Yo
- Greetings from Steven
- You have found the right place to have fun AND learn government. Just doing this for government.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Thinking Politically's analysis on warrantless wiretapping
I strongly agree with your opinion. The government isn't allowed to search houses without a warrant so it should be same with wiretapping. Due to our situation with 9/11 in the past and our troops in Iraq, it would be understandable to be cautious to anything else that would happen in our nation. There is a possibility that by taking this action it could catch a suspect in action trying to plan something, but the chances are too slim compared to the guilty and innocent ratio in our nation. I am basically implying that, the chance of warrantless wiretapping catching a suspect is a little narrow. When Thinking Politically propose the idea that putting up surveillance cameras on the streets and department stores, I think she made a good point. Putting them cameras on public locations is reasonable, but compared to the events at home it is another story. Some people might think "What is the difference from warrant and warrantless? In the end they're going to tap the lines at the end." Well the idea is to ensure unreckless acts that certain officers might carry out and also the basic view is that it is unconstitutional as stated by Thinking Politically. I would personally feel that I would have no privacy if the government supports warrantless wiretapping. I agree with Thinking Politically that things need to be done for our nation, but in a reasonal and legal procedure.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Has gas prices killed you yet?
Monday, April 7, 2008
Ramzy's analysis of the Iraq War
I agree with you Ramzy, I too was at first with Bush's decision for taking action in response to September 11. United States is considered to be one of the most powerful nations, but we shouldn't be in over our heads and take on every nation due to our disagreement of their systems. Their is one error in your statement though; when you say invade afghanistan, what is your defination of invade? You mean invading by fighting Iraqies in Afghanistan or fighting Afgahnis in Afghanistan. Depending on your definition of invading Afghanistan, we didn't actually invade Afghanistan because they are our allies. We did invade Iraq though and even though I did not support the war in Iraq, I also believe that since we destroyed the government that we should fix it. I would personally feel guilty if I were to be at fault of something and not take the responsibiliy to clean it up. Your idea/action that we should take in response to Iraq is fairly reasonable. Though Bush has put himself in a bad situation, I deeply feel bad for him because he was put at a difficult situation. I truly hope as you do Ramzy for us to finish Iraq and fix our own problems that we have developed due to invading Iraq. It is agreeable to say, we want our troops back. (Implying family and friends that are in Iraq.)
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Are We Behind In School?
So when we think about it, how far are we from other nations? Elaine Wu says "In a 2003 study conducted by UNICEF that took the averages from five different international education studies, the researchers ranked the United States No. 18 out of 24 nations in terms of the relative effectiveness of its educational system." Wow, we're not even at the halfway mark. What nations could have beaten us in education? In many studies, Finland, Australia, Belgium, Austria, Hungary, Netherlands and the United Kingdom beat the United States, while the Asian nations of South Korea, Japan and Singapore ranked first through third, respectively. We are suppose to be a very prosperous nation, but by looking at the results of school. Our future kids might not be able to keep that title for us.
Not that America isn't spending much for education, actually by international standards, the United States spends a lot of money on education, and in terms of class sizes, a lot of countries that do well have larger class sizes than the United States. The United States focuses more on procedure, and we try to teach many topics fast. Other countries tend to break topics up and go much more in-depth. They work on the concept, not just the procedure! Maybe we're rushing things and trying to be the nation with the MOST knowledge, but really in the end our in-dept analysises are weak. Maybe If we were to uptake the methods of other nations and advance their techniques, would could easily eliminate the problem of us being so far behind of other nations.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Charges dropped against Iraqi officials
All of these seems to be very suspicious and is obviously taken care of. More actions into investigating and finding out about the hospitical and clinics otherwise more kidnappings are going to happen. For these violent sectarian attacks on Iraqi citizens, it is just morally wrong. I don't understand how people can do that. What if they were actually guitly of all of this? For the charges to be dropped would just let them cause more chaos within throughout the town involving with the hopsital or clinic. To find evidance on some of these incidents is very difficult, unless they are caught in action. Darn them.
This is found at the Huffington Post
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
U.S. House member loses his cool
In Cythnia's case, she allegedly struck an officer with her cellphone because he stopped her at a gate. "A grand jury declined to indict her but, politically, she was toast." It seems that her political career seems to be over because of this incident. Her case seems to be more serious than that of Christopher Shays's, that is why Shay barely won his re-election. Thought this over-reaction is uncalled for, people should still view the members of the house just as regular people. People seem to highlight these attributes just to go in favor for the party they are with. Otherwise, this article to me personally does not have any purpose except for revealing that the members of the house are normal people.
This article is found at Los Angeles Time
Monday, February 11, 2008
Bush Sends Anti-Steroid Pact to Senate
"President Bush asked the Senate to swiftly approve an agreement ratified by more than 70 nations to fight the use of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs in sports." There was a statement on thursday by the White house implying that their agreement's principle already reflects U.S. law and policy. Basically White House press secretary Dana perino is stating our nation is going to solidify our place as worldwide leader in ridding athletes of drug use due to our ratification of the convention. "U.S. Olympic Committee CEO Jim Scherr said he appreciated Bush's support." Obviously for majority of the U.S. to support this, Bush is going to take action to gain popularity. This is suppose to help control international competitions like Olympics and Pan American Games. The White House states that this convention is supposedly a walkthrough in strengthening their policies against performance enhancing drugs.
"The use of performance-enhancing drugs by elite athletes sets a dangerous example for millions of young Americans, encouraging young people to take grave risks with their health and safety" I personally agree with this action that Bush is taking. Not only is this action an improvement for his figure, but a better direction for U.S. Pro athletes that utilizes performance-enhancement drugs is not only cheating, but hurting themselves. This article is worth reading because of the purpose of this pact is considered to be important and better for the U.S.
This article was found at The Austin American Statesman