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.