Waterboarding/Geneva Conventions

So originally I was going to have this blog post to be about waterboarding, which for those of you who may not know anything about, back in around November, Congress had this sparked interest in torture, as in what constitutes as torture because well, people found about how the CIA still uses this technique as a means of getting information even though it has been banned for the military in 2005 by Congress [as said by commondreams.org].
Now 2005, that's pretty recent considering that this method of obtaining information has been around since the Middle Ages. Now based on an article I read on ABC News' website called History of an Interrogation Technique: Water Boarding there was mention on the laws of war, better known to some, namely myself, those things that were established during the Geneva Convenions.

The point that I'm actually trying to get here, is that while reading that ABC article, what hit me was the quote that Darius Rejali, who happens to be a professor at Reed College, was ' "Even when you're fighting against belligerents who don't respect the laws of war, we are obliged to hold the laws of war," said Rejali. "And water torture is torture." ' Now let's ignore the fact that a professor just made a fallacy by saying water torture is torture, [I mean come on, begging the question anyone?] and focus on the fact that he quoted laws of war, now that really made me think about the Geneva Conventions, now I'm paraphrasing here and this is all from memory, in that if a soldier sees that something is wrong and that he/she believes that is wrong, despite what his commanding officer is telling him, he is allowed to disobey. Now that sounds all good and dandy, but how well does that hold? In talking to three active duty soldiers at Ft. Lewis, who did not want their names included, they all had pretty much the same response to this, that they still have to follow whatever they are being told, I tried pushing the laws of war, and they kept pushing back that no, it does not work like that, that you could not disobey, and the person that disobeyed would be the one that suffered.

This brings me to the question: How worried should we be about this?
Being only someone that recently realized this, [I'm sure we can all name a Hollywood movie that brings this about somehow but never really truly took seriously because come on, its Hollywood] I have to wonder what exactly we don't know is going on. There is just so much that is not revealed to the public, especially to the United States public, let's face the fact, we are usually only worried about what's going on specifically with the US. Try BBC or some other countries news station and they talk about what's going on everywhere in the world, but that's another blog post.

Does Voting Really Matter?

Every four years we choose a POTUS [President of the United States] to lead, guide and represent us in upcoming events. How we come to a decision, by voting of course, for the candidate we believe shall symbolize our nation accordingly. But there is a question that tends to arise with the way over voting system is set up especially on blogs such as the one on http://montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080106/OPINION02/801040359/1006. This question is “is voting really necessary?” I mean, the votes of the states are determined by the electoral colleges which is the supposed “choice” of the people of the state. If that’s how it is, then why do voters even participate in the elections when the higher ups are the ones calling the shot? Voting has its ups and downs; people see these positives and negatives differently. For example, in the caucuses and primaries, candidates travel all over the United States to win the support of the voters in the elections. Besides it being a popularity contest, voters have a chance to participate in the selection of their top two leaders, on Democratic and on Republican. This can give them a sense of accomplishment because they feel as if they have done something for this country by helping elect a leader. I'm just saying that there seems to be a certain time for the public vote and that is during the months before the elections, in the primaries and caucuses. Since when it comes down to the final results, it is the electoral colleges that get that say even when their opinions come from a majority vote from the voters, a simplified statement from wikipedia. I believe that voting is a preference since there are those who feel so strongly about it and those that just don't want to deal with it.

Global Warming Hoax

We are destroying Earth. Our cars and factories are polluting the air around us; it is devastating to the ozone layer. Greenhouse gases are building, causing ice caps to melt and the world to flood.

Not quite.

Yes, the world is getting warmer. But no, this is not the end. Every climatologist will agree that Earth has been much hotter (and much colder) than it is now. Like everything else, Earth's climate goes through cycles.

The 1850s saw the end of the Little Ice Age; a terrible time that froze over the New York Harbor and killed many. It was rough; there were no heaters or electricity to keep people warm. At the same time, there were no heaters or electricity to emit greenhouse gases, but Earth was able to warm up all on its own.

By the 1930s, the temperature had risen so much that people began to worry about global warming. But then, in the1940s (when there was a drastic increase in carbon dioxide emissions), Earth began to cool again.

It cooled so much, in fact, that in the 1970s there was a global cooling scare. Mass media and scientists were convinced that Earth would freeze over and we would be faced with another ice age. Before the 1970s were even over, Earth began to warm again.

This increase in temperature did coincide with a large increase in industry. The American economy has grown by 150 per cent and automobile traffic by 143 per cent. But, during this same period of economic flux, air pollutants declined by 29 percent, toxic emission by 48.5 per cent, sulphur dioxide by 65 per cent, and airborne lead by 97.3 percent.

While America, after China, emits the most carbon dioxide, no one could compete with the amount of carbon dioxide released by earthquakes and volcanoes. Human activities contribute less than one percent of the total carbon atmospheric mass.

Not that carbon dioxide is such a bad guy anyway. Every living entity on this Earth requires it to live. With out carbon dioxide there is no photosynthesis. Without photosynthesis there is no food and there is no us. With the increase of carbon dioxide also came the increase of wheat in Australia (the third largest “polluter” in the world.)

Despite the hype that human pollutants are destroying the atmosphere, we are fueled and heated by an outside source: the sun. During the Little Ice Age of 1645 – 1715, there were very few occurrences of sunspots. A sunspot is a cooler, darker spot on the sun’s surface, which usually occur in clusters. It has been suggested that the sun is one per cent cooler when there are no spots.

Starting this year, it is predicted that solar storms will increase and peak in 2012. The cycle is predicted to be 30 to 50 percent stronger than last. This implies that our temperature increase on Earth has nothing to do with humans and the greenhouse gases we emit. Also, Mars is experiencing global warming as we speak. There are no cars on Mars. Some would hope that no human is arrogant enough to believe that our pollution is affecting Mars as well.

Global Warming is Becoming a Problem

Global warming is becoming an even bigger issue as the years pass. The government doesn’t seem to do anything until it’s too late, always waiting for the last possible second to fix problems instead of dealing with them from the beginning. Now we are fighting a war that is much bigger than Iraq and may become a battle we cannot win. Even now there are organizations that are trying to prevent additional effects that society has been causing for generations.This disaster is destroying the habitats of polar bears, thus driving them to extinction; affecting weather, and creating more monstrous storms than anyone could comprehend. These events may seem like nothing but that is far from true. Over the past few years, we have been continuously bit by natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina, the California fires and Washington floods. Global warming it’s caused by the “greenhouse effect”, which is when “greenhouse gases” trap energy within the earth’s atmosphere and causes the temperature to rise. But to make matters more confusing the “greenhouse effect” is a very important factor to human survival. We need it to regulate earth’s climate; otherwise the temperatures would become unbearably cold. It’s ironic that we need the greenhouse effect to survive, but it is also the very thing that could destroy us. More information on the greenhouse effect can be found at http://epa.gov/climatechange/kids/greenhouse.html. There are so many ways to help prevent a worse off future. All you have to do is use better gas, carpool, use energy-saving light bulbs, and many more ideas found on http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/.

Control guns, kill Americans

March 1789, the Congress of the United States gathered to add on to their Constitution. They would create a Bill of Rights written in straightforward and restrictive language, to prevent any abuse or misconstructions of power.

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

During this time Americans were spread far and wide. There was little transportation, making it hard to get from one place to another. This made law enforcement extremely difficult, and a person would have to fend for himself. There was just no way for help to arrive in time. It would make sense for an average person to have a gun. 200 years later, average cars drive 100 miles an hour and there are police stations situated in every city. Some would argue times have changed; there is just no need for Joe Average to have a gun anymore. All guns do is kill people.

For every life lost to a gun, 65 lives are saved. That is five lives protected every minute. Guns are the safest and most effective mode of defense. A gun is much better method of defense than not resisting at all, and it keeps the user further away from the threat resulting in fewer injuries.

Citizens use their guns to stop crime and apprehend criminals seven to tens times more frequently than police, and do so with a better safety record. A person who keeps their gun permit legal and up to date usually takes the weapon seriously. They know what sort of power they are wielding, and know they just cannot whip it around. A responsible gun owner considers about how much aid their gun would actually be in a situation. They have to consider others in the area, and have to ensure the attacker could not potentially take their gun from them. They do not want to be responsible for theirs or other innocent’s injuries or even death.

Many believe that gun control will keep guns off the street. It will keep many citizens from carrying firearms, but that just means that only those who are breaking the law, also known as criminals, are the only people carrying. Murder, robbery and rape are against the law, but that does not stop it from happening. Wishful thinking will not keep criminals from breaking the law, but they will affect good people who honor the law. Washington, DC does not allow guns, and also has the highest crime rate in America.

Actually, in the District of Columbia the African-American teenage male homicide rate is 20 times the national average. For over 20 years now it has been illegal for a teen to carry or even own a gun. And yet, middle-aged white men, who have a homicide rate of less than half of the national average, own the majority of guns.

“A homeowner is 43 times as likely to be killed or kill a family member as an intruder,” is Dr. Kellermann’s much repeated and long discredited claim. It is unlikely that a person’s use of a gun in defense will result in a death; only 1 in 1000 do. Kellermann did not take into account any lives saved, and he only studied groups with high rates of violence, alcoholism, drug addiction, and domestic abuse. Kellermann has since changed his figures to “2.7 times” as likely, and admitted that if his wife were attacked he would want her to have a gun.

Gun control saves futures

Guns are pointless. The chances of actually jumping out of bed, running to the closet, opening the safe, pulling out the gun, and putting in a full magazine, all between the time you actually hear the intruder and before he gets to you is slim. The only way to ensure a person can protect their family in time is to put the gun in a more accessible place.

That is when people get hurt.

When a gun is put in a place that would be logical for self-protection, a child in the house could find it. A gun is 2.7 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder. A child has the right to grow up without the threat of guns and gun violence.

Something needs to be done about the accessibility of guns. As it is now, people with criminal records and those who are mentally unstable can easily gain access.

What needs to be done is increase gun control laws. When access to guns is limited, not only will there be less accidents but less crime as well.

Getting rid of guns will reduce violence and save lives. Sounds good to me.

Abortion

A lot of people get Pro-Choice confused into thinking its “Pro-Abortion”. You are either Pro-Life or Pro-Choice, you can not waver to and fro between the tags. From my personal thinking, being Pro-Choice, you are not advocating abortion. It is the right that a woman has a choice, as simple as that. In a better world, there would be no need to have an abortion, and I’m sure everyone agrees that would be the ideal situation, but it doesn’t work like that. We have to take into consideration that being pregnant in a school setting or out of a school setting is a very hard thing to do, if you are unable to support yourself, how are you suppose to support another human being? We tend to focus on school settings because as an adult, its more commonly assumed that you can take of yourself; while girls in high school or maybe younger, are put through a lot of ridicule. And even when they overcome the judgment that the other students have burdened them with, it is difficult to get their lives back together. Being pro-choice is not the favoring of abortion over other alternatives, it is the agreement that there are other options out there.

On the other hand, with Pro-Life, there comes the belief that every human life is sacred. As soon as the egg has been fertilized; that is defined as someone's existence. With this belief, everyone should have the chance to exist. "It is God's will," as many have retorted. There is always the option of adoption, or some church's have had a pregnancy help center, where they will take care of the woman through her pregnancy and after as long as they do their share of chores and participate in the religion.

Con: Universal Health Care

A major issue in the 2008 presidential election will be Universal Health Care. Health Care is something that affects us all; at one point or another every person will need to go to the doctor. That is why the concept of not having to pay for a trip to the doctor sounds so appealing. The problem with this is while your care is being paid for; you are paying for everyone else’s through taxes. This includes drug addicts, bums, and people who are in this country illegally.

In the countries that have already made Health Care universal, doctor appointments are set up by ranking the person’s ailment. A person with a pencil stabbed into their spleen will be treated before the person with a broken leg; one is simply more life threatening than the other. But as a result the person with the broken bone may wait weeks just to have it set. The rule applies to people with life threatening diseases. A person with cancer is not going to drop dead if they do not get treatment that day. So again, they have to wait months, even years for treatment. The United States does not have Universal Health Care and has the highest survival rate for cancer in the world.

Everyone should bare the cost of his own Health Care. And while the concept of employer based insurance should be revisited, we should not switch to Universal Health Care.

Pro: Universal Health Care

One important 2008 Presidential Campaign political issue is the Universal Health care. Everyone has the right to affordable and high quality health care. Basically, Universal Health care is a system that is managed by the government. It provides equal coverage of health benefits for all citizens of America. In the current system, most small or starting businesses can not afford health care for their employees due to ever increasing insurance premiums. If there is a universal health care system, these businesses can afford and provide medical benefits accordingly.
The problem with our health care system today is that if you are unemployed you won't get any health care at all because you can only gain it through your employer. For example, if a father were lose his job due to sickness and the mother is the only source of income. He no longer has health care and now the wife has to provide for both her husband's medication, necessities for their family and bills. Then the wife had to quit her job to take care of her husband, leaving the family with no source of income and no means of health care.