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

Don't Sext.

Sexting: sending partially nude to nude images or video or sexually explicit messages via text

A recent survey by the Pew Internet & American Life Project shows that 15 percent of teenagers ages 12 to 17 have sexted. Some people have been prosecuted on child pornography laws because of sexting. Is this right?

I think that sexting should not be considered illegal. For example, if a girl named Bonnie sends a nude picture of herself to her boyfriend, named Norman, and she took and sent the picture of her own will then it is not illegal. The picture is not hurting anyone but potentially Bonnie. No one is taking advantage of anyone else or forcing anyone to do anything. In this situation, Bonnie did nothing illegal.

Nevertheless, a person should be allowed to press sexual harassment charges against someone who sends them unwanted sexts. For example, if a boy named Norman takes nude pictures of himself and sends them to a girl he just met, named Bonnie, and she is disturbed and offended by this, then she should be able able to hold Norman acountable for his actions.

However, should a person also be able to press charges if he or she sexted someone and then that someone sent the message to other people? For example, if Bonnie sent a nude picture of herself to her longterm boyfriend, Norman and Norman sent that picture to all of his friends, should Norman be held accountable for his actions? I believe that he should be. Bonnie trusted Norman in their relationship and he humiliated her. I don't think that this is necessarily a huge offence as far as punishments go but Norman exposed something that was very personal and very private.

There is a way to avoid the situation completely, though. Don't be stupid. Do NOT send pictures or video or anything of yourself that you want to keep private. Keep things that are personal, personal. Don't give anyone the ability to expose you. Don't expose yourself.

Article Sources:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/12/15/pew.sexting.survey/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexting

Picture Source:

http://yorkstudentrn.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/texting.jpeg

The Advantage of Cyber Bullying

A group of teenagers in Newark, Ohio including a nameless minor followed Alexis Xanders and her boyfriend, who were walking home one day after school, with a video camera. They were in a dispute about what kind of music they like. The group and the nameless suspect were angry with Xanders because she doesn’t like to listen to Insane Clown Posse, a hip hop group. Xanders listens to alternative and scream-o music.

The group spends the entire video egging the suspect on, telling her to hit Xanders. They say they want to see a fight and they tell the suspect to start one. Xanders and her boyfriend just tell the group to go away. At the end of the video the suspect delivers a punch in the face to Xanders, who is then comforted by her boyfriend.

Xanders was sent the video by one of the students who recorded it. This was a mistake. Xanders posted the video on YouTube and CNN iReport. Six to ten people witnessed the actual incident but thousands of people viewed the video, including a local news reporter who alerted the police department.

The suspect was charged as a juvenile with individual counts of assault and menacing and unlawful restraint. The other teenagers involved are also being investigated for encouraging the punch.

Cyber-bullying is a new and improved version of bullying that involves posting embarrassing or harassing information on the internet or sending it to people through text and instant messages. It’s about using technology to bully an individual. This can have an awful effect on the victim; however, it can also give the victim an advantage that traditional bullying does not. If technology is used, then more people are able to view the information, and it is more likely that people will get involved and stop the bullying. That’s the only thing that can take care of the problem. Someone has to speak up before authorities can step in and take care of it.

Xanders never physically fought back, but she did do something to fight against bullying. After the incident, she has a piece of advice to give to anyone in a similar situation: "Tell somebody and do something about it. Don't just sit there and take it. You can use your words and not your hands."

Article Source:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/12/10/social.media.bullying/

Picture Source:

http://www.childline.org.uk/Explore/OnlineSafety/Pages/CyberBullying.aspx

Eat Your Vegetables

Americans know that a good way to a healthy lifestyle is eating fresh fruits and vegetables. The only problem is that fresh produce is generally consumed raw instead of cooked. Cooking food usually kills off harmful microorganisms like the E. coli found in bagged spinach in 2006. This outbreak sickened more than 200 people and killed three. Meat and poultry producers in the U.S. are highly regulated by the Department of Agriculture, but the government relies on self-regulation by the Food and Drug Administration and farmers themselves to keep fresh produce safe. Facts like these, combined with a few others such as America’s aging population and centralized agriculture have led some Americans to believe that we need one agency responsible for ensuring the safety of fresh produce. Others say that the industry itself can respond faster and more effectively than a federal agency funded by the government and that federal regulation would increase the cost of producing fruits and vegetables. People that are against greater government regulation for fresh produce feel that the increased cost would reverse the effects of a health-conscious America.

I agree that a federal agency is not the answer at this point. After the E. coli scare, bagged spinach sales decreased by 60 percent. This is not something that went unnoticed by agribusinesses. Corrections will be made by those businesses to earn back the trust of the consumer, and if this is done, then no one will have to wait for the government to come up with the money and a plan to fix what is already repaired. Also, if a federal agency is responsible for monitoring fresh produce, then the cost of that produce will definitely increase. This increase in cost will cause a decrease in demand and our economy will suffer along with the health of our citizens. If Americans aren’t eating healthy foods, then America is not healthy, and the population is aging; by 2020, some experts predict, men and women over 65 years old will make up 16 percent of the population. At an older age, one is more likely to get sick therefore we should be eating more fruits and vegetables to stay healthy and we can trust that these will be safe to eat because businesses can’t make any money if their consumers don’t buy their products. Of course, farmers everywhere know this and that is why I do not feel that a federal agency for monitoring the produce of fruits and vegetables is necessary. This view could also be shared by any number of the people, including Hillary Clinton, that signed a letter written to the FDA urging the FDA to solve the E. coli problem. (http://lautenberg.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=266890)

Other blogs with similar issues:

Ensuring Quality Care for Medicare Patients
http://sarahssocialblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/health-care-issue-2-ensuring-quality.html

Comprehensive vs. Incremental Health Care Reforms
http://erintakle.blogspot.com/

Picture Source:

http://tastetourist.com/seasonal-fruit-and-vegetables/