to the worlds children that pot is safe and an okay drug to use. In my experience, marijuana is a gateway to other drugs especially when you are young. What's next, legalizing cocaine because it could be a major source of tax revenue and provide jobs? I sure hope not!
In my opinion, kids who use prescription drugs justify use because a physician has prescribed them. I feel that legalizing pot could have the same results. The passage of a legalization law would not only send a message to our youths that it is okay to smoke pot, it also could ultimately lead to more people in the state possessing both legal and illegal marijuana. Mark Kleiman, director of the Drug Policy Analysis Program at UCLA research shows that when marijuana began being sold legally in smoke shops in Amsterdam, teen use surged, even though it was illegal for minors to possess or smoke the drug. I support the use of medical marijuana solely for patients that are in dire need of pain relief, when other measures have not been successful. I don't think a positive message is being sent to the worlds children that pot is safe and an okay drug to use. In my experience, marijuana is a gateway to other drugs especially when you are young. What's next, legalizing cocaine because it could be a major source of tax revenue and provide jobs? I sure hope not!
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Hard Time
Mathew Yglesias expresses his disbelief in his blog titled "Hard Time" on ThinkProgress.org.
Yglesias writes about the over-imprisonment in America, based off The Economist website, which argues on the belief that in our civilized world there are so many that are locked up for such petty crimes. Yglesias is a credible, logical writer who holds a BA in Philosophy from Harvard University and has written in, The New York Times, the Guardian, Slate, The Washington Monthly, and other publications. In a recent poll done by International Center for Prison Studies, ranked the United States first, above Russia, having the most inmates. Yglesias states "when a habitual rapist is locked up, the streets are safer, but the same is not necessarily true of petty drug-dealers, whose incarceration creates a vacancy for someone else to fill, argues Alfred Blumstein of Carnegie Mellon University. "
According to Yglesias, some states treat opium-derived painkillers such as Percocet like hard drugs, if illicitly sold. Possession of a tiny amount (14-28 grams, or ½-1 ounce) yields a minimum sentence of three years. For 200 grams, it is 15 years, more than the minimum for armed rape. Prosecutors may charge him with selling a smaller amount if he agrees to “reel some other poor slob in”. He is told to persuade another dealer to sell him just enough drugs to trigger a 15-year sentence, and perhaps to do the deal near a school, which adds another two years.
Yglesias is making his argument towards supporters of a better criminal justice system and interest groups such as the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (CJCJ) and Criminal Justice Policy Foundation. He claims, sticking to tradeoffs inside the realm of crime prevention, it would clearly make more sense to increase the quantity and quality of police officers and parole/probation supervisors than to be handing out these endless jail sentences. Even for legitimately serious violent crimes, it’s more important to catch and prosecute people quickly and effectively than to lock people away forever and ever.
I feel Yglesias has a valid point and think it is ridiculous that our criminal system doesn't see the time should fit the crime. "Criminals" who are caught selling drugs are getting a much heavier sentence than a rape conviction or child pornography. This is the kind of problem that causes over crowding of the prisons. It also causes the addicts who instead of jail time need medical help, such as rehab, but as a result they become harder criminals than they were before they went in.
Yglesias writes about the over-imprisonment in America, based off The Economist website, which argues on the belief that in our civilized world there are so many that are locked up for such petty crimes. Yglesias is a credible, logical writer who holds a BA in Philosophy from Harvard University and has written in, The New York Times, the Guardian, Slate, The Washington Monthly, and other publications. In a recent poll done by International Center for Prison Studies, ranked the United States first, above Russia, having the most inmates. Yglesias states "when a habitual rapist is locked up, the streets are safer, but the same is not necessarily true of petty drug-dealers, whose incarceration creates a vacancy for someone else to fill, argues Alfred Blumstein of Carnegie Mellon University. "
According to Yglesias, some states treat opium-derived painkillers such as Percocet like hard drugs, if illicitly sold. Possession of a tiny amount (14-28 grams, or ½-1 ounce) yields a minimum sentence of three years. For 200 grams, it is 15 years, more than the minimum for armed rape. Prosecutors may charge him with selling a smaller amount if he agrees to “reel some other poor slob in”. He is told to persuade another dealer to sell him just enough drugs to trigger a 15-year sentence, and perhaps to do the deal near a school, which adds another two years.
Yglesias is making his argument towards supporters of a better criminal justice system and interest groups such as the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (CJCJ) and Criminal Justice Policy Foundation. He claims, sticking to tradeoffs inside the realm of crime prevention, it would clearly make more sense to increase the quantity and quality of police officers and parole/probation supervisors than to be handing out these endless jail sentences. Even for legitimately serious violent crimes, it’s more important to catch and prosecute people quickly and effectively than to lock people away forever and ever.
I feel Yglesias has a valid point and think it is ridiculous that our criminal system doesn't see the time should fit the crime. "Criminals" who are caught selling drugs are getting a much heavier sentence than a rape conviction or child pornography. This is the kind of problem that causes over crowding of the prisons. It also causes the addicts who instead of jail time need medical help, such as rehab, but as a result they become harder criminals than they were before they went in.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
"Investigating the Interrogators"
On July 21, Los Angeles Times' editorial board published an article regarding whether or not the CIA was using an unjustifiable amount of interrogation towards suspected terrorists. The writer expresses his opinion saying, "One of the most shameful chapters in the war against terrorism was the complicity of George W. Bush's Justice Department in the CIA's use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" — in plain language, torture — to extract information from suspected terrorists." The author of, "investigating the interrogators," claims that "former Assistant Atty. Gen. Jay S. Bybee acknowledged that the department did not approve some of the most revolting methods employed by the agency, including the repeated waterboarding of two high-value detainees." It is relevant the author's intended audience should be those who opposed George W. Bush's policies within the Justice Department.
In the article, the author brings to light some of the interrogating techniques
used by the CIA. Some are, waterboarding, solitary confinement, facial slaps, shackling them to ceiling hooks, and punching them. There is reasoning behind the methods used by the CIA and if men like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged 9/11 mastermind, chose not to terrorize the United States then the CIA wouldn't be under such scrutiny. In my opinion, the CIA does what no one else wants to do or even wants to hear about. They are trying to keep America safe as well as do what they were told. After the tragedy of 9/11, Bush was under a lot of pressure to retaliate and/or assure the safety of the Republic. It is somewhat of a, "your damned if you do, damned if you don't." If the CIA was too lenient, the media would say they aren't doing enough.
The writer might have a valid argument that the CIA went to far interrogating the detainees. Yet at the same time I feel the CIA can be compared to our soldiers that come home from war and are expected to continue normal everyday life. There is a line that is hard for them not to cross when they are witness to such terror. I am not saying this is an excuse but when a person is given permission to hurt someone (terrorists) a little, after a while, it might become hard to stop.
The writer suggests in the end that they "prosecute the wrongdoers." If we prosecuted every "wrongdoer" think about how long that chain would be. Can't we just let it go and move on? Obama even says, "look forward, not back."
Friday, July 16, 2010
The Slow March Toward Gay Marriage Rights
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)