Too Much Dependence

After reading a classmate's blog on oil it is clear our country is not focusing on being proactive to solve a solution, it is furthering our dependence on oil. Instead of focusing on alternative energy options we are ignoring the obvious problem of the limited supply and still consuming more than ever. The blog is well written, researched, and compiled in a effective way to highlight a very important issue facing our nation. If we look at other developed nations many have converted or at least established other main sources of energy and are eliminating their dependence on oil. The main issue here is money, which my colleague addressed briefly. The oil industry is a huge money maker for the U.S. and I believe the truth is that the government wants us to be dependent on oil and not exhaust other resources because this strengthens their control over the citizens.
The article is reinforced by facts and common sense statements that aren't argueable, which helps emphasize the point that our government needs to stop spending so much on oil and use that money for research for alterntive fuels and energy sources. The whole idea just makes sense, so why isn't it happening? If more citizens cared and made this the pressing issue in politics then the politicians would have to respond. There could be more elaboration in the article about what we should do in response to the issue and options that are currently available. It would be interesting if the subject of government subsidies and how much the oil industry makes a quarter werementioned. The issue of oil is extensive, controversial, and pertinent to today's society and was well covered in the blog. The important thing here is that we as citizens need to be proactive to eliminate our dependence on oil and force our government to follow in our foot steps.

No Free Rides for Snitches

Unfortunately, many criminals, despite their crimes, are either prosecuted at lesser sentences or let off on parole if they choose to snitch on others' crimes. Such actions are unjust and selfish. Therefore, the government should not support or grant lesser punishments for criminal snitches, nor should the government punish criminals harsher for not snitching.

Essentially, law officials and judges currently have the ability and the power to undermine criminal laws by granting less severe punishments for people who rat others out. Therefore, criminals who snitch do not receive adequate punishment for their unlawful actions. Thus, criminals who snitch and get lesser sentences are not fully punished for their criminal actions. Furthermore, they truly do not learn their lessons; rather, they assume that they can continue breaking the law and get away with it if they simply rat out others. As a result, such actions on the behalf of the U.S. government completely devalue the operations of the law system.

The government should not grant lesser sentences for criminals who snitch on others; in addition, the government should not punish individuals harsher if they choose not to snitch. The article "Milken's 10-Year Sentence Abuses Justice: Refused to Snitch to the Editor" discusses how Michael Milken refused to snitch about others; the author makes a very valid statement about not further prosecuting non-snithcers. He accurately states, "let the police and prosecutors make their cases, surely, but do not hold citizens responsible for their inability to do so". His statement is very valid; not only is it unjustified and unfair for criminals to not be accurately punished, but it is also unjust and unfair to punish and hold citizens responsible for snitching on others.

Snitching is a pressing issue that needs to be addressed. Since snitching in exchange for lesser punishment allows criminals to roam the streets and not properly be punished, numerous people are concerned with the government's lack of action in regards to snitching. For example, one campaign group called "Stop Snitching" promotes the expulsion of lesser sentences for snitching. The group obviously realizes the unconstitutional practices of law enforcers granting measly punishment for criminals in exchange for others' illegal actions.

For the reasons discussed, it is believed that reporting crimes is important. However, at no point should individuals who have committed crimes be allowed less servere sentences in exchange for divulging others' crimes, nor should individuals be subject to harsher punishments as a result of not submitting to investigators' questions.

Response to "As the Machine Turns"

"As the Machine Turns" is an overall well written blog dealing with the current non-legalization standings of marijuana, both for recreational and medicinal purposes. It provides readers with necessary statistics, current issues, valid options, details, and stereotypical disputes. First and foremost, the author chose to write about an issue that is both current and debatable. Therefore, the written material is interesting and provoking, thus encouraging others to read it. The author includes numerous statistics, all of which help to emphasize the points the author is trying to make. Statistics always add validation and necessity. Furthermore, the author includes detailed aspects of legalizing marijuana, including stereotypes (gateway drug) and beneficial purposes (such as medicinal reasons). In addition to stating multiple concerns dealing with legalizing marijuana, the author also includes elaboration and support for each issue. The ample amounts of descriptions and details help to establish a stable and detailed article. Essentially, "As the Machine Turns" is a valid, well-supported, and well-written article discussing the legalization of marijuana.

Waking Up From the Fear

The Patriot Act resulted immediately after 9/11 as an Congressional Act , as an attempt to minimize and exterminate terrorism. In order to prevent terrorism, the Patriot Act enables law enforcement officials the ability to investigate phone records, emails, medical records, and financial records without warrants and owners' permission. Essentially, the Patriot Act allows law officials to directly breach the 4th Amendment if terrorism, either domestic or foreign, is suspected; NO longer does the Bill of Rights protect Americans' rights of unlawful searches!

The George Bush administration signed the Patriot Act in October of 2001, and has thus far enforced the act in hopes of reducing terrorism. 9/11 created great fear in many Americans; people began fearing their safety and the safety of loved ones and daily friends in daily routines. As a result of their fear, the Patriot Act was able to capitalize on the fears and vulnerabilities of Americans! Ideally, the Patriot Act was a manipulation tactic that was used by the Bush administration to provoke mass participation in fight on terrorism.

However, "protection" from terrorism came at too high of a cost! Freedom, which is granted to American civilians via the Constitution, can easily be revoked if the word "terrorism" is simply mentioned. The fact that personal rights can be removed so simply reveals the fact that politicians and financially stable individuals are capable of anything, even disabling the rights endorsed to Americans by the founding fathers.

There is a strong need for national security, but national security is pointless if it jeopardizes the freedom of Americans. The Patriot does just that; it claims to protect Americans' safety, but it does so at the expenses of Americans' freedom. The U.S. government's Patriot Act is in direct breech of the 4th Amendment, which protects individuals from ulawful searches and seizures. The Patriot Act was deliverd to the public as a means of enhancing National security, however the applied uses of the Act have been maniupulated and distorted to legally disregard civil liberties. Thus, Congress should repeal the Patriot Act of 2001.

And the Magic Eight Ball Says:Out Look Not So Good

While browsing through blogs on the latest issues I found an article by Mike Whitney regarding the economical future of the U.S. The message being sent out to the general populus, particularly Americans, was not optimistic, at best. Considering the blog came from The Smirking Chimp, a left-leaning blog, the article was not promoting the government and could be seen as biased. However the facts do not lie and the evidence is supportive of Whitney's theories of where the economy is headed. The article was lengthy and was hard to stay focused, however the pertinent topic of the economy and its decline made the article worth reading. The present crisis of the U.S. financial situation is what promotes articles of this nature being published, because the public is curious and nervous about what is happening on Wall Street and how it will affect the future and why people are going to read the article with a critical eye.

The underlying argument is that the government made bad decisions and allowed lax regulations on mortgage loans for banks which is now adding to the crisis that is predicted to only get worse. But the point is at this point in the game, what are you going to do about the decisions and damage already made? So the main argument is on how the government should handle the current situation to keep the country from going into a depression. In particular the tax rebate plan is dicussed and Whitney explains why the stimulus is not going to boost the economy enough to sustain the U.S. from going into a recession. Whitney writes the article on the assumption that the reader has at least a little idea of the current state of the financial state of the U.S.

The supporting evidence used by Whitney in the article are events that have already happened and the current effects that the U.S. is experiencing due to the decisions made by the government and the regulations they set. Whitney also uses basic economic laws and trends to support predictions on how and why the stimulus rebate will not be as effective as desired. Whitney uses outside sources and articles to bring in more information and knowledge to his article, which ties into his argument that the U.S. is in trouble. With a government and country supported by credit the downfall is now inevitable and decisions are being made. The government can choose write off credit with banks, or enter into deals that guarantee reduce losses on foreclosures, or do numerous things, but as Whitney was pointing out it will not be in the interest of the average American family. The banks and the government are looking for ways to lose as less as possible and to stay a float as long as possible, but they need the population for consuming and that is about it. The references and statistics Whitney uses throughout his article stresses how important and serious this crisis is and informs the general public so they can be educated as to how we got in this mess and how it will get worse before it gets better.

Whitney gives the reader a good idea of where the financial state is and a brief overview of where it is headed and it is convincing that he knows what he is talking about. The article is convincing but unfortunately there are no realistic solutions presented. Whitney concludes with giving the money back to congress and let the people vote on how it is spent but I do not see that happening. As far as Whitney's conclusions regarding the inevitable recession and the national credit issue is very accurate, well written, and educating.

The effect of the financial situation is the most pressing issue I believe the U.S. faces today. The effects are unknown and the damage is inmeasurable at this point. The decisions being made by the government will affect the country on every level and has the potential to reshape the American living standards. Since it is a presidential election year I am sure how the canididates propose to revive the economy has a huge effect on how the votes are casted. With the economy falling apart every level of society will be effected and like a chain it will be worse for the poor. Resources will be stretched thin and costs will rise, increasing the poverty level. It is very clear that this is a chaning point in America and the next few years will be shaky.

Texas Judge Baird

A recent article in the Austin-American Statesman regarding District Judge Charlie Baird and his court rulings revealed Baird's thought process behind his sentences given to defandants. In the article written by Steven Kreytak, a staff member of the newspaper, the targeted audience is the general public. The local based newspaper is a reliable and trusted source of information, however it is cenorsored to an extent like most sources of news. The article remains unbiased for the majority of the statements, and poses the question whether Baird's sentences are too lax.


The argument is more between the defense lawyers and the prosecutors regarding Baird's decisions. "Baird says his rulings...are well thought out and based on the law." The local prosecutors are frustrated with some of Baird's sentences claiming the severity of the punishment isn't great enough, while the local defense lawyers feel Baird is just and reasoned in his punishments. There are obivously standards and values Baird upholds by being a Judge and he is lead in his decisions by laws and in turn the government.


The supportive evidence used in the article are previous court rulings made by Baird and qutoes from either Baird himself or defense lawyers. The evidence concludes that Baird is willing to give probation over jail time to defandants if they make good impressions and seem like they can become productive members of society. In a direct quote from Baird he states "Those who I think are salvageable...I work with any way that I can." Baird believes in probation because the Texas jail system isn't supportive of rehabilitation and in many instances Baird believes criminals leave the jail system in worse condition than when they entered. Other evidence supporting Baird favoring probation is how many probation cases he has on his docket, a total of 100, which is the most out of any other judge. Many defense lawyers and past defandants had positive comments regarding Baird's courtesy, fairness and compassion, while others have said that towards witnesses and prosecutors he is "curt."


With the evidence compiled the conclusion is subjective and depends on the beliefs of each individual. For me the conclusion is that Baird is not only just in his rulings but he is hopeful and even though some defandants take advantage of this I am glad it is available to others. I am glad that there is a judge who sees that locking someone up could cause more damage and is willing to negociate the punishment to the individual. I can also understand the frustration that prosecutors and family members might feel with the lax rulings, like maybe they were cheated or that the defandant deserved jail time. For me as a citizen my hope and want is for everyone to be a productive addition to society and I also believe in second and third chances like Baird. So I am convinced that Baird is a good District Court Judge making reasoned decisions.


Considering the political impact there is a direct link between Judge Baird's rulings and his re-election and whether he will continue to have loyalty from past supporters and gain new supporters with his rulings or if he'll lose support. Baird's rulings also have impact on the future of the defandants and future judges which effects society, which on a scale effects government. So read the article for yourself and see what critical thinking leads you to believe.
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/12/29/1229baird.html?cxntlid=inform

This Isn't Monoply Folks

There was interesting news in a recent article found on The Carpetbagger Report website regarding the Bush Administration. The article reveals that the Bush administration used the illegal torture method known as waterboarding on at least three prisoners they had detained. When the district attorney Mukasey was asked if there would be an investigation the answer was no due to the waterboarding was performed on the advice of a Justice Department legal. Also questioned was the illegal warrantless wiretapping program Bush had implemented, and again the defense was the same. Mukasey based the defense of not investigating because the Justice Department had given the o.k. and said it was lawful. The problem here is that torture is illegal and so is the unwarranted wiretapping and as to why the criminals are not being prosecuted is because in this case it is the President of the United States and the CIA that are the suspects. The administration is not being held responsible for its unlawful actions because the Justice Department has found a way to cheat the system that the writers of the constitution created. The executive branch is separate from the legislative branch; it is not the executive branch that interprets the law. Since when can a government official commit illegal acts and then in defense said well they(Justice Department) said it was o.k. and get away with it? Since when does ignorance to a law making breaking that law unprosecutable? The whole scandal sounds fishy, like the Bush administration is giving itself get out of jail free cards. I am paticularly astounded by the article, how can the law be twisted and corrupted in situations and then be justified because it is our government that is doing the law breaking? I was also shocked to see that the actual hearings took place in 2007 and just now I am finding out. I think the article is very beneficial to readers to show how corrupt the Bush administration is and how they aren't even covering up they are just getting out of jail for free because they are excersizing and abusing their power. I hope that whoever takes office after Bush will conduct a thorough investgation into the Bush administration and the legality of its policies. It is articles such as this one that motivates me to want to become more involved in the political arena and investigate all the injustices performed by our government. Are we as a society going to sit back and let the laws written and approved by Congress be reinterpreted and carried out unlawfully by the executive branch officials? http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14505.html#more-14505