Response to Pro-choice or pro-life? http://mustloveelephants.blogspot.com/

Abortion is by no means a black and white issue and I feel that in your editorial you did a thorough job of conveying both viewpoints. It is true that moral aspects unfortunately collide with individual rights. The question of "morality" really depends on the individual. Being a woman, it definitely is more difficult to come up with an answer. I personally believe that, as guaranteed in the Constitution, a person should have the right to do whatever he/she wants with his/her own body. However, all said and done, abortion terminates a perfectly valuable life. Nevertheless, regardless of personal views and biases, the government should not ban abortion because it infringes on a person's self-autonomy. From health issues and rape to teenage pregnancies and incest there are a number of reasons why a woman might need an abortion, and banning this right would be unconstitutional. One might argue that if the government doesn't ban abortion then everyone will want one. I agree that while this may not be the ideal situation, a woman deserves the right to choose what to do with her body. Health-related issues are becoming more rare as medicine improves and sex education in schools is helping to decline the teen pregnancy rate. Hopefully, as a result of these advances,less people will need abortions.Unfortunately, issues such as rape and incest won't go away, but if the other causes are eradicated,a smaller percentage of people will actually need abortions. Moreover, although abortion may not seem like the ideal solution, it is, I believe, a woman's right to choose.

Court ruling on handgun ban is a recipe for disaster

Advocates for gun rights had a significant victory on Thursday, June 26. The Supreme Court struck down the Washington, D.C ban on handguns in a 5-4 decision, ruling that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms. This is the first time the Court has ruled that the Constitution provides for individual self-defense, rather than a right that applies only to a state militia. However, this decision will do nothing but contribute to more crime, violence in schools, and an overall more dangerous society.
While self-defense is an important constitutional right, allowing the indiscriminate use of handguns will do nothing but wreak havoc. There have been too many instances of the wrong people getting a hold of guns. From Columbine and the Amish school shootings to the catastrophe at Virginia Tech last year, there are countless instances of minors, non-licensed gun owners, etc having access. One might argue that if guns were banned, victims of assault would be at a disadvantage. However, if victims didn't have guns wouldn't it be very unlikely that attackers would? More specifically, keeping a ban on handguns would significantly decrease the national number as well as the severity of assaults.
Also, there is a direct correlation between crime and the availability of guns. According to http://www.vpc.org,of all firearm-related crime in America, 86 percent involved handguns. On average, if someone gets shot and killed, four out of five times it will be with a handgun. This data was obviously released prior to the Supreme Court ruling. Imagine, if there was so much danger even with a ban, think of how much more crime could occur as a result of this new decision. Now, even more people will have access and as a result, there were will be a significant increase in homicides, suicides, gunshot injuries, etc.
The United States should look to Western European nations as role models. According to http://www.iansa.org, handguns are generally restricted or, in some cases, banned from civilian ownership in these countries. The only people allowed guns in England are police officers. Consequently, Netherlands, England and Scotland have some of the lowest rates of gun deaths and overall crime in the industrialized world.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court should have reconsidered the intended meaning of the Second Amendment instead of making a decision which allows anyone to own a gun. Given the number of crimes and deaths caused by handguns in our society, the Founding Fathers would highly recommend that we curtail the "right to bear arms."

Response to Free Speech for the Dumb (http://holidaysalsa.blogspot.com)

While I do agree that free speech is one of our most important rights,I don't necessarily agree that it is acceptable in every situation. I feel that one's free speech should be protected the majority of the time, when a person wants to criticize the government, bring awareness to an issue, etc. However, I feel that when people say hateful things against other ethnic groups, different genders, etc their behavior shouldn't go unpunished. While we do live in a free society, I feel like cultural sensitivity is a crucial issue as well. Considering that America is such a diverse nation with many different groups, it is imperative that people make an effort to be empathetic toward different races, classes, creeds,etc. I agree that there is a fine line and it is impossible to know what exactly offends each person, however, the least we can do is prevent our country from becoming a breeding ground for hatred. You mention that you "cringe when a redneck makes a racist comment"--while the individual making this comment may be exercising his/her right to free speech, he/she is infringing on another individual's sense of security. Again, I'm all for free speech as long as speakers make a conscious effort not to be deliberately hateful and offensive.

Bush's Proposal to Lift Ban Absurd

Due to the escalating gas prices, currently at $4 a gallon, President Bush expressed his desire to Congress to lift bans on offshore oil drilling as well as in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Offshore drilling is blocked by two bans, one imposed by Congress and the other by the first President Bush. While Bush is facing opposition from Democrats, Republicans are intent on lifting the bans.

All lifting this ban will do is kill off species, destroy nature, contribute to economic decline, and further encourage American dependence on oil. While our nation may experience a decline in oil prices, this comfort period would only be temporary. Oil is a non-renewable resource, and we will eventually be left in a rut when it all runs out. In addition to the risk of encouraging oil dependency, the wildlife and natural world would be at stake. According to environment.about.com, numerous species of fish reside in the offshore regions where Bush wants to allow drilling. Not only would this destroy the fish species but it would also lead to the demise of polar bears. Is it really worth drilling into these fragile waters so our gas prices will temporarily go down a few cents? What will the world turn into as a result of this degradation of our environment? Oil drilling can cause series of chain reactions, slowly destroying different species which depend on each other for survival.

Maybe this struggle with oil is a sign that America needs to explore more forms of alternative energy. Solar, wind, hydrogen and nuclear power are just a few examples of renewable resources which are compatible with the environment. While it is true that these forms of energy require research, they aren't impossible to implement within a span of a few years. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_Energy, nuclear energy constitutes a significant portion of the energy of France; the case is similar with wind energy in Spain. Argentina is another nation which makes it a point to utilize natural gases. Alternative fuel sources would be more economically and environmentally feasible for the United States as well.

Moreover, instead of looking to lifting bans on oil drilling, it is imperative that the American government should seize this crisis as an opportunity to learn how to reduce dependency on oil. After all, it is our world and it is vital that we take care of it.

Justice 5, Brutality 4

Amidst all the hooplah regarding constitutional rights in Guantanamo Bay, a Supreme Court ruling on Thursday, June 12 finally affirmed the detainees' right to habeas corpus. This 5 to 4 victory protects one of the most significant cornerstones of the constitution-the the right of anyone being held by the government to challenge his/her confinement before a judge. The past few years have seen numerous efforts by President Bush to deny numerous constitutional protections to, in his words, “unlawful enemy combatants." As a result, this Supreme Court victory proves to be a milestone not only for many Democrats and anti-torture advocates, but also for the United States, which has been at risk of hypocrisy for denying detainees crucial rights.

The author of "Justice 5, Brutality 4" raises an extremely valid point as he/she describes how it is "sobering to think that habeas hangs by a single vote in the Supreme Court of the United States." While the ruling is a major victory for civil liberties, it is frightening to think that these rights aren't necessarily as unalienable as we, as a nation, presume. More specifically, as he/she reiterates that habeas corpus is so vital to the Constitution that it has its own clause, he/she evokes a sense of immense astonishment. He/she mentions that it cannot be suspended except “when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” Clearly, that isn't an issue in Guantanamo, giving all the more reason to provide these detainees with one of their many basic rights.

Moreover, the author's arguments regarding the unconstitutionality of the treatment of the detainees are very plausible; he/she effectively emphasizes the fragility of these rights when he/she describes the ongoing battle between President Bush and the Supreme Court, as well as the internal battle within the Supreme Court. The fact that there was even a dispute regarding the basic rights of detainees demonstrates the necessity for re-evaluation; rights that are supposedly "unalienable" ought to apply to those held in Guantanamo Bay as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/opinion/13fri1.html

Raising the Bar at the Pentagon

Lack of accountability within the United States government has proven to be a widely controversial issue during the past few years. However, Defense Secretary Robert Gates ended this trend on June 7 when he fired service secretary Michael W. Wynne and service chief Gen. T. Michael Moseley for systemic problems in securing nuclear weapons and components. The Air Force not only let a B-52 bomber fly across the United States carrying six nuclear-armed cruise missiles but also sent four high-tech nose cone fuses for Minuteman nuclear warheads to Taiwan in place of helicopter batteries. This lack of attention and care on behalf of the Air Force has been an object of scrutiny.
The author raises a valid point as he/she discusses the decline in Air Force standards over the past decade. Nevertheless, Gates's observant, cautious nature has helped him catch numerous errors and mishaps that occur within the Pentagon, thus raising the standards once again. Beginning from the time of the Walter Reed Army Medical Center scandal to this recent controversy, Gates has proven his commitment by weeding out ineffective officials.

The author also introduces another crucial point; the American government, despite having spent great amounts of time and money attempting to secure nuclear arsenals has done just the opposite. As he/she states in this editorial, since 9/11, President Bush established keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists and adversaries as a priority. As he/she mentions the “missed message”, he/she emphasizes the fact that attention isn’t focused where it should be and instead government officials have been more preoccupied with issues such as the Iraq war rather than securing sensitive military components.

Moreover, the author’s clearly exemplifies the mishaps within the Air Force/Pentagon by substantiating his/her claims with concrete evidence. He/she successfully expresses his/her concerns regarding standards within the Air Force as well as his/her admiration for Gates’s perceptiveness.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/07/opinion/07sat1.htm

Obama Claims Nomination

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/us/politics/03cnd-elect.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Exceeding the required delegate count with approximately 2,118 total, Sen. Barack Obama declared himself the Democratic presidential nominee on Tuesday, June 3. He began the day short of 41 delegates but his wins in Montana and South Dakota led to his final victory. Obama’s victory broke records on many different levels including the number of voters who participated, the amount of money raised and spent, as well as the length of the race between Sen. Hilary Clinton and himself. The campaign faced many tensions and uncertainties throughout the race and his win comes as a surprise to many who felt Clinton was on her way to receiving the nomination.
This article regarding Obama's victory portrays the political process in a way that the general public can relate to. As it explains the nomination process, campaigning, etc it provides the reader with a thorough understanding of how a candidate is nominated, how votes are calculated, etc. This ties directly into the curriculum of our national government class with a real life example of how a nominee is chosen. Not only is the election process an important part in the study of government, but this is election is historical in many ways. Moreover, this article proves to be a real-life history lesson.