Bring our Troops Home

On a blog called, “Get ‘em the hell outta’ there! ”, S. Williams understands that removing the troops from Afghanistan is not easy for Obama. She expressed that she wished that our troops would go home. I found the post to be quite interesting. The author’s post was her opinion based on an article in the NY Times about how President Obama is sending more troops. S. Williams wrote that “President Obama doesn’t just make a phone call and say, “Ok, it’s over. Round ‘em up, we’re closing down shop and everyone’s coming home!” She was looking into President Obama’s point of view. When President Obama decided to run for president he knew that it would not be that easy to end the war and I bet most of the people knew it too. In the public’s eyes it seems that he is not trying to send them home. Let just hope this is part of his plan to get the troops home.

I agreed with her that it does feel “the U.S. spends a lot of unnecessary time trying to help “fix” other countries’ problems.” I think we should leave them alone. We have our own problems here. The people in Afghanistan do not want us there to begin with.

I see that this war was unnecessary and I don’t know why we are still there. There has been “a LOT of unnecessary bloodshed in Afghanistan over the years” that could be avoided.

I don’t understand the last paragraph in this post. When she wrote, “It seems a bit disrespectful. You may choose to address your father-in-law by “Mr.”, but not the President of the United States. He has worked hard and has earned the title of President. So let’s show him a little respect. I don’t recall any of the previous presidents being referred to as “Mr. Bush” or “Mr. Clinton”. This is where a little question mark that lights up in my head. I know that this is her opinion and she respects President Obama.

The last paragraph shows that this is bothering her when people “refer to President Obama as, “Mr. Obama”!!” I don’t understand how this relates to President Obama’s decision on sending more troops home or her opinion on getting them out.

On the other hand, she did some research and “found this to be the case in most (if not all) of the political articles and blogs. [She have] read online regarding President Obama.”

Abortion

To tell you the truth, I am always jumping back and forth to both sides about having abortion should be illegal or legal. Whenever I think about abortion should be illegal, I know that adoption is a good choice but there is a chance that not a lot of children get adopted. It will be good for child to grow up in environment with two parents and a stable home rather than a single parent. There is a chance a single parent can raise a child as good as a child grow up with two parent.

I feel that life begins at conception. There is something growing in a woman and the fetus will develop into a human being. It is a part of you. A fetus can develop into a baby and I don’t think I can end kill a fetus because it count as a cute little baby.

I think that if something has a heart beat they can count as human being. During the second month of the pregnancy, the baby starts to take more of a human form, the head grows, facial features start to form, hands and feet start to develop and its muscles begin to grow. By the end of the second month a heartbeat can be picked up.

On the other hand, if abortion would legal, that would help someone, who is raped. It is better for them not to be reminding them what happened that day. If someone, who was just being careless and stupid and ended up getting pregnant, I feel that they have the right to have an abortion because what if they are not capable of raising a baby? Would the baby safe and have a good life? I don’t think someone, who is careless and stupid and ended up getting pregnant is not capable to support a baby.

They could put the baby up for adoption but I think it would be a good benefit for the child not to go through adoption because what if the adopted parents don’t want the child or for some other reasons and the child have to go back to the adoption agency. The child might grow up into an adult without being adopted and growing up at the agency. The child might grow up with some emotional problems. I know I am going against what I said earlier, but anything could happen to the baby. We can’t predict what going to happen or how the baby will be affected, if the baby is adopted or not. I don’t think I can ever choose, but I think that in the end it is all up to the woman. It’s their choice.

Why Should We Care?

On a blog called "Gay Marriage", Toohey makes a great point on how he is “against gay marriage.” He makes a good argument on how "when you get married in one state, you may not be considered married in the other." Do couples really need to be approved to be married in every state? In my opinion I think it good at least one states says that you are married. He back it up that it goes against Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. Each state made their choice on making gay marriage illegal or legal is their decision and their thought on what is best for their state.

I love how he respected that other states law when he not for gay marriage. For examples, “If you are married in another state allowing gay marriage, you are married (no matter how against it I am).” He looks at both side of argument on gay marriage. He stated that he “believe that the gay community is one of the nicest, most "green," and peaceful communities of this world.” He made it clear that he doesn’t like “the choice (or lifestyle if you prefer) that [he] disagree with.” I think it is our opinion if we are against or for it and we can't change it. We can't change a person's mind on getting married to the same gender.

It doesn‘t “needs to stay between a man and a women.” Who set that rule and who told everybody to follow it? Can it be between two men or two women? Society does not make that choice for the people. Not everybody have to think like that. We can’t tell everybody how to feel and tell them who to marry. If two people love each other so much and want to get marry. Does it matter that it is between to same gender or the opposite gender.

I agreed with him when he says; “If a law is passed giving the rights to gay marriage, then there is not much to argue (unless you are looking to still ban it).” I think we should “respect our Constitution and all the laws it gives” and let the people live their life and stop telling them what they can do or not. It is not going to obstruct our lives.

Financial Reform

The house financial services committee tides lose ends on what could be essential reform legislation or depending on what they do. I think the committee should discuss the regulation of largely tolerant and dangerously difficult multi trillion-dollar to unoriginal markets. They should also discuss the creation of a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency to oversee the consumer credit offerings of banks and other financial firms that includes mortgages, credit cards, overdraft protection and payday loans.

I fear that it is in danger of being irreversible weakened. Derivatives supposed to help investors and business maintain risk, but it doesn’t. Their unchecked and unregulated use directly and indirectly. It leads to financial crash and following trillions of dollars in taxpayer involvement.

Congress should require that all banks, hedge funds and corporations can conduct their trades on exchanges where they would consider doing regulations and public inspection. The proposed legislation has too many loopholes and exemptions. Many corporations would be able to trade privately. That may protect bank profit; there is no chance for association shopping. It might put the taxpayer at risk. I think some lawmakers would want or make intent on weakening the proposed power to examine the books of the banks and firms.

I think they will try their best to regulate it. Banks regulators have the power, but they did not use it for protecting the best interest of their consumers. There is a routine inspection on the books to see if the company is doing their job. Lawmakers vowed to protects the American public from the banks and financial industries.

Americans Strike Back

This blog is called "Shock Polls: Americans Back Strike on Iran if Nuke Talks Fail" by David Paul Kuhan. David writes about what the Americans' beliefs and what they want on the topic of preventing Iran to build nuclear weapons. He is writing on the Americans' point of view. David’s conflict is the Americans pressure to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities. For example he said that "The Pew Research Center reported Tuesday that about six in 10 Americans support a military strike if nuclear negotiations break down." The Pew Research Center also reported "that 64 percent of Americans say that negotiations will not alone convince Iran to give up its nuclear program, mimicking Fox's poll results last week " He got some information based on two polls. He backed up his evidence by telling where he got it and what the polls reported. I think David should give us more data on the poll to give the reader more detail about it. In the blog it sound like the Americans are worried about what happening Iran. David write about what the Americans want like to have a “direct talks with Tehran. But now two polls show a strong majority also believes talks will eventually fail. And if they do fail, Americans want their military to use force to keep Iran from building the bomb." He also backed it up by bring up the polls. David is trying to let the Americans to have a voice on the war and what going on there. I like how the writer used the Americans’ opinion. I think David's credibility is alright. He told us where he got the data and told us some information about it.

Mississippi’s Problem

This editorial is called "Mississippi’s Failure" by a New York Times writer. The author wrote about how the states spend 50 percent of money on low and moderate income families, but the state managed to get waivers and spend the money on different projects. The author is trying to reach out to the people who have been affected by Hurricane Katrina and people who want to repair their house that had been hit by the hurricane. The writer's credibility is hard to say because there is a quote but it did not say who said it. The writer gave an example about a guy who has been sleeping in a FEMA trailer because his home has been destroyed and it is not repair. It's seems that the writer give good evidence. The writer gives numbers and good facts. Also it was logical and clear. I agree with what the writer wrote because you can't spend money on projects when the money is supposed to go to rebuild homes.

A Voice of Veterans

This article is called "The Voice of a New Generation of Veterans" by Philip Rucker, Washington Post Staff Writer is about a veteran named; Matt Flavin is 29 years old; he had survived fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now he is charged with helping President Obama to increase veterans’ benefits. Flavin is trying to complete the new GI Bill to grant education benefits to veterans of Iraq, Afghanistan. Also, he is trying to establish an electronic medical records system. When Flavin was in Iraq and Afghanistan, he experienced traumatic brain injury. Now, he is trying his best to make a policy to better deal with post-traumatic stress disorder and brain injuries.

In Obama’s 2010 spending plan, he would increase 11 percent in VA funding, “more treatment centers, more case mangers and better medical care." Also he would support for transportable and rural clinics to reach veterans who have returned home. Veterans are an important political, making up about 15 percent of voters in the 2008 presidential. For a president that has no military experience, he is concern for our troops.

I think this article is worth reading because it is showing that there is a plan to expand veterans’ benefits. I like the idea the Obama is making a plan for the veterans. The veterans went to Iraq to help protect this country and they should get help or something in return.