Stage 8: Commentary #2

In response to Paige Duecker's article "Warrantless Blood Draws????!!!!!" I want to say that I completely agree with her, the officer had no right to take the suspect to a hospital and have his blood drawn. Even though he is a criminal, he is still a human. I'm not sure if a persons Blood Alcohol Content is something police are required to record when taking them into jail and filling out the report, but if everything is being recorded by their car camera like it should be then there is their proof for him failing the sobriety tests. I think that if a person is unwilling to submit to a breathalyzer test and already failed all of the other tests then that should be good enough reason to arrest them. Also, I think that once a criminal (McaNeely) has been charged with their first DUI offense they should be required to submit to a breathalyzer test by law and if they refuse they automatically be arrested. I went off on a bit of a tangent, but if the laws would adjust to what I just said there would be no need to take suspects into a hospital to involuntarily have their blood drawn.

Stage 7

Are we really losing our 4^th amendment? I have been hearing a lot about this lately, mainly from social media websites about losing our 4^th amendment so I decided to do some research on it. Based off of this article, the 4^th amendment does not apply to anybody living within 100 miles of the United States border, in which 10 of those states are now completely affected by it. That sounds a little extreme and since there are a limited number of sources on this issue I am not sure if this is true. I think it would have caused much more of an uproar if this was true.

In case you do not know what it is, according to Wikipedia : “the 4^th amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause." It sounds like this is being set up to help the Department of Homeland Security stop illegal immigrants and terrorist, etc.

Another source from a yahoo search I did brought up an article published on April 19^th, 2013 by Scott Bomboy called “CISPA, the Fourth Amendment and you” which tells you all about the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act that is being voted on right now. As Bomboy describes it, “CISPA is designed to let the federal government work with private companies to fight hackers and cybercriminals in and outside of the United States.” I am all for fighting against terrorism, so if that means the government can search for certain phrases that I’m typing in my computer etc. I don’t really care because I have nothing to hide. Now if it were being abused by the government then I would be against it, but if CISPA is only to be used to protect our country then I think it is a good idea.

In conclusion, I understand the efforts to try and keep America a safe place, but to a certain extent. America stands for freedom and if we slowly start taking away our rights overtime we will end up just like all of the other countries that America looks down upon. There does need to be a stopping point to this if the government does decide to make some minor exceptions to our rights, so long as their powers are not being abused and their actions are for our best interest as a country.

Blog 6: Commentary #1

In response to article Paying for School:

I completely agree with your position on this subject. I think top students should be the first so be rewarded with scholarships regardless of students’ financial situations unless their parents are millionaires or something. The money is put to better use when scholarships are given to the students who are taking school serious and trying to achieve something great rather than just skating by and doing the minimum, yet still receiving free education. I also think it is smarter to take those entry level classes at a community college where it’s cheaper and you seem to have more resources and options available to help you succeed in the beginning, where if you go straight into a university from high school, you can’t get that one on one help in class and the tuition is much higher. University’s should look into that and give those students like you more credit and more consideration for scholarships because those are going to be the students that make them look good and they will be the ones to succeed.

Same sex marriage: What’s the big deal?

         I personally think the religious arguments against gay marriage are ridiculous, but I have heard two sides to the religious arguments. On one side people say it’s against what the bible says so it’s wrong and god won’t love them. On the other side, people believe that god loves everybody equally and your sexual orientation doesn't affect that. Although I am not a religious person, I agree with the point of view that god loves everybody and being gay does not make him love a person any less.

         Another question being asked is “does gay marriage have a negative effect on the upbringing of a child compared to heterosexual parents?” I think same sex parents are perfectly capable of raising a child together; their sexual preference does not affect their ability to be a responsible parent. Studies show that gay couples are perfectly capable of raising a normal child together in this interview with Dr. Drew Pinsky. If both parents are stable and good people there is nothing wrong with them raising a child together. The only negative affect it could have on the child is homophobia which was brought up in the interview linked above. Other kids making fun of them in school for having two dads or two moms could make them feel like an outsider. I also found a story about two men who raised a child together that they found abandoned in a subway that was no more than a day old. They raised the child to be a good person so far and they have given him a good life.

         Most people are uneducated about the subject and view gay as a disease. In this video from Fox News, the anchor makes the point that most people are more understanding about the topic when they have a gay friend or family member. He also said that Ohio senator Rob Portman recently because the first republican senator to support gay marriage because his son is gay. At the end of the day I think people should be more informed and open minded toward this issue.

Stage Four

On March 7, 2013 Daily Kos Labor blog published an article by Laura Clawson called "Flight attendants and air marshals protest TSA decision allowing small knives on flights." This article does not really have an opinion stated, but pretty much just states the facts and references some comments made by flight attendants and air marshals. As I assumed, they are completely against the regulations that now allow passengers to carry on small knives and sport equipment likes bats and golf clubs.

Clawson quoted a comment made by an air marshal, "It's as if we didn't learn anything from 9/11," said George Randall Taylor, head of the air marshal unit of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA). "Flight attendants are going to be sitting ducks." I completely agree with their concerns and comments because you don’t know what anyone is capable of.

Why would you need to bring a knife onto an airplane in the first place? As we’ve learned from past experiences, airplanes can be destructive and kills hundreds of people if they are hijacked. Allowing weapons on an airplane not only increases those risks but can also make passengers nervous. Travelers can part with their knives and sporting equipment for a couple of hours while they’re 30,000 feet off the ground with no reason to use it and reunite with them once they arrive at their destination and retrieve their luggage.

In conclusion, I think the author of this article is also against passengers boarding their flight with weapons and I completely agree with her. It would be beneficial for everybody to regulate the rules and make traveling a safer process in general by prohibiting all passengers from boarding their flight with weapons.

Stage 3: Commentary/Criticism

On February 15, 2013 USA today published an opinion column by Charles Rangel representing New York's 13th district in the House of Representatives called 'All Americans have a duty to defend our nation.' In this article he makes a strong argument about the consequences of war and the effects it has on soldiers, their families and our nations as a whole. He makes the point that war should be the last resort, after exhausting all peaceful options to resolving a conflict and that most Americans think our elected officials send our soldiers to war entirely too often. It looks like he was for the for the proposed bill (which was never passed) Universal National Service Act of 2011 would basically force all citizens of the United States between the ages of 18-25 to perform national service which doesn’t have to be actual combat in the war, but it’s still something that would make it required. I agree with everything Rangel had to say except for that part, I don’t think that Americans should have to be forced to serve. For example if someone got drafted and they didn’t want to be there, they would pretty much be a waste of space in my eyes because they wouldn’t be as useful as someone who actually wanted to be there and serve the country. On the other side, Rangel makes the point that if everyone had this obligation then all of the families would be affected and our representatives might be more hesitant to resort to fixing our problems with force all the time because it would be their child or their nephew being affected not just another random civilian.

Stage 2: Article intro

On September 15, 2012 the New York Times published an article by Henry Fountain called Body Builders. This article is about the recent advances scientists all around the world have been making in their attempts to create “ready-made” replacement organs. The author discusses a specific case where a doctor in Sweden performed a procedure in which he implanted a replacement windpipe that he made out of plastic and the patient’s own cells. So far only a few simple organs have been made, but doctors and researchers are working towards creating real living organs that actually become part of the body rather than something that just helps the body function for a period of time like the mechanical replacement hearts which don’t last forever. I think people should read this because it was an interesting article and it’s crazy to hear about how far along science is coming. People all over the world have situations where they’re organs fail them and the need a new one, but there’s not enough organs to go around! If scientists could actually figure out a way to basically grow organs it would help save lots of lives.