Blog 8: Should they get the death penalty? No.

In the editorial, "Should they get the Death Penalty?", the author brings up an interesting question of whether rapists and child molesters should receive the death penalty. Should we be expected to live amongst rapists and child molesters? Absolutely not. We should fully expect them to be properly punished by our justice system. Now, do they deserve the death penalty? In my opinion, no.

Let me begin by saying that I am not against the death penalty for certain crimes. I believe Ted Bundy and Timothy McVeigh rightfully deserved to be executed. They both committed absolutely heinous crimes, and they both proved that they could not function properly in society. They could not be reformed, and they would kill again, no doubt about it.

The author of this blog brings up the bill known as Jessica's Law, and the author contends that it is not sufficient. I disagree, and there are certain issues here that need to be cleared up.

First of all, according to my research, Jessica's Law provides a minimum sentence of 25 years in prison. We should keep in mind that this is only the minimum sentence, and offenders will most likely be sentenced for a longer amount of time depending on the crime.

Jessica's Law also provides provisions such as all offenders are required to be monitored for life with a GPS tracking device. The law also creates a 2,000 foot “predator-free” zone around schools and parks to prevent sex offenders from living near where our children learn and play. Offenders are required to serve their entire sentence and can not be released on good behavior.

Jessica's Law provides adequate punishment, and it is also a huge improvement from previous laws. For example, in Rhode Island, Josh Maciorski was convicted of having sex with a 13-year-old girl, but was only sentenced to probation. Two years later he molested a 14-year-old girl and served only one year in prison. When he was released, Maciorski raped a 16-year-old girl. Incredibly, he was only sentenced for 3 years in prison after that crime. In Missouri, Darrell Jackson pleaded guilty to repeatedly sexually abusing a little girl, beginning when she was only eight years old. But when Jackson came up for sentencing, a soft judge gave him four months in prison and five years probation.

In my opinion, the death penalty is not the right call for these kinds of crimes. Many people are not aware that financial costs to taxpayers for the death penalty is actually several times greater than that of keeping someone in prison for life. The death penalty would also not give these people a chance to reform themselves. People need to remember that prison is not enjoyable. Some argue that prison is a worse punishment than death because the pain is dragged out for many years, especially those serving life. Imagine living in a cage in an environment of hell for 25 years. That can definitely affect someone and encourage them to change their ways. They have a chance to reform themselves, and if they are released it will be almost impossible for them to offend again because of all of the provisions that come with Jessica's Law. In summation, I believe that Jessica's Law is sufficient, and the agony and humiliation of a prison sentence for a crime of this nature is more severe than the death penalty.

Abortion

An abortion is a medical procedure that terminates a pregnancy. Through the use of medicine or surgery, the fetus and placenta is removed from the uterus. The procedure is done by a licensed physician. Abortion is legal, but it is a very personal and controversial issue that causes great debate. Many people frown upon abortion and believe it should not be legal. They are referred to as "pro-life" and claim that abortion does not give the child a chance at life. Those who are "pro-choice" believe abortion should be legal and that women have the right to choose. I am personally pro-choice, although it is certainly not an easy decision to make. I do not believe abortion should be used frivolously, nor do I think it should be used as a form of birth control. There are certain factors though that make abortion rightfully legal.

Legalized abortion prevents back alley abortions. In the past, women have tried to end their pregnancies themselves and have caused great damage and even death to themselves. Legal abortion provides a safe alternative without putting them in an extremely dangerous situation. Pregnancy can be a life threatening ordeal for women, especially women with heart disease, kidney disease, and diabetes. Pregnancy may accelerate the growth of preexisting breast cancer, which can seriously threaten a woman's life. If abortion were illegal, these complications could not be prevented.

Abortion should be legal for rape victims. Women who are raped should not bear the burden of carrying the child of a maniac rapist. Sometimes abortion is the best option here.

Outlawing abortion would be ineffective because people would still be able to travel to other countries where abortions are legal. This option would be more plausible to those who are wealthy whereas people who are poor would not be able to afford this. This is why anti-abortion laws are said to be discriminatory between the rich and the poor.

Abortions are performed in the first trimester when the fetus is nowhere near fully developed. I do not consider this to be "murder". Where do we draw the line? Can we say sperm and egg is human too, and therefore we should outlaw all forms of birth control? I don't think so.

These are just a few simple reasons why I believe abortion should remain legal. Abortion is not an easy decision to come to, but sometimes it is necessary. Ultimately, a woman has control over her own body, not the government.

Blog 6: Rachel's Two Cents On Wiretapping

In the blog, Mr. Bush Spying On America, the author contends that President Bush should not pass a domestic spying bill because it would not be helpful, and it would infringe on civil liberties. I personally disagree, and I believe the bill would be very helpful in thwarting terrorism.

Those who oppose this issue need to realize that only those who are suspected of terrorism will be wiretapped. Should the privacy of terrorists be respected? Of course not. Once a person chooses to become a terrorist and becomes a danger to society, then I believe he forfeits his liberties.

Acquiring information from terrorists can save lives and protect the freedom of others. The author of this particular blog seems to be worried about our freedom being encroached upon, but she does not mention that terrorists are the main assailants who are trying to attack our freedom -- not the government. In a war against terrorists, we are fighting an enemy that does not have a specific homeland nor a central meeting place. A crucial way to contain them is to monitor them.

The bill is designed to protect our lives and our freedom. I believe there comes a time where certain measures are needed, such as wiretapping. I do not want to see destruction brought to our country, and I certainly do not want to see another 9/11. Once again, only those suspected of terrorism will be monitored. If you are not a terrorist, you have nothing to worry about. Someone might mention, "Well, what if the government accidentally wiretaps you?" To be honest, I do not care if the government overhears my telephone conversation with Grandma Mildred. No harm done. In this time of war, we need to gather as much intelligence as possible from our enemies. Our country and our lives will be protected, and we could eliminate terrorism and criminal activity from our country.

Blog 5: Universal Healthcare: Yes or No?

There are millions of American citizens who do not have health insurance. Many of them can not afford it or think they do not need it. There is a massive debate about whether our country should have universal healthcare. With universal healthcare, every citizen would be entitled to free medical services. This seems like a marvelous idea for everyone to have the opportunity to receive medical treatment for free. However, there are other factors that many people tend to overlook. The cons outweigh the pros, in my opinion, and universal healthcare is not the way to go.

First off, “free” healthcare would not really be free because we would be paying for it through our taxes. Taxes would be higher, and there would be spending cuts in areas such as defense and education.

Secondly, healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay the burden of those who smoke, drug addicts, obese people, and other people who do not genuinely care for themselves.

Third, many people who plan on being doctors in the future may give up on their aspirations because doctors would likely be paid less than they are now. They would lose their private practice options.

Fourth, our government would be exposed to legal liability with malpractice lawsuits. Malpractice lawsuits are already sky high, and they would most likely increase since people would be trying to sue someone with 'deep pockets'.

Fifth, our government would likely pass additional restrictions and increase taxing on smoking, fast food, etc. More of our personal freedoms would be lost.

Sixth, Americans can still receive healthcare even if they are uninsured. It is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance. There are also government based hospitals and nonprofit hospitals that provide services to those who do not have insurance. Other countries who have universal healthcare have extremely long wait lists as well, and medical services are not always provided to patients right away.

These are just a few of the reasons why I do not think universal healthcare is a good idea. I would be more than happy to discuss this with anyone who agrees or disagrees, but hopefully I put some simple things into perspective for both parties.

Substantial Commentary #2

In the article, "Helping the Katrina Homeless", the authors states how the number of homeless people in New Orleans continues to rise, all thanks to hurricane Katrina. The homeless rate has doubled since the hurricane. The author contends that the government needs to provide temporary and permanent housing for these individuals. First the author contends that Congress needs to fund $73,000,000 to house these unfortunate individuals. Social and psychiatric services should be provided as well. Secondly, Congress needs to extend the disaster housing assistance program before it expires in 2009. This would prevent more people from becoming homeless. Thirdly, Congress "should also rewrite federal disaster law to permit the Department of Housing and Urban Development to provide the long-term assistance that thousands of hurricane survivors are clearly going to need."

Louisiana has already created 3000 homes for some of the unfortunate, but in my opinion this is not enough. I agree with the author, and Congress needs to pass the $73 million in funding. It is extremely unfair that some of these people had their homes taken away by a natural disaster. This is not their fault, and they need all the help they can get, at least until they have a solid foundation. I agree that our government could have done more to help everyone in New Orleans, and passing this funding would be a great start, and a great way for everyone to redeem themselves.

Substantial Commentary #1

In the editorial, The Cons of Creationism, the author states how the Texas State Board of Education is once again considering a science curriculum that teaches the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution. If this legislation passes, this may set an example that several other states will follow. The author believes that this really just "code for teaching creationism."

The author is very much opposed to this and believes it is nonsense and that creationists do not have a firm grip on reality. He argues that creationists do not deal with science at all, but only faith. Science provides laws of nature that make logical sense and provides theories backed with substantial evidence, all "without reference to a divine creator." The author contends how evolution needs to be accepted, and if the creationist view prevails in Texas, students will not learn enough about real science. This could create a huge handicap for students.

I mostly agree with the author. Evolution is accepted science and is appropriate for science class. Creationism is mythology and not appropriate for science class. Also, evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life, just how life has changed over time. I suppose if you wanted to have a mythology class to discuss religious ideas about creation, then that would be fine. But you would need to include all religious viewpoints. The theory of evolution is based on substantial viable evidence. In my opinion, when it comes down to which is more plausible -- creationism or evolution -- evolution tends to win out. The “weaknesses” or “holes” in evolution, are explained within most science textbooks already. It is not slanted from what I can see. The laws of separation of church and state should not be overruled.

Obama has the nomination, and Hillary as a running mate; Summary and thoughts.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/04/obama.vp/index.html

This article, "Can Obama say no to Clinton?", is about Hillary Clinton dropping out of the presidential election, and how Barack Obama can possibly take her on as vice president. Some top Clinton backers say she should be the vice president. Obama and his camp have not made any comment as of yet, neither has Clinton and her camp.

There is a good chance Obama will win the election. A lot of people have been tired of the last eight years with Bush and they see McCain as another Bush reincarnate. Apparently some people are contending that spiteful Clinton supporters may vote for McCain now that Obama is seemingly the nominee. This may hurt the Illinois senator greatly if their hate runs true towards November.

However, I imagine if any Clinton supporters do that, they will be a minority. Surely not many people can be so bitter at defeat that they will try to wreck everyone else's chances because they did not win. That is just childish. It is hard to believe people would abandon their own convictions because Clinton is conceding. Obama and Clinton are both democrats with similar policies after all.

The article mentions how some people contend that if Obama and Clinton were to unite and run together, it would be a sure victory. All of Clinton's supporters would vote for Obama. Obama and Clinton running together was dubbed the "dream ticket" by some key backers.

Once again though, would it make that big of a difference? How many people are actually going to abandon their democratic beliefs and vote for McCain? Not only that, but would Obama and Clinton actually be able to work together after they have feuded and rivaled with each other for several months now? Even the article mentions how Bill Clinton severely criticized Obama previously. Perhaps this would cause more problems for Obama's campaign.

In my opinion, Hillary Clinton joining Barack Obama's campaign as vice president would not substantially help Obama's campaign. Obama is more than capable of winning this election without Hillary Clinton and some of her supporters. I thought this article would be interesting to all readers since it involves the upcoming presidential election.