Should U.S. Troops Return Home?

According to my fellow colleague, Jade Williams, Jade discusses in her article Farewell Iraq, about the speech President Barack Obama gave at the University of Texas last week. Even though the President gave a speech that was shifted more towards education than the troops, Jade states that his mention of bringing back over 94,000 troops truly had excited her. The article Obama tells veterans that end of Iraq war is about to begin by Scott Wilson and Aaron Blake, states that by bringing back the troops, it is possible that out of 94,000 troops, only 50,000 will return. This is due to the fact that the government plans on allowing certain troops to remain in the country to improve Iraq' s government. It was also said that U.S. troops have remained in Iraq for over seven years and Iraq has yet to form a productive government. The only remaining question that has everyone wondering is will Iraq be able to remain somewhat stable with out the aide of the United States?

However, even though many would like to see the troops in Iraq return, their are still many who oppose the idea. Jade also mentions Tim Arango' s article U.S. And Iraqi Interests May Work Against Pullout, seems to contradict Obama' s plan to remove troops by the end of 2011. Arango states that the U.S. troops should remain in Iraq to help develop Iraq' s government. He also mentions that by remaining in Iraq, the United States would be able to gain more oil reserves. Jade then states that she does not believe the troops should remain in Iraq just for oil resources. She then mentions that even though she desires for troops to return to the United States, that she still would like to know if Iraq would remain stable. Also the fact, if removing the troops will be a successful task to perform because, indeed, it sounds to good to be true.

Overall, I would have to agree with Jade' s statements in which she made in her article. First off, I would agree that by keeping U.S. troops in Iraq just for oil resources does not sound like such a good idea. I personally do not agree with this because it is just as saying a person' s life is nothing more than oil, which is wrong. I would also have to agree with both Jade and President Obama that we have helped Iraq but they have not made any effort to improve themselves. So in the end, we need to see if they can help themselves rather then rely on the United States for everything. Too many troops have already died in Iraq and should be able to return home. Even though putting Obama' s plan in action may take some time. I feel that it should be put into action no matter how long it takes. People should not die for foolish nor should they die simply for oil.

Should Gay Marriage Be Accepted As A Civil Right?

According to Margaret Hoover' s opinion article My Fellow Conservatives, Think Carefully About Your Opposition to Gay Marriage, Hoover states that even though a person may not be a republican, that they should still consider that gays and lesbians should have equal rights. It was said in the case of Bush v. Gore in the Supreme Court that Ted Olson "sought to prove that marriage equality is a constitutional question, [and]not a partisan issue". This campaign is known as the "Proposition 8 campaign" which began in California. The Proposition 8 campaign states that gays and lesbians face discrimination in the country today which should not be accepted. It also states that by allowing same sex marriages, the result would be a better economy, stable families, and a much better living environment for anyone. The only factor that homosexuals have to face, are conservatives. Even though many liberals would support gay rights "economists testified to the economic harm caused to same-sex couples and their children, political scientists to their political vulnerability, sociologists and psychologists to the societal stigma associated with homosexuality".

Additionally, conservatives tend to lean toward keeping the same values as the country had done in the past. People today believe that we should look to the future instead of following rules from the past. However, even though conservatives wish to remain the same, they can not "deny that our Founders intended the judiciary as an equal and independent branch of government purposed to ensure the protection of every citizen’s rights". With that, it is a fact that marriage is a constitutional right which should not be taken away. With gay activists Kristen Perry, Sandy Steir, Paul Katami, and Jeff Zarrullo as the face of gay rights, only strengthen the cause. With activists desiring for gay rights, this puts the government in a bad position. A person has the right to marriage, but not the right to marry a person of the same sex? Hoover also states that if a person has the right to marriage that they should also the right to marry anyone of their choice.

Overall, Hoover establishes in her article that she is indeed for gay rights, but many conservatives do not wish for gay rights. Hoover also establishes the flaws in which the government is preforming with gay rights. Marriage is a constitutional right which should not be taken away. This article is clearly directed to conservatives because it states out that even though gay marriage may not have been accepted in the past, that it should be accepted now. Additionally, it is directed to young teens in my opinion, due to the fact that many teenagers "experiment" at this time in their lives. With teenagers involved, they would more than likely vote for gay rights because they would believe that anyone should have the right to marriage. However, even though I'm currently a teenager myself, I do not support gay marriage. Now I'm not stating that discrimination is right, not at all. I have my own personal moral values which come from my religious belief. Homosexuality is wrong in my opinion, but I still believe that everyone should be treated equally in the world regardless if someone is gay or straight. I myself have friends who choose to be homosexual and I respect them because they respect me. I just feel that gay marriage should not be accepted because of my belief in the Bible. Hoover article did, however, open up my eyes to understanding the rights in which people should have, but it did not change my opinion on gay marriage. Now I understand that many would choose to say I'm an anti-gay rights person, and I believe I'm not. I just believe that a line should be drawn at marriage because that has to be done in front of God. Many people say that God made the gays, I don' t agree with this because I believe God gives people the option to follow his law or disobey his law. In conclusion, Hoover' s article will open the minds of many to supporting conservative to change, but a religious factor may take a cause in the case.

Legalizing Marijuana Use? Seriously?

According to my fellow colleague Lorenzo Salazar, Salazar discusses in his blog Legalizing Pot, Really?, about how the state of California wishes to legalize marijuana use. Along side with his blog comes the article AP-CNBC Poll: Most in US against legalizing pot, in which he had based his article on. Salazar discusses in his blog on how Proposition 19 still continues to receive more votes for legalizing marijuana in the state of California. Not only that, but by legalizing marijuana use in California would also lead to many other states desiring to do the same. While many may disagree with legalizing marijuana, their are still many people who wish to legalize it. People who wish for marijuana to be legalized tend to be younger than the age of thirty, which would mean that they are either college students or high school students. The people in which tend to vote against marijuana use are older than thirty and have some form of degree. So it is pretty obvious to conclude that people of a more mature age can understand by legalizing marijuana would be foolish.

Although, It has been proven that in 1996 that the usage of marijuana is beneficial for medical needs, people tend to think that marijuana should be legalized for everyone. The idea of legalizing marijuana makes no sense what so ever. If it is for medical use, it is fine because it is for a medical need, not simply for pleasure. If marijuana was passed to be legal, then what sense would it make to tell kids in school to stay away from drugs? Or in that matter, listen to what any of their authorities has to say? By legalizing marijuana Salazar states that it would be utter chaos for both political and local authorities. Law enforcement would become very difficult to manage because of marijuana usage among teens. Many Adults who are passed the age of thirty do not care to take drugs to solve their. But teens who are "experimenting" with life would not care if a drug could kill them, because they are simply doing it for fun.

Overall, I would have to agree with Salazar' s statement that legalizing marijuana would lead to utter chaos and destruction to the country. In no way would legalizing marijuana would help the economy, instead it would destroy it from possible theft. When a person is not in their right state of mind, they tend to think anything belongs to them. Even if they were to be arrested, they would simply go to court and say that they were high, so they should be set free. So the people in California not only need to think about themselves, but also how this would affect the country as a whole. Not simply for pleasure, but for the destruction it would bring.

Does Equality Also Affect The Economy?

According to Richard L. Trumka' s opinion article Undocumented Workers Need Legal Rights, Trumka discusses the affect that equality has on the economy of the United States. Trumka establishes in his article that we need a new strategy to secure a good global economy, but before doing so, we need to focus on a more important issue that has to deal with immigration. Trumka states that in order for Americans to even think about a global economy, Americans need to focus on protecting the hard working immigrants first. Even though it is a global economy, America is well known to be the "melting pot" of the world. Trumka then goes into detail when illustrating how immigrants had built America into what it is today. He also explains what immigrants have to face today with many Americans feeling as though they have it easier. Some tend to treat immigrants poorly because they feel that if they do not understand the language, then they should not be able to work. It is to be noted that Amercians feel as though immigrants, such as Mexicans, are putting the United States economy in a bad position. With having immigrants work for a much lower salary than the average American, they would be hired first. Trumka then explains that immigrants have the right to work, but with so many people against immigarnts they do not have any protection. So even if they were to work hard, they would probably not be reward or get ripped off for their labor. Trumka explains that we have a relationship with Mexico, but in this day and age is not such a god relationship in which we share. Supporting trumka cass would be the AFL-CIO who "supports a fair path toward legalization for all undocumented workers who are working to realize the American dream". Trumka completes his statement that stating that even if a immigrant is documented to work or even undocumented, they should all have the same equal rights in which Americans receive.


Futhermore, the AFL-CIO supports all immigrants documented or undocumented because they feel that they all deserve a change. The AFL-CIO was established to solve the issue of racism and that everyone has the right to live the American dream. And with that thought, the Dream Act was passed. The Dream Act "[allows] young people a future in the only country [that] they know." By allowing everyone to have quality and a better understanding of each other, then this would help strengthen the economy. Trumka states that we need to build up relationships with foreign countries to help better not only our economy but their's as well. Overall this article is directed to citizens who are in their teen years and adult years. This is true because high schoolers can understand the economy because they are about to go into the real world and experience life. Whereas a person who is out of high school would understand this issue as well because they are already living in the world and may possibly need a job.

Altogether, I would have to agree with Trumka to a certain level. I agree with him that everyone deserves equal rights in the United States when working, but I don't necessarily agree with him on the fact that even if an immigrant is undocumented that they should still be able to work. I feel that in order for the United States to keep some stability, that we should have workers who can work legally. Now I' am not saying that illegal immigrants should not be able to work, but I do believe they should get the necessary papers they need in order to work. By doing this, people would then not look down on them as they do now. Democrats are not trying to solve the issue of equality amongst everyone, but in order for anything to work, the United States needs to have legal workers on the job so the government can keep up with its wages. So in conclusiom, Trumka' a idea of treating everyone with quality on the job is correct but he should also take into account if anyone is not legally able to work. If the United States can keep itself supplied with jobs, then can it help others.

A Government yard sale? Literally?

According to David Frum' s opinion article Time For U.S. Government yard sale, Frum establishes his view on the current Recession in the United States. He states in his article that it may be true that the current recession is the worst recession we have seen since World War II, but is not the right time to raise taxes nor to cut spending funds just to pay off a debt of $1 trillion. Instead of cutting spending or raising taxes, the government has another way to cut debts, which is to sell off some of its assets. By selling off assets, it would slow down the growth of debt which would help the government at this time. Frum explains the situation through an example of a family which has placed their child in college but has now lost their job. That family would have to take their child out of college to save money. But If the family owns a second house, then it would be wiser to liquidate the house before taking the child out of college. Frum then goes into detail about how the United States owns its share of "second houses". One of Frum' s examples of "second house" would have to be the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) which was created during the depression to help the south east. The TVA owns and operates over twenty-nine dams and six nuclear reactors. Frum states that the government does not necessarily need to own TVA, while they can simply sell it off to help pay off some of the debts. There are many other options for the government in which to perform. By selling off unnecessary assets, this would create a new tax revenue that would help the economy.

Furthermore, Frum also states that by selling by off assets does in fact help the government. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was the woman who had "privatized British public assets during the transition to a more competitive free-enterprise", which in the end their assets had rapidly became more useful and valuable. So overall Frum' s idea of selling off unnecessary assets would possible help. This article is possibly directed towards republicans than democrats due to the fact that the article illustrates to sell assets and in the end regain them. But overall it is clearly directed to an audience in which has a high level of education in which could understand the recession as a whole. Now Frum idea of selling assets is not problem free but it is an alternative to tax increases that would put the government in an even worse recession.

All together, I would have to agree with the idea of selling off unnecessary assets to help the economy. Many people disagree with his plan because they feel that the idea sounds good on paper but putting it into action would be the hard part. Some also state that it is only a temporary solution for a long term problem but I believe this plan could possibly work. We will never know until we try rather, than just sit and allow our financial debt to grow and grow. However it does appear to appeal more to republicans than to democrats due to the fact of selling assets regaining them whereas democrats do not favor this. But instead of choosing sides at this point, we need to focus on the big problem, which is to get the United States out of the current recession.

Health Care or Increased Employment, Which One Will Obama Choose First?

According to the statements made in Liz Peek' s Obama and the Dems -- Doing a Job On the Economy And the Unemployed, Peek discusses the issues with having the new health care plan and also unemployment. Peek directs her arguments toward a more mature audience such as residents who are in their thirties and up. This would have to be so, due to the fact that most residents under the age of thirty would more than likely either still remain on their guardian' s health insurance or simply have a part time job. This opinion would not do so much for a audience who has not ventured out into the world completely, such as earning a masters degree or for that matter, worrying about health issuance. That age group would simply read Peek' s opinion and would probably "not care" about what it has to say on health care and unemployment. Now a hand full of that age group would take in interest in the matter but could only bass their opinion on the subject and not have such a heavily impact on the subject as more experienced person could do. Now the more experienced audience would have a greater impact because more than likely they would have a degree or even a full time job. This age group would want better employment rates and better health care insurance.

Additionally with Peek' s argument, Americans would not desire for the government to continue to renew the health care plan again and again. "Americans want them to focus on creating jobs", which would help the employment rate that continues to decrease over time. Also including the stock market which was said to have decreased by one thousand points in only a nanosecond according to Congress just a few weeks ago. Now having good health care for all Americans who can not afford it would benefit them, but while having an increase in the unemployment rate would only put Americans in another bad position which would not help the economy. Peek also states that "Americans are not stupid" and the bill in which Obama is trying to pass does not necessarily help Americans. Now the entire bill is not a waste of time because of the elements in which are tightening capital requirements and changing the manner in which derivatives are traded. Peek' s arguments states that the health care plan may be beneficial but the fact that the government is insisting that health care be taken care of before unemployment is not such a smart choice to do. Peek takes a majority of her examples from European polls, Congress, and of course facts that are listed by the Democrats on this matter.

Overall, I would have to agree with the all of the facts that Peek mentions in her opinion/blog. This would have to be so because her article is not hard to read nor to understand. It makes valid points that anyone would have knowledge of and what would be the down fall if something were to happen. Even though I don't necessarily take so much of an interest in health care due to the fact I still remain on my parent' s plan, I still can understand that health care is an important. With Americans becoming upset at Obama' s foreign health care plan, this only increases the factor that people believe Obama should help his home country before helping others. Also that unemployment is another important factor that should be taken care of. With teachers being laid off at near by schools, it is pretty obvious that teachers being laid off would reflect on the unemployment rate. I don't necessarily believe that reading Peek' s opinion changed my own opinion. I feel as though I have gained more knowledge of the matter instead of saying " I don't like this", now I have background information that can help support my opinion. Additionally to Peek 's argument, I now have knowledge on how Congress takes certain bills into account. Politically speaking, it has somewhat helped me understand both the Democrats and Republicans and on how each side would work. It lists the changes that Democrats and Republicans have made. The government needs trust in order to work, in order to perform well. A majority of the say of the matter would have to be that Americans need to speak up rather than sit in silence because when it comes to the government silence is not acceptable if you desire to be heard.

Desire For Change Or Desire To Be Conservative?

According to Dana Blanton' s article Obama a Hindrance on Fall Elections, voters today are turning away from President Obama' s new policies with forty-one percent voting against Obama in the upcoming November election. Whereas only thirty-three percent will vote for Obama' s policies. Voter's today, are now tending to favor Republicans, since Republicans tend to be more conservative than Democrats. This factor is rather comical because in the beginning of Obama' s presidential election, voters desired change, not for things to stay the same. Even though voters desire for change, they do not desire to go through a process that may be difficult. It is said in the article that Republicans are now believed to handle situations better than Democrats such as terrorism, the economy, Afghanistan, etc. This would mean that voters are now tending to disagree with the president, since President Obama is in fact a Democrat. Voters are now siding with Republicans rather than Democrats, while in the beginning it was the other way around.

This Article is rather interesting to read, because Dana Blanton allows the reader to choose a side on rather they would vote for Republicans or Democrats. This article beings in effective polls where some were taken a few weeks ago verses today. The polls show the change in route that voters have taken. It also allows the reader to being in outside information. I myself had thought about Obama' s new Health care program and how many voters opposed this. In my opinion, the many people who wished for change in the beginning are now tending to say that they wish to stay conservative. Which would of course mean that they believe Obama is not following the way they wish for change to occur. Overall this article informs the readers and is targeted to a more mature audience from young adults to the elderly who can truly understand the situation.