One of the big issues of the 2008 presidential campaign is Domestic Spying, the effects of which I will go into further on in this blog entry. For those who don’t know what domestic spying is, it breaks down to our own government spying on United States citizens who are suspected of working with terrorist groups like al-qaeda. The problem behind it is that the government is doing this without the people knowing. They’re listening in on telephone calls and other forms of telecommunications in hopes of catching someone in the act of treason against the United States. The government is supposedly attempting to protect us by doing this but in the process is opening a “can of worms” in a constitutional sense. Is the government allowed to spy on us without us knowing? What parts of our Constitutional rights are being infringed upon by them doing this? What can the citizens of the United States do to stop this?
In 2002, President Bush signed a secret order allowing the N.S.A "to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations."(Arena) His goal in this was to collect vital information before the opportunity for it to be missed was, well, missed. The thinking behind this seems sound enough, but it is technically illegal. The government has a court system set up, called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, to permit domestic spying. To gain a warrant to begin listening in, the government had to bring sufficient evidence before this court to prove that there was legitimate reasoning behind them wanting to domestically spy on the set people. By signing this order, President Bush gave the N.S.A. a “shortcut” around the courts that would allow them to spy without going through these courts.
Is this an infringement of Constitutional rights? Lee Giles, of the Peninsula Gateway, believes so. “They should not be allowed to spy on us without some sort of reasoning,” claimed Giles. “The fact that they can violate my privacy without my permission or my knowledge is unconstitutional.” On August 17, 2006, a federal judge ruled that it wasn’t and ordered it ended immediately. “U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor struck down the NSA program, which she said violates the rights to free speech and privacy.” (Mears, Koppel) The Bush administration argued back that it was not and appealed the decision.
However it got to where it is, Domestic Spying is bound to play a role somewhere in the 2008 election. Some indications have thought that the Democratic Presidential Candidates will run hard against Bush’s Domestic Spying bill. (Melber) While the Democrats generally thought to run across the board against the bill, the Republicans may prove to be a little more “creative” on how they approach the situation. Some may support it while some are bound to condemn it. We’ll just have to wait and see how it pans out in the actual election.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Environmental issues and the race to the White House in 2008
Hello there bloggers this the administrator K-Dizzle, and you guessed it this is the big one, my final post and the main article on the environment that I have been working up to. Over the past few months I have been researching candidates views and interviewing experts in the environmental field. I was lucky enough to contact the Director of the Department of Ecology for Washington State Jay Manning, and the Commissioner of Public Lands and Manager of the Department of Natural Resources for Washington State Doug Sutherland. They were able to give me some in depth answers to my questions that really helped to put my article together. Now let’s move on to the issue of the environment in the 2008 presidential elections.
If you were to ask an average American citizen about the environment they would probably be all for protecting it, but they probably wouldn’t know any specifics. With others you might get the polarized persons who either believe that we as a nation should tear down are cities and live with nature, and those who believe we should harvest all the forests and pave them over. These people are called polarized for a reason, because they are at extreme ends of the spectrum. The average person is going to probably support some type of conservation. For years now Americans have been moving toward policies favoring protection of the environment. This has started to show in legislation. Here just in Washington Mr. Manning informed me of the “Clean Car” bill that was passed. It creates strict emission limits on car models starting in 2009. If we were to take a look at environmental disasters like the Exxon Valdez the public outrage is enormous. People don’t like to see travesties against nature, it isn’t pleasant to see our impact on the environment.
The current administration seems to be in stark contrast to the popular trend. The Bush administration has acted less in the interest of the environment than most previous administrations and has been focused on other issues since 9/11. This could definitely hurt the Republicans in the up coming elections, but only with people that really view this as an issue. Those who believe that the environment is a big issue tend to be Democrats, and those who don’t believe the environment to be a big issue tend to lean Republican. These people are set in their party and they aren’t going to change their vote because they already are aligned with a party, and not just on the environment. Who might change their vote however are Independents. They have already been major catalysts in deciding winners for state nominations as in Iowa. Barack Obama won the state thanks in major part to carrying a majority of independents. Now those independents who feel strongly about protecting the environment are going to look at what the Republican party has to offer and what the Democratic party is going to have to offer. The truth is that they will probably vote Democratic, not because Republicans are anti environmentalism, but because the aren’t addressing the issue all that much.
I took a look at the website’s of the leading candidates of each party. For the Democrats it was Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. For the Republicans, though hard to say who are the front runners at this time, I chose Mit Romney and Mike Huckabee. Between the two parties leading candidates I found a surprising difference. Both Clinton’s and Obama’s web sites went into in depth detail concerning many many different aspects of environmentalism, all of which could easily fill it’s own blog. However both Romney’s and Huckabee’s website, at least under their issues list, didn’t touch upon the environment at all. The only issue that I could find that remotely related to the environment was energy independence. In fact all candidates, to my knowledge, support our energy independence. This is where the environmental cause stands to gain a lot. Since the United States only contains about 1.7% of the worlds crude oil resources we as a country have to find new sources of energy, and most of them happen to be clean energy. There are so many promising energy sources such as biofuel, hydrogen power, wind power, solar power, and biomass power. Both Mr. Sutherland and Mr. Manning believe that one day new energy sources that are renewable will become our main sources of energy not fossil fuels, and even though they slightly disagree on different times for when the transition will happen it is inevitable that it will happen. Oil, coal, and gas are finite resources that will not last forever. Promising new sources of energy that will one day replace them are renewables that can last, theoretically, forever, which leave very little to no pollution. If we can transfer to these new renewables so much pollution will be taken out of the environment.
With all the pollutants taken out we can focus on cleaning the atmosphere, and easing global warming. No matter what you think global warming is a real phenomenon, a vast majority scientist acknowledge it to be real and even the current administration acknowledges it. There is debate wether it is a natural or man made phenomenon, but the main cause that scientists point to is probably green house gases being dumped into the atmosphere from human activities. Mr. Manning and Mr. Sutherland believe that global warming is a combination of human activities and natural events. Mr. Sutherland points out that cycles of warming and cooling are recurring cycles on Earth, but the warming that is occurring now is happening at unprecedented rates.
I bring up global warming to point out what the future has to hold. As pollution continues and we start to see more and more effects from it we are going to wonder why more wasn’t done sooner. The political party that acknowledges the problem first and tries to deal with it will in the long run get the bigger political boost, they can say way back when that they tried to deal with the problem while the other party did nothing. Right now the party of action seems to be the Democrats while the Republicans leave this issue on the back burners. Time will only tell.
There is a growing consensus that something needs to be done. Both my interviewees believe that we are going to need to change are ways. Mr. Sutherland points out that we not only need to rise to the challenge, but help other nations rise and take on this problem. I know that in 2008 the environment isn’t going to beat out more pressing issues such as the war on terrorism, the war in Iraq, or the economy, but it is an issue that must be confronted at some time. Let’s just hope that by the time we get to it, it won’t be to late.
K-Dizzle
If you were to ask an average American citizen about the environment they would probably be all for protecting it, but they probably wouldn’t know any specifics. With others you might get the polarized persons who either believe that we as a nation should tear down are cities and live with nature, and those who believe we should harvest all the forests and pave them over. These people are called polarized for a reason, because they are at extreme ends of the spectrum. The average person is going to probably support some type of conservation. For years now Americans have been moving toward policies favoring protection of the environment. This has started to show in legislation. Here just in Washington Mr. Manning informed me of the “Clean Car” bill that was passed. It creates strict emission limits on car models starting in 2009. If we were to take a look at environmental disasters like the Exxon Valdez the public outrage is enormous. People don’t like to see travesties against nature, it isn’t pleasant to see our impact on the environment.
The current administration seems to be in stark contrast to the popular trend. The Bush administration has acted less in the interest of the environment than most previous administrations and has been focused on other issues since 9/11. This could definitely hurt the Republicans in the up coming elections, but only with people that really view this as an issue. Those who believe that the environment is a big issue tend to be Democrats, and those who don’t believe the environment to be a big issue tend to lean Republican. These people are set in their party and they aren’t going to change their vote because they already are aligned with a party, and not just on the environment. Who might change their vote however are Independents. They have already been major catalysts in deciding winners for state nominations as in Iowa. Barack Obama won the state thanks in major part to carrying a majority of independents. Now those independents who feel strongly about protecting the environment are going to look at what the Republican party has to offer and what the Democratic party is going to have to offer. The truth is that they will probably vote Democratic, not because Republicans are anti environmentalism, but because the aren’t addressing the issue all that much.
I took a look at the website’s of the leading candidates of each party. For the Democrats it was Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. For the Republicans, though hard to say who are the front runners at this time, I chose Mit Romney and Mike Huckabee. Between the two parties leading candidates I found a surprising difference. Both Clinton’s and Obama’s web sites went into in depth detail concerning many many different aspects of environmentalism, all of which could easily fill it’s own blog. However both Romney’s and Huckabee’s website, at least under their issues list, didn’t touch upon the environment at all. The only issue that I could find that remotely related to the environment was energy independence. In fact all candidates, to my knowledge, support our energy independence. This is where the environmental cause stands to gain a lot. Since the United States only contains about 1.7% of the worlds crude oil resources we as a country have to find new sources of energy, and most of them happen to be clean energy. There are so many promising energy sources such as biofuel, hydrogen power, wind power, solar power, and biomass power. Both Mr. Sutherland and Mr. Manning believe that one day new energy sources that are renewable will become our main sources of energy not fossil fuels, and even though they slightly disagree on different times for when the transition will happen it is inevitable that it will happen. Oil, coal, and gas are finite resources that will not last forever. Promising new sources of energy that will one day replace them are renewables that can last, theoretically, forever, which leave very little to no pollution. If we can transfer to these new renewables so much pollution will be taken out of the environment.
With all the pollutants taken out we can focus on cleaning the atmosphere, and easing global warming. No matter what you think global warming is a real phenomenon, a vast majority scientist acknowledge it to be real and even the current administration acknowledges it. There is debate wether it is a natural or man made phenomenon, but the main cause that scientists point to is probably green house gases being dumped into the atmosphere from human activities. Mr. Manning and Mr. Sutherland believe that global warming is a combination of human activities and natural events. Mr. Sutherland points out that cycles of warming and cooling are recurring cycles on Earth, but the warming that is occurring now is happening at unprecedented rates.
I bring up global warming to point out what the future has to hold. As pollution continues and we start to see more and more effects from it we are going to wonder why more wasn’t done sooner. The political party that acknowledges the problem first and tries to deal with it will in the long run get the bigger political boost, they can say way back when that they tried to deal with the problem while the other party did nothing. Right now the party of action seems to be the Democrats while the Republicans leave this issue on the back burners. Time will only tell.
There is a growing consensus that something needs to be done. Both my interviewees believe that we are going to need to change are ways. Mr. Sutherland points out that we not only need to rise to the challenge, but help other nations rise and take on this problem. I know that in 2008 the environment isn’t going to beat out more pressing issues such as the war on terrorism, the war in Iraq, or the economy, but it is an issue that must be confronted at some time. Let’s just hope that by the time we get to it, it won’t be to late.
K-Dizzle
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Environmental Q and A
Hello viewers, this is one of the administers K-Dizzle. I was able to get a hold of Doug Sutherland, the Washington State Commissioner of Public Lands and Manager of the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, and ask him a few questions. From his profession you can tell he has had extensive background with the environment and environmental issues. The following are his answers word for word.
1. Do you believe that global warming is a real phenomenon? If yes is it man made or a natural cycle?
Global warming , and cooling , are real phenomena and history shows us that these run in a variety of cycles of varying duration . These cycles are natural and some scientists say that they are more induced by activities of the sun . Human activities are probably contributors .
2. Do you believe that sources of energy and fuel like biofuel, hydrogen, solar power, and wind power is the energy of the future?
Other energy sources will be used in the future , however I believe we will be fossil fuel dependant for several more decades . Two additional sources you did not mention are geothermal and wave/tidal .
3. Do you feel that the U.S. needs stronger laws to protect the environment, or are they satisfactory?
We need a better array of incentives rather than more complex laws . I recognize that as we learn more about certain aspects of the environment that we need to be adaptable and adjust where the laws of unintended consequences’ have serious negative impacts.
4. Should America drill for oil in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge, and like wise should America consider using untapped resources in other parks and refuges?
The science of deep drilling has seen remarkable improvements and with proper management could access the oil reserves in ANWR . I’m not aware of other major deposits in other parks . I do believe we , as a nation , need to be far less reliant on foreign supply .
5. As a nation does the U.S. need to start acting more in the interest of the environment and modify it's way of life?
I think we need to better assist other nations , especially emerging growth nations , to recognize their impacts on the environment as we have . I have seen great changes in how we deal with our surroundings and we need to continue to be aware of our actions .
1. Do you believe that global warming is a real phenomenon? If yes is it man made or a natural cycle?
Global warming , and cooling , are real phenomena and history shows us that these run in a variety of cycles of varying duration . These cycles are natural and some scientists say that they are more induced by activities of the sun . Human activities are probably contributors .
2. Do you believe that sources of energy and fuel like biofuel, hydrogen, solar power, and wind power is the energy of the future?
Other energy sources will be used in the future , however I believe we will be fossil fuel dependant for several more decades . Two additional sources you did not mention are geothermal and wave/tidal .
3. Do you feel that the U.S. needs stronger laws to protect the environment, or are they satisfactory?
We need a better array of incentives rather than more complex laws . I recognize that as we learn more about certain aspects of the environment that we need to be adaptable and adjust where the laws of unintended consequences’ have serious negative impacts.
4. Should America drill for oil in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge, and like wise should America consider using untapped resources in other parks and refuges?
The science of deep drilling has seen remarkable improvements and with proper management could access the oil reserves in ANWR . I’m not aware of other major deposits in other parks . I do believe we , as a nation , need to be far less reliant on foreign supply .
5. As a nation does the U.S. need to start acting more in the interest of the environment and modify it's way of life?
I think we need to better assist other nations , especially emerging growth nations , to recognize their impacts on the environment as we have . I have seen great changes in how we deal with our surroundings and we need to continue to be aware of our actions .
NCLBA overview
Hey, this is eeyore here to give another post about the NCLBA. Now, like most programs there is obviously going to be a positive and a negative side (if there were no positive sides, it probably wouldn't be around).
On the positive side of things, Washington has been shown to be improving in areas such as the achievement gap. Records have shown that it has been closed by at least 4% between black and white people and 3% between hispanic and white. Test scores have been shown to be improving in other places as well. In New York, the improvements are even greater.
Unfortunately, there is also a seemingly much greater criticism for the plan. Teachers have stated that a large focus on testing is negligent to educating student about the arts, science, and other areas not covered. 2008 presidential candidates have for the most part, whether or not they agree with the actual bill, all agree that it could serve for some change.
In fact some schools are not even meeting it. Only about a third of the student in Florida last year met the program and states such as Oregon and Illinois have refused to comply with the law and therefore have lost money.
On a personal note, NCLBA appears to me to be, in theory, a good idea. But the way its been carried out thus far has, as the presidential candidates said, room for improvement. I feel, as someone who is going to major in music, that a lot of time is wasted on testing of other subjects. While true that we all need basic skills to succeed, I don't think it should interfere with class time the way it has been.
On the positive side of things, Washington has been shown to be improving in areas such as the achievement gap. Records have shown that it has been closed by at least 4% between black and white people and 3% between hispanic and white. Test scores have been shown to be improving in other places as well. In New York, the improvements are even greater.
Unfortunately, there is also a seemingly much greater criticism for the plan. Teachers have stated that a large focus on testing is negligent to educating student about the arts, science, and other areas not covered. 2008 presidential candidates have for the most part, whether or not they agree with the actual bill, all agree that it could serve for some change.
In fact some schools are not even meeting it. Only about a third of the student in Florida last year met the program and states such as Oregon and Illinois have refused to comply with the law and therefore have lost money.
On a personal note, NCLBA appears to me to be, in theory, a good idea. But the way its been carried out thus far has, as the presidential candidates said, room for improvement. I feel, as someone who is going to major in music, that a lot of time is wasted on testing of other subjects. While true that we all need basic skills to succeed, I don't think it should interfere with class time the way it has been.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Environmental interview
Hey bloggers this is one of the administrators K-Dizzle. For my issue I questioned the Director of the Department of Ecology for Washington State Jay Manning. What follows are my questions and his answers word for word.
1. Do you believe that global warming is a real phenomenon?
Yes, it is real. The vast majority of credible climate scientists across the globe agree that the data supports the conclusion that the globe is warming and that increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases are the primary reason.
If yes is it caused by man or is it a natural cycle?
The same scientists agree that greenhouse gases emitted by human activity, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, is the primary cause of global warming. These scientists agree that the global climate has natural variability, and that there have been historic cold and warm periods, but the data supports the conclusion that this cycle of warming is unnaturally fast and unprecedented in magnitude of warming. You should look at the reports of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Various IPCC reports from the last two years have been reported across the globe.
2. Do you believe that sources of energy and fuel such as biofuel, hydrogen, solar power, and wind power is the energy of the future?
Yes I do. We will see, I believe, a fairly quick transition from traditional fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) to biofuels, solar, wind, hydro and other renewables. It's already happening at a scale that is unprecedented.
3. Do you feel that the United States needs stronger laws to protect the environment, or are the laws satisfactory?
This question goes beyond climate change. America's environmental protection program is very close to the best in the world. Some European countries may be slightly more advanced, but not much. While the statutes and regulations are far from perfect,and there are some significant gaps (toxics; climate change), the existing programs are mature and advanced. Rules and regulations, however, are only as good as the people and agencies implementing them, and unfortunately, our environmental protection programs are typically underfunded and understaffed. The current Federal administration is particularly uninterested in serious efforts to protect the environment.
One of the major gaps in America's environmental protection program is climate change. We have very little in place at the Federal level to limit or reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. We have made progress at the state level and have put in place a number of programs designed to reduce emissions. Our "Clean Car" Bill, passed in 2005, that requires 2009 model year vehicles to meet stringent emission limits, is a prime example. Much more work needs to be done at the Federal and state level to put additional programs in place to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to promote alternative energy development and to prepare for the environmental change that we cannot avoid by reducing emissions.
4. Should America drill for oil in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge, and like wise should America consider using untapped resources in other parks and refuges?
I think the proposal to open the Artic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling is particularly short sighted. We need to use less oil, not more. Opening a particularly valuable and amazingly pristine wilderness area to drilling, to obtain a few months worth of carbon intensive oil is a lose/lose situation, except for a few oil companies that will make billions in the process
5. As a nation does the United States need to start acting more in the interest of the environment and modify it's way of life?
If we are to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in a significant way, it will require us to change the way we are currently living. I think we can and will continue to have a very high standard of living, but we will need to 1) Get rid of our old dirty cars and replace them with clean ones; 2) Drive less; 3)Replace our coal and natural gas fired energy plants with alternatives that emit less carbon; 4) Leave more land in forests and farms so we sprawl and clear cut less, etc.
We can do it, but it will take a long-term, focused effort. We don't really have much of a choice, but it will be interesting to see if our society will be willing to make the necessary changes. Historically, when we have faced a great threat, we have risen to the challenge and I know we have the capacity to do it now.
1. Do you believe that global warming is a real phenomenon?
Yes, it is real. The vast majority of credible climate scientists across the globe agree that the data supports the conclusion that the globe is warming and that increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases are the primary reason.
If yes is it caused by man or is it a natural cycle?
The same scientists agree that greenhouse gases emitted by human activity, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, is the primary cause of global warming. These scientists agree that the global climate has natural variability, and that there have been historic cold and warm periods, but the data supports the conclusion that this cycle of warming is unnaturally fast and unprecedented in magnitude of warming. You should look at the reports of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Various IPCC reports from the last two years have been reported across the globe.
2. Do you believe that sources of energy and fuel such as biofuel, hydrogen, solar power, and wind power is the energy of the future?
Yes I do. We will see, I believe, a fairly quick transition from traditional fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) to biofuels, solar, wind, hydro and other renewables. It's already happening at a scale that is unprecedented.
3. Do you feel that the United States needs stronger laws to protect the environment, or are the laws satisfactory?
This question goes beyond climate change. America's environmental protection program is very close to the best in the world. Some European countries may be slightly more advanced, but not much. While the statutes and regulations are far from perfect,and there are some significant gaps (toxics; climate change), the existing programs are mature and advanced. Rules and regulations, however, are only as good as the people and agencies implementing them, and unfortunately, our environmental protection programs are typically underfunded and understaffed. The current Federal administration is particularly uninterested in serious efforts to protect the environment.
One of the major gaps in America's environmental protection program is climate change. We have very little in place at the Federal level to limit or reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. We have made progress at the state level and have put in place a number of programs designed to reduce emissions. Our "Clean Car" Bill, passed in 2005, that requires 2009 model year vehicles to meet stringent emission limits, is a prime example. Much more work needs to be done at the Federal and state level to put additional programs in place to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to promote alternative energy development and to prepare for the environmental change that we cannot avoid by reducing emissions.
4. Should America drill for oil in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge, and like wise should America consider using untapped resources in other parks and refuges?
I think the proposal to open the Artic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling is particularly short sighted. We need to use less oil, not more. Opening a particularly valuable and amazingly pristine wilderness area to drilling, to obtain a few months worth of carbon intensive oil is a lose/lose situation, except for a few oil companies that will make billions in the process
5. As a nation does the United States need to start acting more in the interest of the environment and modify it's way of life?
If we are to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in a significant way, it will require us to change the way we are currently living. I think we can and will continue to have a very high standard of living, but we will need to 1) Get rid of our old dirty cars and replace them with clean ones; 2) Drive less; 3)Replace our coal and natural gas fired energy plants with alternatives that emit less carbon; 4) Leave more land in forests and farms so we sprawl and clear cut less, etc.
We can do it, but it will take a long-term, focused effort. We don't really have much of a choice, but it will be interesting to see if our society will be willing to make the necessary changes. Historically, when we have faced a great threat, we have risen to the challenge and I know we have the capacity to do it now.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
NCLBA
Hey everyone. Its me, Eeyore, here with some updates on how my interview went. I recently sent an email to Tom Siegel, superintendent of BSD. I was surprised when the very next day I recieved a call from the man himself. I got a piece of paper and pen and had him anwswer my questions while I attempted to keep up. The following is mostly the jist of what I recieved from our conversation and what I wrote down.
1.In the most basic terms, what are your views on the NCLBA?
He felt that for the most part it had good concepts and was a pretty good deal in general
2.Do you believe it has helped in the United States? Washington?
It has helped in the US but not Washington
3.Do you believe the act is perfect as it is, or do you have some suggestions to improve it?
No! There is no reward for meeting the plan, it takes away resources if you don't, there's no increased funding to accomplish what they're asking. It asks everyone to improve at the same level regardless of learning style. He disagrees strongly.
4.What do you believe is the cause of decreasing test scores, etc.?
He says that they aren't decreasing and that BSD is most improved because of the WASL.
5.If there were to be another method to improve test scores, would you adopt it, and what would it have to include for you to do so?
He believes in additional time for developing teachers, alternative learning for students, and provide other options for learning. He also says we need better facilities and technology, on the job training, and a more well rounded education.
These aren't what he said word for word, but is the main idea of what he said and some key points.
thanks,
-Eeyore
1.In the most basic terms, what are your views on the NCLBA?
He felt that for the most part it had good concepts and was a pretty good deal in general
2.Do you believe it has helped in the United States? Washington?
It has helped in the US but not Washington
3.Do you believe the act is perfect as it is, or do you have some suggestions to improve it?
No! There is no reward for meeting the plan, it takes away resources if you don't, there's no increased funding to accomplish what they're asking. It asks everyone to improve at the same level regardless of learning style. He disagrees strongly.
4.What do you believe is the cause of decreasing test scores, etc.?
He says that they aren't decreasing and that BSD is most improved because of the WASL.
5.If there were to be another method to improve test scores, would you adopt it, and what would it have to include for you to do so?
He believes in additional time for developing teachers, alternative learning for students, and provide other options for learning. He also says we need better facilities and technology, on the job training, and a more well rounded education.
These aren't what he said word for word, but is the main idea of what he said and some key points.
thanks,
-Eeyore
Saturday, January 5, 2008
My thoughts on the Immigration issue and its role in the '08 elections.
Hello!
Well this is MC back with my personal views on this issue, along with the role it will play in the election of 2008. Now I do believe this issue is one of the biggest facing our nation, eclipsed only by Economic and Enviromental issues. It is a problem that cannot be solved, I believe, with violence and force, but through compassion, firmness, and understanding. We need to look to the roots of the problem and to stop trying to just find a solution to ignore it further(such as a fence or barrier, which only serves to block the problem but not to solve it.). As a nation we need to focus our attention on where these people are coming from and why they are so desperate to leave, and try to help there. Through compassion we can make this world, including our country, a better place. Now we also need to be firm and to enforce the laws already in place for illegal immigration. I beieve the first place to crack down on are employers who try to undermine our nation's laws by employing illegal immigrants and paying them "under the counter".
Now as for the role this issue will play in the 2008 elections, I really believe it will be one of th heavy-hitters, right up there with Iraq and Global Warming. This issue is most definitely a touchy one, as an ethical answer is very hard to come by and everyone seems to have a different position on it. There are those who wish to simply cut off all access to the border(kind of like the Berlin Wall if you ask me), and those who would open it up freely(Over population anyone?). I believe the best solution is somewhere in between. As to which political party will best handle this issue, that will come down to how much they really care about this problem. (Personally I say Democrats, but that is my personal affiliation and extremly biased) This has just been a little tid-bit of opinion I have thrown in to spice up the blog, I will now allow my fellow admins to post on their issues, and I will continue my research and bring in some candidate views later! As a side note all the opinions expressed in this post are my personal feelings and in no way relect back onto the opinions of my fellow admins or my school peers. No offense was intended or implied and to any persons offended I apologize. Thank you!
-MC
Well this is MC back with my personal views on this issue, along with the role it will play in the election of 2008. Now I do believe this issue is one of the biggest facing our nation, eclipsed only by Economic and Enviromental issues. It is a problem that cannot be solved, I believe, with violence and force, but through compassion, firmness, and understanding. We need to look to the roots of the problem and to stop trying to just find a solution to ignore it further(such as a fence or barrier, which only serves to block the problem but not to solve it.). As a nation we need to focus our attention on where these people are coming from and why they are so desperate to leave, and try to help there. Through compassion we can make this world, including our country, a better place. Now we also need to be firm and to enforce the laws already in place for illegal immigration. I beieve the first place to crack down on are employers who try to undermine our nation's laws by employing illegal immigrants and paying them "under the counter".
Now as for the role this issue will play in the 2008 elections, I really believe it will be one of th heavy-hitters, right up there with Iraq and Global Warming. This issue is most definitely a touchy one, as an ethical answer is very hard to come by and everyone seems to have a different position on it. There are those who wish to simply cut off all access to the border(kind of like the Berlin Wall if you ask me), and those who would open it up freely(Over population anyone?). I believe the best solution is somewhere in between. As to which political party will best handle this issue, that will come down to how much they really care about this problem. (Personally I say Democrats, but that is my personal affiliation and extremly biased) This has just been a little tid-bit of opinion I have thrown in to spice up the blog, I will now allow my fellow admins to post on their issues, and I will continue my research and bring in some candidate views later! As a side note all the opinions expressed in this post are my personal feelings and in no way relect back onto the opinions of my fellow admins or my school peers. No offense was intended or implied and to any persons offended I apologize. Thank you!
-MC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)