Debate over Arizona’s immigration law is the hot topic in the news lately. My fellow classmate posted a blog with their opinion. Although I agree with some of the points in the blog, there are a few that I have to disagree with.
Should illegal immigrants have to account for how they arrived in our country and what they are doing here? Yes! Of course they should. But, this law in Arizona is not the way to make this happen. This law allows the authorities to demand papers from any citizen living in the state should the authority figure believe that the person might be an illegal immigrant. There are thousands of Hispanic people that live in Arizona who were born in the United States, or who have become citizens properly. Can you imagine walking down the street, speaking to your immediate family in Spanish and being stopped and forced to show your papers? How humiliating and uncalled for.
The author of the blog lists some of the requirements to become a U.S. citizen. I agree that to be a citizen of the country a person should learn English, know about the Constitution, etc. But, let’s be honest here, how many people do you know that were born and raised here that don’t have “a favorable disposition toward the United States,” or good moral character. These requirements are great, but people that are from the U.S don’t meet all of them. What will we do next? Start making people born into the country meet up to these expectations or they will be deported somewhere?
People illegally immigrating to this country is a big problem. One that needs to be addressed. But, this law DOES enable racial profiling and it is wrong. There are other ways we can address this problem in our country rather than enacting laws that make people in our country, many of whom have every right to be here, anxious to leave their homes because they might be stopped and detained for being Hispanic. The very idea of it seems crazy! This is just a step in the wrong direction America.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Thursday, April 29, 2010
National Day of Prayer
The National Day of Prayer was made official in 1952, and before that there were other days of prayer. The day dates back to 1775. Is the National Day of prayer Unconstitutional? That is the current question on hand and President Obama is speaking up and saying no. The case is Freedom from religion vs. President Barack Obama, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, and Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle, and will be heard by the Supreme Court. In 2008, the Freedom from Religion Foundation sued President George W. Bush and other members of his administration stating that the day violated separation of Church and State. The Obama administration asked U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb to dismiss the case in March 2009, but instead the case was amended to include President Obama.
Judge Crabb ruled on April 15, 2010 that the statue enacting the national Day of Prayer is unconstitutional and in her reasoning she states “...Recognizing the importance of prayer to many people does not mean that the government may enact a statute in support of it, any more than the government may encourage citizens to fast during the month of Ramadan, attend a synagogue, purify themselves in a sweat lodge or practice rune magic.” The U.S. Department of Justice filed a notice to appeal the ruling on April 22, 2010.
The fact that people are arguing this seems ridiculous to me. We have already taken so much religious freedoms away from people because others are so worried that Christianity will take over the U.S. There is now no more prayer in schools, at sporting events, and children have gotten sent to the principal’s office for praying in class. The National Day of Prayer needs to stay. As judge Crabb admits herself, prayer gives people hope and in times of crisis and grief it can actually help people survive. This day celebrates faith, hope, and love, and taking it away would be a disgrace. If people don’t want to participate then they do not have to, they can just ignore it all together just as some people ignore holidays such as Valentine’s Day. It’s not like the government is forcing anyone to pray to God. It’s just a day set aside so that people that choose to can celebrate their individual faith and spirituality. This is a good thing and it should stick around.
Judge Crabb ruled on April 15, 2010 that the statue enacting the national Day of Prayer is unconstitutional and in her reasoning she states “...Recognizing the importance of prayer to many people does not mean that the government may enact a statute in support of it, any more than the government may encourage citizens to fast during the month of Ramadan, attend a synagogue, purify themselves in a sweat lodge or practice rune magic.” The U.S. Department of Justice filed a notice to appeal the ruling on April 22, 2010.
The fact that people are arguing this seems ridiculous to me. We have already taken so much religious freedoms away from people because others are so worried that Christianity will take over the U.S. There is now no more prayer in schools, at sporting events, and children have gotten sent to the principal’s office for praying in class. The National Day of Prayer needs to stay. As judge Crabb admits herself, prayer gives people hope and in times of crisis and grief it can actually help people survive. This day celebrates faith, hope, and love, and taking it away would be a disgrace. If people don’t want to participate then they do not have to, they can just ignore it all together just as some people ignore holidays such as Valentine’s Day. It’s not like the government is forcing anyone to pray to God. It’s just a day set aside so that people that choose to can celebrate their individual faith and spirituality. This is a good thing and it should stick around.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Should Abortion be illegal?
My fellow classmate, Megan posted a blog about abortion that I would like to respond to. Megan believes the government is taking away our rights little by little, and she believes that considering making abortion illegal is taking away a very important right. Megan states that the government might make it legal if the person was raped or it is medically necessary. She also makes the point that "the last thing our country needs is more unwanted babies that are brought into a non loving family...” To this I have to say: don’t have sex if you don't want a baby! Pregnancy is 100% preventable. 100%! It is your choice to have sex, and as responsible adults, we know that this can lead to pregnancy and a life.
A baby has a beating heart at about 5 weeks after fertilization. Many times, women are just realizing they are pregnant, and their baby's heart is beating. This means that when women get an abortion, they are killing a baby, stopping its beating heart. Why should women be able to choose to stop a beating heart? Because it's "their body their right?" Well then, they should choose to not have sex with their body, and then there would be no baby to have to worry about. The baby should have rights, it did not ask to be brought into the world, and should have a chance at life. As for the people that have an unwanted child, there are always other options. Millions of people are unable to have children and would love to adopt a baby. Women should and do have the right to choose. The choice is in whether or not to have sex. Not whether or not to take another human life away.
A baby has a beating heart at about 5 weeks after fertilization. Many times, women are just realizing they are pregnant, and their baby's heart is beating. This means that when women get an abortion, they are killing a baby, stopping its beating heart. Why should women be able to choose to stop a beating heart? Because it's "their body their right?" Well then, they should choose to not have sex with their body, and then there would be no baby to have to worry about. The baby should have rights, it did not ask to be brought into the world, and should have a chance at life. As for the people that have an unwanted child, there are always other options. Millions of people are unable to have children and would love to adopt a baby. Women should and do have the right to choose. The choice is in whether or not to have sex. Not whether or not to take another human life away.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Healthcare
So, as you can probably tell if you've read any of my other posts, I'm not exactly an Obama fan. I'm also definitely not a fan of the new healthcare bill. As a nursing student, this bill, now a law, has been of interest to me.
In my opinion, this is just a horrible idea, and something that is not good for our country. I know a lot of people think this is going to bring great change and good things for the people in this country who cannot afford to pay for healthcare and for those who have pre-existing medical conditions. As a child, I watched my parents struggle as well as my grandparents. My grandfather had lung cancer and the medical bills that ensued were outrageous. I DO think something needs to be done to “fix” our healthcare system. However, I DO NOT think this is the answer.
One of the main reasons this is a bad idea is because there are so many little things packed into this law that the bad definitely out-weighs the good.
For example, with this bill, it will now be harder for people to deduct healthcare expenses from their taxes. Last year, medical expenses had to be at least 7.5% of a person's income in order for them to qualify for deduction. Now, medical expenses will need to be 10% of a person's income to qualify. This is going to shut out millions of working Americans that can use this deduction.
This is just one small example of the many things wrong with this bill and one example of the "sneaky" things crammed into the bill. This is not the answer to our healthcare problems, and as Americans start to realize all of the "hidden gems" in the bill, I think they wil start agreeing with me.
In my opinion, this is just a horrible idea, and something that is not good for our country. I know a lot of people think this is going to bring great change and good things for the people in this country who cannot afford to pay for healthcare and for those who have pre-existing medical conditions. As a child, I watched my parents struggle as well as my grandparents. My grandfather had lung cancer and the medical bills that ensued were outrageous. I DO think something needs to be done to “fix” our healthcare system. However, I DO NOT think this is the answer.
One of the main reasons this is a bad idea is because there are so many little things packed into this law that the bad definitely out-weighs the good.
For example, with this bill, it will now be harder for people to deduct healthcare expenses from their taxes. Last year, medical expenses had to be at least 7.5% of a person's income in order for them to qualify for deduction. Now, medical expenses will need to be 10% of a person's income to qualify. This is going to shut out millions of working Americans that can use this deduction.
This is just one small example of the many things wrong with this bill and one example of the "sneaky" things crammed into the bill. This is not the answer to our healthcare problems, and as Americans start to realize all of the "hidden gems" in the bill, I think they wil start agreeing with me.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Obama improving America's image... or maybe not...
I found a great post from Power Line, which talks about Obama's failure to come through on yet another promise, connecting with the people of the world. John, from the Power Line brings up the point that during his campaign, one of the key arguments he made was that he would improve America's image around the world. He got so many to believe this on the assumption the anti-American attitudes were because of the Bush administration. Of course, the reality of it is that many people around the world have hatred and feel bitterness for America for lots of reasons, including the fact that they disagree with many of our values.
Obama had planned to visit Indonesia, and recently there have been protests against him, during these protests, people were throwing shoes at pictures of Obama and writing "terrorist" on pictures of his face. John makes a good point here as well, does the shoe throwing sound familiar people? This is the same behavior people exhibited toward President Bush.
It sure doesn't seem like he's doing very good at improving our image. This is just another example of Obama's promises falling through.
Obama had planned to visit Indonesia, and recently there have been protests against him, during these protests, people were throwing shoes at pictures of Obama and writing "terrorist" on pictures of his face. John makes a good point here as well, does the shoe throwing sound familiar people? This is the same behavior people exhibited toward President Bush.
It sure doesn't seem like he's doing very good at improving our image. This is just another example of Obama's promises falling through.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Distracted Driving
I found this editorial about the texting while driving ban on the Statesman's website interesting, and it's a topic that I have heard all over the news and radio lately. Texting while driving IS dangerous and "distracted driving" is definitely not a good practice.
The author of this editorial makes the point that carmakers are making technology readily available at driver’s fingertips. Now we can surf the net, chat with friends, and purchase items online. All done while we are in our cars. Most of the technology available in cars works while the car is stationary. However, one can use their cell phone while going 70 down the highway. This is dangerous, and the government is deciding to do something about it. Laws are being passed to ban texting while driving, like the one in Austin now. Also, laws banning the use of cell phones in school zones are being passed.
While I agree that texting while driving is dangerous, I think these laws overstep boundaries. If there are going to be laws banning the use of cell phones in cars, then there would need to be laws banning people from talking to people in the backseat, grabbing a CD, switching the radio station, and all of the other "distractions" people do every day while driving. In an ideal world, people would keep their hands at 10 and 2 and eyes on the road at all times, but that’s just not how it goes. I drive from north Austin to downtown Austin every day and I have seen people doing some interesting things while going 65 mph. Putting on makeup, reading a book, all of these things are dangerous too. I do not agree with distracted driving, and I do think texting and driving should not be mixed, but I don't think the government should be trying to control every aspect of our lives.
The law just seems difficult to enforce and it just aims to correct one of the many distractions drivers have in their cars. People need to pay more attention on the road, but I don't think this law is going to change people's distracted behaviors.
The author of this editorial makes the point that carmakers are making technology readily available at driver’s fingertips. Now we can surf the net, chat with friends, and purchase items online. All done while we are in our cars. Most of the technology available in cars works while the car is stationary. However, one can use their cell phone while going 70 down the highway. This is dangerous, and the government is deciding to do something about it. Laws are being passed to ban texting while driving, like the one in Austin now. Also, laws banning the use of cell phones in school zones are being passed.
While I agree that texting while driving is dangerous, I think these laws overstep boundaries. If there are going to be laws banning the use of cell phones in cars, then there would need to be laws banning people from talking to people in the backseat, grabbing a CD, switching the radio station, and all of the other "distractions" people do every day while driving. In an ideal world, people would keep their hands at 10 and 2 and eyes on the road at all times, but that’s just not how it goes. I drive from north Austin to downtown Austin every day and I have seen people doing some interesting things while going 65 mph. Putting on makeup, reading a book, all of these things are dangerous too. I do not agree with distracted driving, and I do think texting and driving should not be mixed, but I don't think the government should be trying to control every aspect of our lives.
The law just seems difficult to enforce and it just aims to correct one of the many distractions drivers have in their cars. People need to pay more attention on the road, but I don't think this law is going to change people's distracted behaviors.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Sarah Palin too much of a "celebrity"?
This article about Sarah Palin asks the question, can Sarah Palin really win the Presidency in 2012? The author is stating that she is popular for being authentic and for drawing attention to herself and the Republican party. One point of view stated in the article says that she needs to choose to be either the leader of a movement or the leader of the nation, but she can't be both. This is interesting to me, because Barack Obama did both, and won the presidency. During his whole campaign he was advertising change and promoting a movement and telling everyone in this country and the world that he was going to bring change and great things for America. He was just as much a "celebrity" figure as Sarah Palin. I can't even count the number of people I saw walking around with Obama's face on their shirts, or on bumper stickers on their cars. On top of his face being EVERYWHERE, he was endorsed by more stars than pretty much any other presidential nominee. So, i agree with the conclusion of the article, which states that people better be ready for Palin, because she has a loyal following and should be able to use her "celebrity" in a positive way in the presidential bid. I think this is especially true as Obama's rating are dropping and his promises are not being fulfilled.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)