The DREAM Act, the hotly contested act that is waiting to be looked at on the Senate floor, would provide a pathway to citizenship for those who enter the country illegally under the age of 16, and have lived in the U.S. for five years. I don't even understand why anyone would be against this. These kids, and now some adults, were rasied in their formative years in this country, are inherently naturalized citizens, and often times don't speak any language but English fluently, but are still considered illegal immigrants because of the arbitrary birthplace of their parents or families.
It is only smart to provide a pathway to citizenship for these folks. Critics may argue that this will just allow for illegal immigrants to bring their kids into the U.S. and wait five years until they're afforded a pathway, then they can themselves find it easier to stay in the U.S., but really all the DREAM Act does is allow those who would follow under the DERAM Act to stay for six years, and then must either have completely two years of college or the military. These are pretty tough stipulations for one to live in the United States, and many Americans themselves don't even accomplish that much for their, or any, country. Although opening up borders is impractical, it is only sensible to allow those who had no decision to enter the U.S., but have stayed here and been somewhat successful, an opportunity to become a citizen, because after all, we were all immigrants once upon a time.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Wikileaks: Redux
I wanted to revisit my last post concerning Wikileaks. I actually posted my blog on the role of Wikileaks the morning of the day Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, posted the tens of thousands of cables of classified documents. I actually posted the blog without the knowledge of the cable leak, because I wanted to touch on the thousands of documents that were released earlier this fall.
Assange, who recently turned himself into London jail because of the warrant for his arrest for alledged rape charges in Sweden, is pretty much in every headline on every world media circuit right now. One would be hard-pressed to not be familiar with his name or his website, Wikileaks.
I have been rather torn lately in regards to my support of Wikileaks. As stated in my previous blog, I am fully behind releasing these classified documents for the public to see because it provides for transparency of our government, which is neccesary as a citizen of the United States to know one's native country's foreign policy. I think the role of Wikileaks is vastly important, it helps serve as a watchdog organization and they also did something that may not had originally been intended: the release of these cables has spurned the Pentagon into action to tighten security. If Wikileaks can get a hold of this classified information, who knows who can get a hold of much other, perhaps more pertinent information. Although the security exploit may have just been whistleblowers inside the government, this also shows that really not many can be trusted. However hypocritical this may sound, while I believe in transparency of government, there are also certain things that the general public should probably not know, essentially because there are some things that directly affect national security.
While I agree with the release of the vast majority of the cables I have seen and read so far, particularly with the cables in regards to our debt owed to China and with Iran's nuclear proliferation, there are some I wish Assange and Wikileaks had used more discretion with in regards to national security. What I am referring to is the release of documents establishing where the United States keeps minerals that are pertinent to trade and any potential "apocalypse" scenario, in addition to documents stating hotspots for terrorist targets. There's obviously a bevy of these secrets out there now, and all our government can do now is tighten security, but I do wish that more discretion was used on the part of Wikileaks before releasing these documents. In spite of that, if their role is to release all documents, regardless of how vulnerable they may make the United States, then that is a different story. If Wikileaks is anti-censorship, then that can be understandable. As it is, it does not seem they are inherently against censoring these cables, so they need to know that what they are releasing will assuredly not affect the lives of innocents, which is more important than any cable allowing transparency.
The Atlantic did a terrific rundown on the media's favoritism and anti-Wikileaks bantor throughout the internet that can be had right here for your reading pleasure.
Assange, who recently turned himself into London jail because of the warrant for his arrest for alledged rape charges in Sweden, is pretty much in every headline on every world media circuit right now. One would be hard-pressed to not be familiar with his name or his website, Wikileaks.
I have been rather torn lately in regards to my support of Wikileaks. As stated in my previous blog, I am fully behind releasing these classified documents for the public to see because it provides for transparency of our government, which is neccesary as a citizen of the United States to know one's native country's foreign policy. I think the role of Wikileaks is vastly important, it helps serve as a watchdog organization and they also did something that may not had originally been intended: the release of these cables has spurned the Pentagon into action to tighten security. If Wikileaks can get a hold of this classified information, who knows who can get a hold of much other, perhaps more pertinent information. Although the security exploit may have just been whistleblowers inside the government, this also shows that really not many can be trusted. However hypocritical this may sound, while I believe in transparency of government, there are also certain things that the general public should probably not know, essentially because there are some things that directly affect national security.
While I agree with the release of the vast majority of the cables I have seen and read so far, particularly with the cables in regards to our debt owed to China and with Iran's nuclear proliferation, there are some I wish Assange and Wikileaks had used more discretion with in regards to national security. What I am referring to is the release of documents establishing where the United States keeps minerals that are pertinent to trade and any potential "apocalypse" scenario, in addition to documents stating hotspots for terrorist targets. There's obviously a bevy of these secrets out there now, and all our government can do now is tighten security, but I do wish that more discretion was used on the part of Wikileaks before releasing these documents. In spite of that, if their role is to release all documents, regardless of how vulnerable they may make the United States, then that is a different story. If Wikileaks is anti-censorship, then that can be understandable. As it is, it does not seem they are inherently against censoring these cables, so they need to know that what they are releasing will assuredly not affect the lives of innocents, which is more important than any cable allowing transparency.
The Atlantic did a terrific rundown on the media's favoritism and anti-Wikileaks bantor throughout the internet that can be had right here for your reading pleasure.
Monday, December 6, 2010
The Bush tax cuts...keep 'em?
As the Bush-era tax cuts are set to expire at the end of the month, Democrats and Republicans are finally coming to a consensus, if you want to call it that, as they plan on extending the tax cuts at least for the following year. Democrats are understandably irked that the top 2-3% wealthiest of Americans still benefit from these tax cuts, thus denying the Fed $60 billion, but also will extend unemployment benefits for millions of Americans which would be set to expire. To top it off, the extension of the cuts would save middle-class Americans about $1,000 a year each, which is certainly necessary given the current economic recession.
Obviously, in an ideal liberal society, the wealthiest of Americans would not get tax cut extensions, and middle class families would still get tax cuts, and unemployment benefits would continue. It is highly doubtful this scenario would play out until the next election, about two years from now, given that the Republicans are set to take over the House, and they are certainly pro-tax cuts for all individuals.
Although the tax cuts for the wealthy are difficult for liberals and people like me to swallow, I think extending the unemployment benefits and saving middle class families around the country is a good give-and-take for bipartisanship, and for the economy. If an extra $1,000 was taken off middle class families salaries, our economy would certainly see that, given there are tens of millions of middle class families this would affect. Unemployment recently rose in November, so extending these benefits is crucial to keep families afloat in such difficult times. So, while extending the cuts for the wealthy seems unacceptable, the cuts continue for the Americans who need it the most, and we must suck it up and accept that until the next elections roll around, and hopefully our president's message of change can take full effect.
Obviously, in an ideal liberal society, the wealthiest of Americans would not get tax cut extensions, and middle class families would still get tax cuts, and unemployment benefits would continue. It is highly doubtful this scenario would play out until the next election, about two years from now, given that the Republicans are set to take over the House, and they are certainly pro-tax cuts for all individuals.
Although the tax cuts for the wealthy are difficult for liberals and people like me to swallow, I think extending the unemployment benefits and saving middle class families around the country is a good give-and-take for bipartisanship, and for the economy. If an extra $1,000 was taken off middle class families salaries, our economy would certainly see that, given there are tens of millions of middle class families this would affect. Unemployment recently rose in November, so extending these benefits is crucial to keep families afloat in such difficult times. So, while extending the cuts for the wealthy seems unacceptable, the cuts continue for the Americans who need it the most, and we must suck it up and accept that until the next elections roll around, and hopefully our president's message of change can take full effect.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Iran: Will diplomacy work?
According to Wikileaks released cables, many Middle Eastern countries want the United States to do something about Iran's nuclear proliferation program. Considering that just yesterday, Iran announced that they have everything they need to create a nuclear weapon, one would think we should do something about this...just like we did with Iraq, right?
Well, we are all witnessing how the Iraq conflict played out and is playing out still currently. Unfortunately, a preliminary attack like some Arab nations alledgely support, would not be the best solution. Much like the current North Korea situation, we should use diplomacy and talks by heads of state and the Cabinets of nations involved to see how we may stall this process or eliminate. While it is hypocritical to stop a country from nuclear proliferation when we in the U.S. have thousands of nuclear weapons, there is no reason for any nation to have them. While in a pragmatic sense this is just seemingly silly, everyone must agree that nuclear weapons are inherently bad for society. If we could perhaps create a treaty with Iran, much like the SMART treaty with Russia currently on board, we must secede nuclear weapons and destroy them so Iran can feel comfortable, and we must also adit that peace is the answer, and hopefully sign a treaty that will establish positive relations with Iran, regardless of their human rights violations (and ours), this issue must be addressed imminently.
Well, we are all witnessing how the Iraq conflict played out and is playing out still currently. Unfortunately, a preliminary attack like some Arab nations alledgely support, would not be the best solution. Much like the current North Korea situation, we should use diplomacy and talks by heads of state and the Cabinets of nations involved to see how we may stall this process or eliminate. While it is hypocritical to stop a country from nuclear proliferation when we in the U.S. have thousands of nuclear weapons, there is no reason for any nation to have them. While in a pragmatic sense this is just seemingly silly, everyone must agree that nuclear weapons are inherently bad for society. If we could perhaps create a treaty with Iran, much like the SMART treaty with Russia currently on board, we must secede nuclear weapons and destroy them so Iran can feel comfortable, and we must also adit that peace is the answer, and hopefully sign a treaty that will establish positive relations with Iran, regardless of their human rights violations (and ours), this issue must be addressed imminently.
Friday, December 3, 2010
Are you still drinking out of plastic water bottles?
If your answer to this question is Yes, then you should entertain the option to stop. Plastic, that oh so cheap substance that is virtually in everything we buy and consume, is not good for you, not good for our planet, and nonrenewable. There are a plethora of options available for plastic bottle alternatives: Sigg bottles, Kleen Kanteen, Camelbak, Nalgene, and many other companies all sell reusable water bottles from $10 - $50 (depending on size, brand, style). And they are all free of BPA.
BPA, Bisphenol A, "is an endocrine disruptor, which can mimic the body's own hormones and may lead to negative health effects." Last year, The Endocrine Society published a study laying out the potential negative effects of BPA on humans, especially growing children. BPA is in nearly every plastic available, and when one drinks out of plastic water bottles, they are directly consuming BPA. Most water bottles are also packaged in PET, Polyethylene terephthalate, which makes up 1% of the United States' waste, and is currently recycled at less than a 25% rate.
If the health effects of BPA aren't enough to dissuade you, think about the waste. Oil, what plastic comes from, is a nonrenewable resource. The water in the water bottles has to come from somewhere too. Taking water from natural ecosystems is obviously abhorrent, but the fact that companies even have a right to water sources that should be intended for people in those areas is another. Where do property lines end?
Finally, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. It is riddled with plastic water bottles, and plastic waste. It is a "gyre of marine litter" that equates to the size of Texas that just floats in the middle of the Pacific, accumulating trash and essentially unstoppable and uncontrollable. If we stopped our plastic bottle usage, we could greatly reduce the chances of furthering the size of this garbage patch, and hopefully with more eliminated plastic usage, we can find a way to stop the patch from growing, and becoming a problem for those who live on islands in the Pacific.
BPA, Bisphenol A, "is an endocrine disruptor, which can mimic the body's own hormones and may lead to negative health effects." Last year, The Endocrine Society published a study laying out the potential negative effects of BPA on humans, especially growing children. BPA is in nearly every plastic available, and when one drinks out of plastic water bottles, they are directly consuming BPA. Most water bottles are also packaged in PET, Polyethylene terephthalate, which makes up 1% of the United States' waste, and is currently recycled at less than a 25% rate.
If the health effects of BPA aren't enough to dissuade you, think about the waste. Oil, what plastic comes from, is a nonrenewable resource. The water in the water bottles has to come from somewhere too. Taking water from natural ecosystems is obviously abhorrent, but the fact that companies even have a right to water sources that should be intended for people in those areas is another. Where do property lines end?
Finally, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. It is riddled with plastic water bottles, and plastic waste. It is a "gyre of marine litter" that equates to the size of Texas that just floats in the middle of the Pacific, accumulating trash and essentially unstoppable and uncontrollable. If we stopped our plastic bottle usage, we could greatly reduce the chances of furthering the size of this garbage patch, and hopefully with more eliminated plastic usage, we can find a way to stop the patch from growing, and becoming a problem for those who live on islands in the Pacific.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Those pesky 42 Republicans
Recently, the 42 Republican Senators in the United States vowed to neglect and vote against any bill during the lameduck Congress because the Bush tax cut issue has yet to have been addressed. Although I do agree this issue needs to be addressed imminently, as they expire in one month, to simply ignore any bill that comes their way is unacceptable and negligent. The United States citizens have voted these folks in to pay attention to, and vote on, these very bills. But since they are not getting their way with Obama and the Congressional Democrats, they are pulling this stunt.
This is not democracy. This is borderline fascism. They are exercising their power to...do nothing. Now, fortunately the Republicans agreed to address the new START treaty that would essentially sign a pact with Russia to eliminate a number of nuclear weapons and to reduce nuclear proliferation. Unfortunately, this is not the only issue that needs addressing in the Senate. Anything that truly comes before the Senate, which likely took many years to get there, deserves just as much attention as the START treaty, and simply ignoring it to get their way with the tax-cut issue is not a solution. If the Democrats had done this to the Republicans, I would feel the same way, and the liberal media would be in an absolute uproar. As it is, the Republicans are just fine sitting on their fannies until the tax-cut issue is frontloaded. So why are we paying these Senators to do nothing? Impeach, or move forward with the bills presented.
This is not democracy. This is borderline fascism. They are exercising their power to...do nothing. Now, fortunately the Republicans agreed to address the new START treaty that would essentially sign a pact with Russia to eliminate a number of nuclear weapons and to reduce nuclear proliferation. Unfortunately, this is not the only issue that needs addressing in the Senate. Anything that truly comes before the Senate, which likely took many years to get there, deserves just as much attention as the START treaty, and simply ignoring it to get their way with the tax-cut issue is not a solution. If the Democrats had done this to the Republicans, I would feel the same way, and the liberal media would be in an absolute uproar. As it is, the Republicans are just fine sitting on their fannies until the tax-cut issue is frontloaded. So why are we paying these Senators to do nothing? Impeach, or move forward with the bills presented.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Why I support Lebron James
Lebron James is arguably the best player the NBA has to offer. The NBA, the United States' most dynamic and popular sport internationally, is obviously a pretty big deal. When Lebron James chose to leave the Cleveland Cavaliers after several attempts at winning championships, he upset a lot of fans in Cleveland, and especially the owner of the team Dan Gilbert. I can understand the anger towards his departure from a standpoint of a Clevelandite. But to spread hateful speech about him and stage a burning of his jerseys is a bit too much.
Lebron left Cleveland for the sunny beaches of Miami to play with his two good friends who he also happened to win gold medals with in 2008 in the Olympics in China. The reasons he left are the reasons I still support him fully: he left to win. No matter who you are a fan of, you have to appreciate an athlete who wants to win, and tries his hardest to win. Compounded with this, he took a very large paycut to play in Miami. The best player in one of the most popular sports in the world took a paycut to play in Miami. He also chose Miami to play with his friends. I can fully respect this. If I had an opportunity to play with two of my closest friends, and it was in Miami, and they were such great ballplayers that it would immediately give me contention for an NBA Finals championship, I would jump at the opportunity. So although Clevelandites may boo Lebron tomorrow when he returns to Cleveland for the first time as a member of the Heat, I think they should still respect the decision of a guy who really is just a man who wanted to win, and win with his friends.
Lebron left Cleveland for the sunny beaches of Miami to play with his two good friends who he also happened to win gold medals with in 2008 in the Olympics in China. The reasons he left are the reasons I still support him fully: he left to win. No matter who you are a fan of, you have to appreciate an athlete who wants to win, and tries his hardest to win. Compounded with this, he took a very large paycut to play in Miami. The best player in one of the most popular sports in the world took a paycut to play in Miami. He also chose Miami to play with his friends. I can fully respect this. If I had an opportunity to play with two of my closest friends, and it was in Miami, and they were such great ballplayers that it would immediately give me contention for an NBA Finals championship, I would jump at the opportunity. So although Clevelandites may boo Lebron tomorrow when he returns to Cleveland for the first time as a member of the Heat, I think they should still respect the decision of a guy who really is just a man who wanted to win, and win with his friends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)