Where’s This Money Coming From?

Obama has presented a plan to help families in need because of our economic crisis. CNN writes:

“Specifically, Obama will push to increase the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit rate from 20 percent to 35 percent for families making under $85,000 a year. Families making from $85,000 to $115,000 also would see an increase in their tax credit, the statement said.”

There were other ideas included in this plan and all included paying American citizens extra money to help them get by. My only question is… Where is this money coming from exactly? We are in debt up to our eyeballs and we still have money to give out to people? I don’t get it.

It’s like putting a band aid on a cancerous tumor. It makes it seem like we are doing something but it doesn’t get to the source of the problem. We have to attack our country’s debt at the source. We have to find out where we are losing money and stop up the drain before we can give any more money away.

Obama, I thought you were smarter than that. Remove the cancer before you put the band aid on.



Article Source:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/25/obama.middle.class/index.html?iref=allsearch  



Picture Source:

http://ballyhooligan.wordpress.com/2009/07/

Freedom of Religion Put to the Test

The Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences origianally banned all head covering that obscured the face, with the exception of medical reasons, for safety and security of the students and staff. However, changes were made to the ban. Now, all head coverings that obscure the face are banned, with the exception of medical and religious reasons. The community of Muslims at the College were concerned because the ban meant that women couldn’t wear their traditional niqab.

Muslims believe in something called an awrah which is the parts of the human body that should not be exposed in public and depending on where you are from, a woman’s awrah can include every part of her body including her face. It is considered sinful to expose a person’s awrah. It’s a lot like America’s laws that prohibit indecent exposure, except it is deeply connected with Islamic religious life.

Ibrahim Hooper, communications director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, filed a third-party complaint. He wrote to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and invoked Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employers from discriminating based on religion. Hooper knew the college wasn’t directly discriminating against Muslims but that the policy would end up discriminating against Muslim students and employees in the long run.

Aisha Bajwa, president of the Muslim Students Association at the college, said the the original policy was "unjustified and unconstitutional." She does not wear the niqab but she still feels strongly about the right to wear one. She also pointed out wearing student IDs at all times is enough to identify students and keep them safe.

Some people feel, on the other hand, that the niqab and other coverings are a threat to security and safety and that is why bans on them are allowed to go through.

I agree very strongly with the school’s final decision and with Ibrahim and Aisha. Religion cannot be prohibited by law in this country. It’s in the first ammendment of our Constitution. There are other ways of keeping things secure than banning religious practices. It is so unbelievably wrong in the U.S. to restrict religion. Don’t allow it to happen.



Article sources:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/01/08/massachusetts.security.policy/index.html?iref=allsearch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niq%C4%81b


Picture Source:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/beliefs/niqab_1.shtml

Text Messages Save Haiti

Red Cross raised $3 million just by text messaging. Spokesman Jonathan Aiken said those $3 million were a large amount of the $10 million total that Red Cross raised for earth quake relief in Haiti.

"That's a phenomenal number that's never been achieved before," he said. "People text up to three times at 10 bucks a pop. You're talking about roughly 300,000 people actually spontaneously deciding, 'I can spare $10 for this. And that's remarkable."

The message was forwarded through text messages and tweeted by celebrities such as singer Adam Lambert, actor Ben Stiller, cyclist Lance Armstrong, and actress Lindsay Lohan. These celebrities posted tweets that were sent by text message to all of their fans. “Help Haiti” was posted all over twitter. The red cross is also involved with Facebook, Flickr and YouTube. It also has its own blog, and hosts an online news room that shows updates on relief efforts.

What I find amazing is how many people just spared $10 because they heard about it and felt like giving. Three million dollars is a lot of money and they raised it so easily. I can’t believe our country is in so much debt if we have to power to band together and help Haiti, couldn’t we band together and help our own country?

There’s got to be a smart way to do this. It’s not like we are all out of money. This Red Cross fundraiser proves that. We just aren’t spending our money very well. We aren’t organized enough in our efforts to decide where the money should be spent and we spend money debating it. Isn’t there a better way to do things? The Red Cross had no trouble at all raising three million dollars. Why do we continue to sink into debt? We should pull together and pull ourselves out of this mess. Some how. In some way.

We are not all dirt poor. Yet.



Article source:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/01/14/online.donations.haiti/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29


Picture Source:

http://www.thebluedot.net/blog/tag/refurbished-cell-phone/

It’s a Free Country

Paul wrote an article on his blog about a couple from Georgia. Harvey and Paula Darden accidentally ended up at the White House for a tour on the wrong day. After they were put through security, they found themselves at a Veteran’s Day breakfast.

No one kicked them out just because it wasn’t the right day for their tour. When they suspected they weren’t in the right place, Harvey Darden spoke with a White House staff member who asked Darden if he was a veteran. As it turns out, Darden was actually a Navy veteran, so the staff member told him to ‘go with the flow.’ They did. And they met President Obama, the first lady, and the vice president. The couple didn’t even really realize that they had showed up on the wrong day until they arrived at home and checked their e-mail.

The article that Paul based his off of stated that it is not uncommon for tourists that clear security to be included in other festivities. White House security performed a criminal background check on the Dardens and when it came up clean, they were allowed to join the Veteran’s breakfast.

Paul wrote that it doesn’t make him “feel secure about the job being done in the White House… When people can just slip through the cracks… People will start intruding where ever they are able.”

I do not agree. As long as no one that is a threat to our nation’s security is allowed to enter the white house, it doesn’t matter if a couple from Georgia meets the president. This is, after all, a free country and people can do as they please as long as they don’t put others in harms way. It’s the same with accessing government information; it is open to the public as long as national security is not put at risk. Harvey and Paula Darden were not a threat to anyone or anything by simply attending a Veteran’s breakfast and therefore have a right to attend that breakfast.



Article Sources:

http://gigaphone.blogspot.com/

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/16/surprise.visit/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29



Picture Source:

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Politics/pages/God-makes-decision-for-undecideds-with-death-of-Obamas-Grandmother-Scrape-TV-The-World-on-your-side.html

You Can't Predict the Future if You Don't Open Your Eyes

Jessa wrote an article on her blog about a man who killed four police officers in Seattle Washington before he was shot to death by police. His name was Maurice Clemmons and he was 37 years old. Jessa said that this was very sad that the world is coming to situations like this; manhunts and shootouts are common place. I have to agree that this is very sad and I wondered if this incident could have been prevented. I decided to do a little digging.

As it turns out, Clemmons was sentenced to 108 years in prison in Arkansas for an unnamed reason when he was only 16 years old. He was described as violent and “mean” according to W.A. McCormick, a deputy prosecuting attorney at the time. He was such a security risk that he had to be shackled to his chair in court and deputies stood near him to keep him from trying anything.

Inside prison, he was just as bad. Larry Jegley, the prosecutor who put Clemmons away told of his conduct: "Failure to obey, engaging in sexual activity, possession or introduction of drugs, firearms…"

McCormick wrote to the parole board several times stating that Clemmons should never be paroled. He strongly believed that Clemmons should never be released from prison.

However, Arkansas governor of the time Mike Huckabee released him on parole after 11 years of his sentence was served. Huckabee had this to say about the matter: "I looked at the file. Every bit of it. And here was a case where a guy had been given 108 years. Now, if you think a 108-year sentence is an appropriate sentence for a 16-year-old for the crimes he committed, then you should run for governor of Arkansas."

Huckabee says that he knew all about how violent and aweful Clemmons was. He said he read about how dangerous and mean he was. But he released Clemmons on parole because he didn’t think it was fair for a 16 year old to be locked up for the rest of his life.

Then, four police officers were shot and killed. Four families are suffering now because of Huckabee’s choice.

"I take full responsibility for my actions of nine years ago. I acted on the facts presented to me in 2000. If I could have possibly known what Clemmons would do nine years later, I obviously would have made a different decision…” Um hello! The facts presented to you screamed murderer in the making. Stupidity isn’t an excuse that those families will except very easily.

The governor of any state should not be given that much power. It seems like everyone but the governor knew that Clemmons was a public risk. Why was ignorance allowed to make the final decision?



Article Sources:

http://jessahuber.blogspot.com/
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/12/03/washington.clemmons.huckabee/index.html?iref=allsearch



Picture Sources:

http://mandarin.about.com/od/vocabularylists/tp/professions.01.htm

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2007_12_01_archive.html

An eye for an eye…. Or noses and ears?

Claire wrote on her blog about two brothers from Pakistan. Ammanat Aliand and Sher Mohammed followed Fazeelat Bibi, a young woman whom they knew very well, home from work one day. Bibi had rejected Mohammed’s offer of marriage and the two men along with three others attacked Bibi, strangling her with a wire. When they thought she was dead they chopped off her ears and nose. They said it was to ‘set an example.’
The two men were sentenced to life in prison and fined 700,000 rupees ($8,300) to pay for the victim’s medical bills. Also, the court ordered the two men to have their own ears and noses chopped off. A high court must approve this sentence, however, and a doctor has to examine them to make sure that they will not die from this. This heavy sentence is in support of anti-terrorism in Pakistan.

Claire states that she feels this sentence is too rough of a punishment and I have to agree. Terrorism is truly a state of mind. A terrorist is a person who is influenced by violence and uses violence to promote their personal beliefs; therefore, if the government in Pakistan wants to stop terrorism, they really shouldn’t become terrorists of their own kind. The article that Claire used as a source for her blog mentioned that the high court has a history of turning down sentences like this and I sincerely hope they turn this one down as well. Aliand and Mohammed can be punished in nonviolent ways. That is the kind of ‘example’ that the government of Pakistan should set.


Article Sources:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/12/22/pakistan.harsh.justice/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29

http://claireilliesblog.blogspot.com/

Picture Source:

http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/2009/07/24/human-rights-ads-20-capital-punishment/

Watch What You Say

Nevada Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid found he wasn’t very popular at all. A poll was taken from January 5th through the 7th that showed 52 percent of voters don’t like him. As if this wasn’t enough for him, his book “Game Change” was put on the shelves and almost immediately the media was buzzing with energy over the ‘racial’ comments ‘against’ President Barrack Obama found inside.

       The book cites Reid as saying privately in 2008 that President Obama could succeed as a black   candidate partly because of his "light-skinned" appearance and speaking patterns "with no Negro   dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/11/harry.reid.political.future/index.html?iref=allsearch

Some people of the Republican Party feel that Reid should resign from his post because of these comments. They feel that his comments were inappropriate and that he will never be able to recover his career. I do not agree.

First of all, Reid was a large Obama supporter when Obama was running for office. His comment was not directed to Obama himself but to the people that elected the president. In a way, he was calling them racist. He was stating an opinion that part of the reason Obama was elected had something to do with his skin color. He wasn’t saying ‘I voted for Obama because he has a light-skinned appearance and talks like white people.’ He was saying that other people may have voted for him for this reason.

This brings me to my second point; Harry Reid is a citizen of the United States of America and therefore has a constitutional right to say anything he feels like. He cannot be fired or asked to resign for stating an opinion no matter what that opinion was.

And finally, it is up to him to recover his career. He has apologized publicly for offending people (I might add that I find his comments offensive). And Obama himself has publicly accepted Reid’s apology. He is responsible for his career and he knows this.

It doesn’t matter if I agree with his opinion or not; he has a right to state it and I have an obligation to allow him to do so. If I decide not to vote for him, that’s my prerogative.

Article Source:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/11/harry.reid.political.future/index.html?iref=allsearch

Picture Source:
http://wellsy.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/harry-reid.jpg

All Things Being Unequal

The gap between the wealthiest Americans and the middle class is ever growing. From 1979 to 2004, the share of national income going to the wealthiest 20 percent of Americans increased from 45.4 percent to 53.5 percent. The bottom 20 percent decreased from 5.8 percent to 4.1 percent. Economists blame the problem on a few different factors; these include globalization, technology, education, and tax policy. Some people feel that we should increase restrictions on trade and outsourcing because that would help people keep the same jobs and salary levels. They also feel that the government should increase taxes on the wealthiest citizens and decrease taxes on the middle to low class families because this would distribute the nation’s wealth. Finally, they feel that the government should increase job retaining programs, wage assistance programs, and unemployment benefits because this would ensure that everyone has a job especially if they lose one to globalization. However, others argue that restrictions on trade and outsourcing would hurt the nation’s economy. They also feel that raising taxes would harm the economy. And finally, they feel that increasing job retaining programs, wage assistance programs, and unemployment benefits would reduce business profits and leave less money to distribute which would hurt employees rather than benefit them.

I believe that the government should increase its influence on trade and outsourcing to some extent. These things can be good for our economy if used in moderation; however, if we outsource everything, there will be not jobs left in America for Americans to have. And that is very bad for our economy. In contrast, though, I do not feel that the government should increase taxes on the wealthiest families. They earned their money and have the right to decide if they would like to donate it to charitable causes. I would encourage them to do so because there are people in our very own country who can’t afford to buy food. Even so, America is a free market economy; people make their own way up the social ladder. The government cannot control how much money a person makes. They can, however, monitor how money is distributed to the people that worked for it. New Jersey Senate Majority Leader Steve Sweeney feels the same way. (http://www.njsendems.com/release.asp?rid=2980) The dream of making money is incentive for people to do so. Our nation’s economy can grow in this way. I also feel that increasing programs to assist the unemployed is a bad idea. The government cannot afford to spend money it doesn’t have. Our country is in a recession and people are losing jobs left and right but there are still jobs out there and there will be more jobs available if the government faces its problems head on. Lost jobs or falling wages are the effect of a government in a lot of debt. We can’t spend money on the effect. We have to find the cause and fix it. We have to keep outsourcing from taking over the U.S. We have to respect the free market economy. And we have to get our country out of debt.

Other sites with related topics:

Putting Welfare to Work
http://backstroker321.blogspot.com/2009/12/putting-welfare-to-work.html

Boosting the Minimum Wage
http://erintakle.blogspot.com/

Picture Source:

http://www.youthworkinternational.com/custom/Family%202.JPG

Traditional Security is Best

Homeland Security has funded a project called Future Attribute Screening Technology, or FAST.

FAST is a technology that measures bodily functions like heart-rate, breathing, eye-movement, facial temperature, and even blinking. Project manager Robert Burns believes heavily that this will be the future of airport security. He argues that over the past forty years there has been research to support that the body reacts naturally to high-stress situations. He believes that a terrorist with an intent to put people at risk will naturally show these signs, that he won’t be able to help it. He deems the research so effective that at the airport of the future "you may keep your shoes on, you don't need to take your jacket off and please keep your bottle of water."

I seriously hope that this is not the directition we are headed. First of all, anyone can show signs of stress for any number of reasons. A person could be stressed by a delayed flight, he or she could be stressed by the thought of flying, or maybe, if they’re like my mother, they don’t like traveling because the entire process from the number of people in the airport to the possibility of running late and missing a flight stresses them out. Also, some people find airport security intimidating, I know that I do. I know that if I was being questioned I would probably be nervous and fidgiting and looking away and breathing quicker, and my heart-rate would probably be higher as well. I do not believe that a nervous or stressed person necessarily has something to hide.

Second of all, terrorists are not normal people that get stressed out in normal situations. Someone who is planning to kill a number of people is not normal. They might be quite calm and collected right before they high-jack a plain. They might be able to pass right through those FAST detectors with a bomb in their suitcase because the airport doesn’t check their bags anymore.

I can see the use of such a system as a back-up plan, one that helps support the idea that someone is, in fact a security risk but I do not feel comfortable with the idea of getting rid of the rest of our security and relying on a machine that measure bodily functions. There is no better way of getting inside a person’s head than actually finding out their intent with actual evidence. Find the terrorist group, find the bomb, find the terrorist, but for Pete’s sake don’t be looking for bodily functions.

Article Source: http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/10/06/security.screening/index.html#cnnSTCText

Picture Source:

http://www.backpackersguide.co.uk/images/plane-travel.jpg