Arizona is high!

I have to agree with my classmates post about the new Arizona immigration law. I wrote about this last week and it rubbed me the wrong way then, and it still rubs me the wrong way now, which it probably will until they get rid of it.

I agree with her completely when she says that yes, it is necessary to have some sort of law, but they need to find a different way to go about it. I also agree when she says that immigrants take the jobs that most Americans consider crappy jobs. My grandmother became naturalized many moons ago, but since she cannot speak English, it was very hard for her to find a decent paying job so she had to resort to being a maid/nanny like almost ever other immigrant. She basically raised her boss's children, cleaned, did their laundry, and whatever else the "man" wanted her to do for a crappy salary.

All in all, I think Arizona needs to get rid of this law and they need to sit and ponder to come up with a better way to take care of this "problem" with a less humiliating/ridiculous/every other synonyms for these words law.

I bet Mexicans clean their house...

I bet you can tell what I am going to write about just by my title.  Arizona passed this ridiculous immigration law.  The measure requires police to question anyone they have reason to suspect of being in the United States illegally about their immigration status.  To me, this is just STUPID! 

Having family that "may or may not" be here illegally, I think this hits even closer to home. I know that I am supposed to be talking about National government, but I happen to think, as well as many other Americans, that this issue concerns the nation as a whole.

Many people say that the Federal government is not doing enough and so now the states should step in.  Although this is true, I think that there should be less harsh ways to go about it, rather than encouraging racial profiling. Now don't get me wrong, I think yes, there should be strict laws in place for immigration issues because I think that America should try and help the Americans in need rather than just adding to the problem and helping out the many illegal immigrants here in the states that are using federal and state tax money, to which they contribute nothing to. 

In an article I read about this issue, it states that on "page 1 of the bill that no police officer can use race, ethnic origin, color or country of origin as a basis to form reasonable suspicion."  This law being in Arizona, right on top of Mexico, I highly doubt that a police officer will walk up to a black, white, or Asian man or woman and question whether or not they are here legally. Instead, they will question the brown people that are doing construction work or maybe cleaning a legislator's house while getting paid less than what I got paid when I was 6 or 7 years old for doing chores around the house, just so they can support their family who was going hungry while they lived in Mexico or risked being killed because of the drug wars going on down there.

According to the Gallup polls and what I have read, a little more that half of Americans are all for this law, despite the huge uproar and protests that are going on. I am in the middle on where I stand on the immigration issue as a whole.  I have heard many of the pros and cons of illegal immigrants being in America and I can agree with both sides. What I don't agree with is the way Arizona is going about the issue. The law says that officers cannot go after someone because of what they look like or whatever. Well how in the hell else are you going to have enough reasonable suspicion as to whether or not someone is here illegally? I may not be the smartest person and I may not know much on this issue, but I think in some way or another, this has to violate the Fourth Amendment.  Even though a bunch of old bags who know the law pretty well came up with this law, there has to be something wrong with this law. I may not know exactly what it is, but it will come out one way or another.

Fatties eatin' cake!

I just read one of my classmates blogs on childhood obesity called A Healthy Choice. I do have to say I agree with her completely. I do think that Congress should pass the Child Nutrition Act because just through my experiences in my K-12 years, me and many others probably lived off of vending machines. Just the smell of the crap coming from the cafeteria was enough to make me want to vomit, and so I went straight to the machines. So if schools were to take out vending machines and offer healthier foods that also tasted decent enough to nourish children's bellies, I really do think that it would cut down on this childhood obesity epidemic. I have a son who loves to eat, so I can just imagine him seeing those yummy potato chips and thinking, "MMMMmmmm!" He's already on the higher side of his percentile in weight and I have done better with offering him healthier options at home. I would most definitely like to see it continue on while he is at school because it would defeat the purpose if they just feed him crap at school. Yes, most schools have replaced vending machines with water and Gatorade or just removed them completely, but I know the elementary school my niece goes to, they have separate stands set up so the kids can buy junk food after they have eaten their lunch. This also defeats the purpose of removing or replacing the vending machines. 

All in all, I agree with my classmate.  I think they should get rid of junk food all together. I don't know what I would eat but at least I'll know my son and everyone's kids would be healthier, which would mean less trips to the doctor. Although healthy foods are more expensive, I think everyone would save in the long run because of medical bills they won't have.

Keep the Murdering Bastards Alive?!?!

So there was a bill that was introduced to the 111th  U.S. Congress on March 19, 2009 called S.650:  Federal Death Penalty Abolition Act of 2009, sponsored by Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI).  It basically states that this act would repeal death penalty provisions for a wide range of homicide-related offenses under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the federal criminal code, the Controlled Substances Act, and other statutes relating to aircraft hijacking, espionage and treason, and offenses punished under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It would also prohibit the sentencing to death or execution of any person for any violation of federal law after the enactment of this Act and commutes death penalties imposed prior to the enactment of this Act to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

Luckily as far as I know and how it appears, this bill has been abandoned in the Committee. 

I say luckily because as far as the death penalty stands, even though I do see the pros and cons to the death penalty, if I had to choose whether I was for it or not, I would most definitely say, yes I am. I am ALL FOR IT! Now I know two wrongs don't make a right, but having the opportunity to witness a capital murder trial, I saw the toll it took on everyone involved (including the courtroom work group), whether it was a losing or benefiting outcome.

Say this bill were to pass, what then? Hmm, let's see. These killing fools stay in prison until they are old and croak anyway and in the meantime, taxpayers pay to house them and that includes giving them three meals a day, a bed, air conditioning, recreational activities, jobs, and a place where they are living and breathing just fine, all while everyone that the prisoner's crime affected mourns and lives with the pain and thoughts of their loved one(s) dying a brutal death. Now how does this sound fair? If it were up to me, I say torture them the way they did their victim(s) until they beg for mercy and then kill them the way they killed their victim(s), but since the Constitution protects the criminals, I'll just have to deal with lethal injection, although in a couple states they still use the firing squad which is close to pleasing me, but who cares what little ol' me thinks.  I'm just glad I live in Texas with the old, conservative, and 2nd Amendment lovin' geezers who love the death penalty.

Convicted criminals have all these protections granted to them in the Constitution such as protections from cruel and unusual punishment and It just doesn't make sense to me. The killers weren't thinking of that when they were killing people. I bet that if something horrid happened to a member of these congressmen's family, they would have a different opinion on the death penalty. Yes, the downside is the killers would die a "somewhat peaceful" death, but at least they're not breathing the same air and using up taxpayers money.  I would think it cost more to keep them alive than to just be done with it and put them down. Now we just have to work on moving their death dates along!

Hell No?

Robert L. Borosage posted a blog on the Huffington Post with the title of "Will Americans Reward the Party of Hell No?" As far as his credibility goes, he has a pretty lengthy background in politics and law. He is a graduate of Yale Law school and his biography also states that he is the president of the Institute for America’s Future and co-director of its sister organization, the Campaign for America’s Future. The organizations were launched by 100 prominent Americans to challenge the rightward drift in US politics, and to develop the policies, message and issue campaigns to help forge an enduring majority for progressive change in America.

Now I believe article in the Huffington Post that I am referring to is kind of hard for me to determine who exactly he is trying to target as an audience but if I had to guess, it would probably be the people who lean left. He states that, "if Democrats focus on creating jobs while pushing to curb the financial casino and protect consumers from abuses of credit card companies, payday lenders and mortgage brokers -- and Republicans continue their obstruction -- voters might just decide the election is a choice: between those struggling for change and those standing with the entrenched interests against it." He also states that, "If the jobs don't come back and Democrats decide its easier to cater to the banking lobby than to buck it, then, despite the historic achievement on health care, the Republican strategy of "hell no" might just work."  I think that I mostly agree with him.

Finally! Women in uniform get a little something...

So there has always been this controversy over the whole abortion issue, even more in the military. According to an editorial in The New York Times, the Pentagon began to make the morning-after emergency contraception pill available at military bases around the world. I think that this decision is well overdue, especially since the war has started. While Bush was still in office, they blocked a similar recommendation because all those Pro-life people think of this pill as a form of abortion. I personally am Pro-choice and do not think that this pill is a form of abortion. I agree with the author of this editorial when they say, "It is outrageous that politics is allowed to interfere with the health care decisions of women who wear the nation's uniform." I think that all these politicians need to stay out of the lives of the women who serve in the military. While most of the politicians are off receiving fellatio from a hooker in a hotel room, there are some women overseas serving their country and getting raped and knocked up while they're at it. Yes, currently the women are allowed to receive abortions in these cases and some others, but the women must pay for it and an abortion is not cheap. Not to mention the gossip that may get started. The decision to get an abortion is hard enough, so they really need other people humiliating them more? So now that the FDA approved the over-the-counter sale of this pill, I think that this is a more discrete and much cheaper way to prevent a pregnancy and an easier decision to live with. Where an abortion aborts the pregnancy, this morning-after pill, same as birth control, PREVENTS pregnancy and along with the author, I agree with this decision to be made.

Who's to blame for the economy? Bush or Obama?

So who is to blame for the way things are going for the U.S. economy now? I honestly couldn't tell you but according to a few surveys that were in an article on CNN's website, people are leaning towards George W. Bush. Now I am no expert in government and/or politics by any means, but I do believe the economy was crashing while he (Bush) was still in office. I am not a fan of either president, nor do I not, not like them. I am just simply stating what I see from my view and that is that, yea, Bush got us into a bit of a pickle but Obama being the new president, should be there to clean up the mess somewhat and get to that "Change" he was pressing so hard for during his campaign, not run us in the ground by bailing out all these banks and whatnot. That's a story for another day. I just need to get educated on it a bit more before I start rambling. I think this article is worth reading because it kind of gives you an idea of where people kind of stand. The comment section is rather more interesting than the article itself because you can see the difference of opinions from one person to the next. To me, that is interesting and quite funny as well. Enjoy.