To lower or not to lower the voting age, it is a question I have thought greatly about and I say, I think not! I strongly think that the sixteen year olds of everyday life need not to vote.
Sixteen year olds should not have the right to vote because most of us are too immature to even begin to understand who to vote for. If the state argued to put in a Government and Politics class, I guarantee that sixteen year olds would not learn from it. Why? Because more than half the class would fall asleep, be too bored to pay attention, or they just don’t care to listen. My American History class proved this. If students can’t even pay attention to know how this country was founded, do you honestly think that they care to know that they can vote for the next secretary of state? They probably won’t even know what that position is and what it could lead to.
Then there is that handful of teenagers who do listen to what the teacher is saying. They are those who do understand how the system works and want to be a part of it. But there is one slight problem; they do not have “experience”. The Vietnam War is why eighteen year olds can now vote. In the 1960’s, people the ages of 18 or older were drafted into the Vietnam War. When they returned to America, they complained that the right to vote should be allowed to them, for they had served the country. Those that are sixteen have not been in any war, have not killed any enemies, and have not really served this country in any way.
So why do we need the right to vote? Most of us teenagers don’t care who the next president is. Just as long as he/she doesn’t tear down the skate parks and the movie theaters. That’s what we are all about, right?
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Immigration and Immigrants are Destroying America:>-
I agree with the point made across on http://whitneylapier.blogspot.com/ titled “Immigrant Control-Comment on Capital Politics Since 1776 Blog” written by my friend Whitney. I believe that growing numbers in population because of immigrants slams the United States. It seems that many do not think of the long term effects of this increase.
Border control is raging out of control in America. Thousands of immigrants flood the Mexican/ U.S. border every day. The population of America is growing out of control and something needs to be done about this. America will eventually dig its own grave if it becomes too over populated. This land cannot remain the world power if millions flood into the U.S every year.
My side of the argument is limiting immigration to the United States and having tighter security along America’s borders. Because there is no international obligation for any nation to allow others to enter or to work, in fact, most nations do not admit immigrants for permanent settlement. Mass immigration has played a significant role in the economic history of the United States, nevertheless the harsh fact is that what may be necessary and beneficial at one time, may not be so at another.
America needs to step and draw the line somewhere. There are many points that can be made about immigration problems to the United States. The most obvious is taking jobs away from many Americans. Not all immigrants take lowlife jobs that Americans do not want. Immigrants are taking the jobs that Americans are currently holding because of the low-wages that employers pay immigrants. An American cannot compete with someone who will work for half of what they are currently making. Therefore, I think, “if the government can create a very detailed and direct process for becoming a citizen”, as Whitney’s and Eddie’s have said,” it could have the possibility for some lasting effects.”
Border control is raging out of control in America. Thousands of immigrants flood the Mexican/ U.S. border every day. The population of America is growing out of control and something needs to be done about this. America will eventually dig its own grave if it becomes too over populated. This land cannot remain the world power if millions flood into the U.S every year.
My side of the argument is limiting immigration to the United States and having tighter security along America’s borders. Because there is no international obligation for any nation to allow others to enter or to work, in fact, most nations do not admit immigrants for permanent settlement. Mass immigration has played a significant role in the economic history of the United States, nevertheless the harsh fact is that what may be necessary and beneficial at one time, may not be so at another.
America needs to step and draw the line somewhere. There are many points that can be made about immigration problems to the United States. The most obvious is taking jobs away from many Americans. Not all immigrants take lowlife jobs that Americans do not want. Immigrants are taking the jobs that Americans are currently holding because of the low-wages that employers pay immigrants. An American cannot compete with someone who will work for half of what they are currently making. Therefore, I think, “if the government can create a very detailed and direct process for becoming a citizen”, as Whitney’s and Eddie’s have said,” it could have the possibility for some lasting effects.”
Sunday, April 6, 2008
The United States Should Leave Iraq...
After reading my friends blogs I found that I definitely agree with my friend, Sarmila Bhatta http://www.sarmila-letsexplorepolitics.blogspot.com/ . She wrote about five years in Iraq. she argued whether war with Iraq is something to be proud of? Or is it worth it? Did we had another option to choose?
As our brave men and women in uniform find themselves embroiled again in a conflict in the Middle East, debate surrounding the timeliness and necessity of this second Gulf conflict has ceased in most professional circles. However, before the current conflict began, controversy raged over when and how to best prosecute this situation. Many argued that the United States should have worked through the United Nations to pursue a resolution that had the consensus of the world behind it. That endeavor, however, was doomed to failure from the start. The United States sought to solve this dilemma using military force. France and Germany desired to diffuse it using anything but force. In order to properly evaluate all options in this case, one must ask themselves how immediate a threat did Saddam Hussein pose to the United States and what is the best way to counter that threat? In my estimation, Saddam Hussein poses no immediate threat to the United States.
As my friend said “invasion in Iraq five years ago proved to be a failure”. Because what does the United States have to gain from a war with Iraq? The United States is in a tough situation. This country has gone to war without the UN’s approval, and now has more casualties than when the war officially ended. Now, the war could cost taxpayers $87 billion dollars, and more if the war drags on. The situation is at the critical point. If the Bush Administration does not leave Iraq, we will lose thousands of troops, spend billions sending more troops to Iraq, and we will lose the faith of the international community.
As our brave men and women in uniform find themselves embroiled again in a conflict in the Middle East, debate surrounding the timeliness and necessity of this second Gulf conflict has ceased in most professional circles. However, before the current conflict began, controversy raged over when and how to best prosecute this situation. Many argued that the United States should have worked through the United Nations to pursue a resolution that had the consensus of the world behind it. That endeavor, however, was doomed to failure from the start. The United States sought to solve this dilemma using military force. France and Germany desired to diffuse it using anything but force. In order to properly evaluate all options in this case, one must ask themselves how immediate a threat did Saddam Hussein pose to the United States and what is the best way to counter that threat? In my estimation, Saddam Hussein poses no immediate threat to the United States.
As my friend said “invasion in Iraq five years ago proved to be a failure”. Because what does the United States have to gain from a war with Iraq? The United States is in a tough situation. This country has gone to war without the UN’s approval, and now has more casualties than when the war officially ended. Now, the war could cost taxpayers $87 billion dollars, and more if the war drags on. The situation is at the critical point. If the Bush Administration does not leave Iraq, we will lose thousands of troops, spend billions sending more troops to Iraq, and we will lose the faith of the international community.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Original Editoral
National debt always has a way of manipulating its viewers to think about what they are trying to say. They present certain issues and isolate them in way to where the national debt is perceived in a completely different manner. The different between the Republican National Party and the Democratic National Party is a good example.
Since the beginning of American politics (1860), we have lived in a two party political system. These two parties play a very important role in our government, they are a source of ideas for public policy, and they legally oppose each other, forcing compromises of ideas that are beneficial to the people of the United States of America. Though these two parties generally always oppose each other on the issues, some people believe that there are not significant differences between the Democratic National Party and the Republican National Party. I disagree with this. When the domestic economic issues of the 1996 and 1992 presidential elections are examined, the Republican National Party and the Democratic National Party show themselves to be very different. A budget deficit accurse when government expenditure outstrip tax receipts during any single year; the national debt is the total sum of what the federal government owes its creditors. When government collect less taxation or spend more expenditure. It needs to finance the unbalanced budget by issuing new debt securities the national debt.
The national debt is an issue of great concern to the economy. Each year, the debt amounts to a higher percentage of GDP. The debt weighs down the economy, and the interest payment are consuming an ever larger share of the national budget.
I believe this whole thing with the national debt needs to be taken care of because there is no pint in it. The debt is growing so large so fast like the media, when will it stop? According to Keynes it is health for and economy to run a deficit during lean times; however, it should be caught up during good times. When will the Untied States ever catch up will we keep rolling it over for future generation? I believe it will become so large that we will no longer be able to pay the interest on it. Something must be done.
In conclusion, I agree with this plan point, but if the national debt continues to be ignored, it will come back to haunt us so I believe that the deficit needs to be balanced but in a way so that Americans feel few of the budget cut backs. There are two ways of balancing the budget and pursue a national policy of providing high level of government services and defense rather than making mammoth cuts in a social fabric that has served the United States and the world well. I think that Clinton’s 10 year plan is of more interest to the American people than the Republican 7 years plan.
Since the beginning of American politics (1860), we have lived in a two party political system. These two parties play a very important role in our government, they are a source of ideas for public policy, and they legally oppose each other, forcing compromises of ideas that are beneficial to the people of the United States of America. Though these two parties generally always oppose each other on the issues, some people believe that there are not significant differences between the Democratic National Party and the Republican National Party. I disagree with this. When the domestic economic issues of the 1996 and 1992 presidential elections are examined, the Republican National Party and the Democratic National Party show themselves to be very different. A budget deficit accurse when government expenditure outstrip tax receipts during any single year; the national debt is the total sum of what the federal government owes its creditors. When government collect less taxation or spend more expenditure. It needs to finance the unbalanced budget by issuing new debt securities the national debt.
The national debt is an issue of great concern to the economy. Each year, the debt amounts to a higher percentage of GDP. The debt weighs down the economy, and the interest payment are consuming an ever larger share of the national budget.
I believe this whole thing with the national debt needs to be taken care of because there is no pint in it. The debt is growing so large so fast like the media, when will it stop? According to Keynes it is health for and economy to run a deficit during lean times; however, it should be caught up during good times. When will the Untied States ever catch up will we keep rolling it over for future generation? I believe it will become so large that we will no longer be able to pay the interest on it. Something must be done.
In conclusion, I agree with this plan point, but if the national debt continues to be ignored, it will come back to haunt us so I believe that the deficit needs to be balanced but in a way so that Americans feel few of the budget cut backs. There are two ways of balancing the budget and pursue a national policy of providing high level of government services and defense rather than making mammoth cuts in a social fabric that has served the United States and the world well. I think that Clinton’s 10 year plan is of more interest to the American people than the Republican 7 years plan.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
“The world would be a better place if…”
The Nuclear holocaust is the destruction of whole nation in the blink of an eye. We cannot hide from the threat that nuclear weapons pose to humanity and all life. These are not ordinary weapons, but instruments of mass annihilation that could destroy civilians and end all life on Earth. Nuclear weapons are morally and legally unjustifiable. They destroy indiscriminately- soldiers and civilians; men, women and children; the aged and the newly born; the healthy and the infirm. The world would be a far safer and better place if the Pandora’s Box of nuclear weapons had never been opened.
Many historians argue that the United States began the Cold War by ending Word War II with the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan. Four years later, on August 9, 1949, the Soviet Union developed its own nuclear weapons.
A few days ago the Washington Post stated in an article saying that “the U.N. says Iran may not have come clean on nuclear past.” The article was written by Joby Warrick and Colum Lynch on Sunday, March 2, 2008. The article is about that Iran has been denied or another word has been pushing, ever seeking nuclear weapons. The Washington Post has apparently gotten a hold of internal documents demonstrating that Iran was actively pursuing nuclear bomb research until about four years ago, according to the Washington Post.
I read this article and I thought about it to my self for a minute, but I ended up saying why not? So I found out that I cannot agree with the writers. Is Iran the only country that has nuclear weapons? Why can’t they have them? I’m not saying that because Iran is my home county; I’m disagreeing with the writers because they just want to scare people by using the term “some of the document tells” to prove to people that it is a very serous problem and people have to agree with the president to go to war with Iran. The writers want to convince the world to believe them.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/01/AR2008030101722.html
Many historians argue that the United States began the Cold War by ending Word War II with the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan. Four years later, on August 9, 1949, the Soviet Union developed its own nuclear weapons.
A few days ago the Washington Post stated in an article saying that “the U.N. says Iran may not have come clean on nuclear past.” The article was written by Joby Warrick and Colum Lynch on Sunday, March 2, 2008. The article is about that Iran has been denied or another word has been pushing, ever seeking nuclear weapons. The Washington Post has apparently gotten a hold of internal documents demonstrating that Iran was actively pursuing nuclear bomb research until about four years ago, according to the Washington Post.
I read this article and I thought about it to my self for a minute, but I ended up saying why not? So I found out that I cannot agree with the writers. Is Iran the only country that has nuclear weapons? Why can’t they have them? I’m not saying that because Iran is my home county; I’m disagreeing with the writers because they just want to scare people by using the term “some of the document tells” to prove to people that it is a very serous problem and people have to agree with the president to go to war with Iran. The writers want to convince the world to believe them.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/01/AR2008030101722.html
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
White house backtracks on claims of lost intelligence
I read this article, and I don’t know what to do or what to say to people: to agree with it or to criticize it. On Friday evening, two guys named Atty.Gen. Michael B. Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence J. Michael McConnell had sent an unusual letter to Congress that the nation “is now more vulnerable to terrorist attack and other foreign threats” because lawmakers had not yet acted on the administration’s proposal for the wiretapping law. I read the article over and over until I got to the point where I disagreed with them.
They continue the article like this: “But within hours of sending that letter, administration officials told lawmakers on the House and Senate intelligence committees that they had prevailed upon all of the telecommunication companies to continue cooperation with the government’s requests for information while negotiations with Congress continue.”
The first reason that I disagree with the letter is because they used the phrase “in the aftermath of 9/11” over and over as an emotional appeal and cover for lawbreaking but the reality is that illegal wiretapping began long before 9/11.
The second reason that made me disagree with them is that illegal wiretapping did nothing to stop the 9/11 attack. Perhaps it is because the administration was using this program for reasons other than tracking down terrorists.
Don’t forget that if we don’t open the door to the administration and let them in, or if we don’t believe that they standing on our side, we are all going to die a fiery death!
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-intel24feb24,0,3149506.story
They continue the article like this: “But within hours of sending that letter, administration officials told lawmakers on the House and Senate intelligence committees that they had prevailed upon all of the telecommunication companies to continue cooperation with the government’s requests for information while negotiations with Congress continue.”
The first reason that I disagree with the letter is because they used the phrase “in the aftermath of 9/11” over and over as an emotional appeal and cover for lawbreaking but the reality is that illegal wiretapping began long before 9/11.
The second reason that made me disagree with them is that illegal wiretapping did nothing to stop the 9/11 attack. Perhaps it is because the administration was using this program for reasons other than tracking down terrorists.
Don’t forget that if we don’t open the door to the administration and let them in, or if we don’t believe that they standing on our side, we are all going to die a fiery death!
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-intel24feb24,0,3149506.story
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
