US / European Union Agreement

The New York Times has reported that the United States and the European Union are nearing an agreement for the exchange of personal data (“U.S. and Europe Near Agreement on Private Data”, The New York Times, 6/28/2008). Strict European laws restrict the way governments and businesses can collect and transfer personal data. The new agreement would make it legal for European governments and companies to transfer personal information to the U.S.

This is an important agreement in the war on terrorism. In fact, the agreement was initiated by the lack of cooperation the U.S. received from European governments and companies when it was investigating the terrorist attacks in September of 2001. There are still important details to work out in the deal. What are the consequences of not protecting the personal data? Can the U.S. be sued if the information is misused or not protected and it gets into the hands of unintended people? We cannot minimize the importance of those details, but the agreement needs to be completed and put into use as quickly as possible.

Another good feature of the agreement is that it sets limits on many types of information that can be transferred. Information regarding race, religion, political affiliation, health, or sexual preferences cannot be transferred.
The globalization of trade and information makes this agreement even more important. As Stewart Baker, assistant secretary of the Department of Homeland Security says, ”Globalization means that more and more companies are going to get caught between U.S. and European law.” We need agreements like this to make sure trade between countries flourishes, but criminals and terrorists can’t find cracks between governmental laws to hide in.

Should guns be banned?

Thankfully the Supreme Court upheld the right of U.S. Citizens to own guns for personal protection. Criminals and gangs will always find a way to get guns with or without laws. Striking down the ban allows lawful citizens the right to protect themselves.
For those that enjoy hunting game and the hobby of collecting firearms, banning the law against gun ownership was also the right thing to do.

Yes, inexperienced people that don’t necessarily know how to handle a gun shouldn’t own one in the first place and yes, accidents might happen. Should we place a ban on cars because there have been a few unfortunate accidents. No matter how many laws government might pass, accidents do happen and it’s a part of life that we can’t control. That is why there are gunlocks and gun cabinets, to prevent guns from getting into the hands of inexperienced handlers. The government does not have the right to blame the innocent by placing a ban on a one’s area of interest because crime rates are up. Everyone who has a gun isn’t the stereotypical serial killer.

On a personal level my grandfather and uncle own guns for the sport of hunting and they are less likely to kill a fly than to use a firearm to harm anyone. The benefits they gain from hunting are personally satisfying and economic, providing food for their families. We shouldn’t be judgmental and biased about anyone who has a gun. We should respect their interests and hope that they are extremely careful with their collectables.

No, we shouldn’t ban ownership of handguns but we should put severe restrictions on those that do own them. Suicidal victims, alcoholics, gangsters and those that don’t have a license to be handling the guns should be restrained from purchasing weapons. A person should be allowed to purchase a gun once they have demonstrated a sound mental state, proper storage and knowledge of gun safety. The right to bear arms was put in place over 200 years ago but I honestly feel that the general core of people has not changed over those years. Our environment has changed but who are we to say that there weren’t as many problems with guns back then but there was no media to inform everyone about those problems.

Deadly experiments!

The recent New York Times article “The Government Seeks Dismissal of End-of-World Suit Against Collier, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/science/27collider.html?_r=1&scp=9&sq=national+government&st=nyt&oref=slogin is very disturbing. Scientists from America and Switzerland began working together in 1998 and have developed a Large Hadron Collider whose main purpose is to smash sub atomic particles together at the speed of light in able to create new forms of matter and physics. While testing this collider two huge outcomes have developed. One, being it has the capability to create small black holes that have the potential of eating planet Earth. If these black holes don’t kill us, this collider can create a deadly matter called strangelets almost instantly wiping out all living creatures. Two well-known scientists brought a lawsuit against the European Center for Nuclear Research hoping to stop the start up of this collider.

Recently the government has come to the decision to deny these scientists’ lawsuit allowing researchers to fire up this bad boy. Calling this case “overly speculative and not credible” it seems like the government is not willing to rely on the expert opinions of someone as intelligent as a radiation safety expert and published scientific writer and would say this is a BAD IDEA!!! Undoubtedly it’s unbelievable that the research scientists had the courage to come up with this massive destructor in the first place. The government is denying the lawsuit that might potentially protect us and this makes me worry that this is an experiment waiting to go horribly wrong. If the large Hadron Collider has even the slightest potential of causing harm to the human race why aren’t we getting rid of this thing as fast as possible. Yes, science has come a long way but can we trust the original developers to provide us with all the detailed information involving potential dangers. They have invested numerous years of work and billions of dollars have been spent on this project. Is the government trying to save face or humanity? How does our national government really feel about our safety? It appears that they are worried about developing new technology of the future while putting the human race at risk. This collider has been around since 1998 and it is amazing that we still have something this deadly in our possessions. With the government’s recent decision, what impression are we to be left with? Technology should not be valued over human life

Response to "Mr. Bush spying on America"

As my classmate has pointed out in http://twocentsonpolitics.blogspot.com/, the matter before Congress is to pass Bush’s domestic spying bill and to fight against terrorism or hold the line of protecting this country’s freedoms. But her letter seems to suggest that the bill has no positive features with only terrible consequences. If this were the case there would be little need for debate and the matter would be resolved very quickly. Instead I see this as a case of how much gain for what cost. Here is where I agree with my classmate; as she points out a warrant can be obtained within 72 hours, or even after the surveillance has started. This makes it seem like Bush is repeatedly trying to do his best to avoid the law, making it seem to be very little gain at the cost of Americans freedoms. So, why the criticism for someone I’m agreeing with? In her letter she comes across as being far off center and we need to show more moderation. Centered rhetoric will win the support needed to defeat this bill. President Bush has put this country on the thinnest of constitutional ice; and allowing him more power at the expense of more constitutional freedom could eventually sink this country. We cannot allow spying on Americans without proper warrants or compliance with FISA. We need a more responsible person to lead the country off the thin ice Bush has put us on.

McCain vs. Obama

So far in the 2008 presidential election no promises can be trusted proposed by either candidate. Between Barack Obama and John McCain nothing they argue is set in stone; that includes specific issues such as global warming and lowering the prices of gas that seem to raise at least 10 cents per gallon every week. In John McCain’s campaign he is reassuring citizens that real change will come, while mocking Obama’s campaign slogan saying, “Tax relief just isn’t change he can believe in.” Citizens shouldn’t trust change until they see it, because all the presidential election is turning into is a childish act of one another making fun or disputing against the other, instead of figuring out and consolidating over new and improved ideas to help us, the citizens live a better and easier life. If the presidential nominees goal is to make citizens happy then they should spend the time to hear our complaints and hear what needs to be changed, rather than just assuming what needs to be done, promising something will change for the better, and then sit back and accomplish nothing. John McCain states that all of Barack Obama’s plans for overcoming the price of oil is an old plan stolen from the Jimmy Carter’s “big idea” campaign. If all John McCain can do is talk about how Obama isn’t coming up with probable solutions, then he needs to look twice in the mirror, because at least Obama is making an effort to solve these everyday issues that are taking a hard toll on citizens daily. If John McCain wants to win this election he better step up to the plate and hold on tight for what’s coming ahead.

Dying in Detention

Recent studies have shown that the Government seems to care less and less about our border control everyday. The recent editorial Dying in Detention published found at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/opinion/11wed2.html?_r=1&oref=slogin describes how many illegal immigrants being kept in detention centers are dying based on the lack of attention. Even though citizens of the United States are refusing to pay tax revenue to these illegal immigrants they still deserve to be treated as equals, and it’s only fair that these detainees receive proper medical attention.

Although it might seem unfair to pay higher taxes for people that aren't qualified to live in our country, it’s the humane thing to do. If we intentionally deny giving these detainees proper attention, especially in the medical field, just because they aren't "American" isn't that considered a form of genocide? As well why should community jails holding hundreds of harmful civilians get the proper attention just because they are legal, only in the residence sense? It isn’t correct and doesn't abide by our freedom rights stating that everyone is equal. We shouldn't allow discrimination based on our actions to destroy members of a group by causing serious bodily or mental harm. It’s selfish and unjust.

If these illegal immigrants aren't treated properly by Americans, and more and more are dying based on lack of Americans living conditions, what kind of judgment are other countries going to make? These detention centers are creating harmful opinions of our country, especially at a crucial time when we could use more allies on our side. In order to gain allies we need to practice and demonstrate the human characteristic of respect. We all know in our hearts it’s wrong for government to put down these actions upon those that can't help their current situations, so who's going to tell government to stop?

Cities shouldn’t have to do Congress’ work- Austin American Statesman

<>In reference to “Cities shouldn’t have to do Congress’ work” (Austin American Statesman, Friday, June 6, 2008), I must state that I support the city council of Farmers Branch. I agree with the Statesman that towns like Farmers Branch should not have to do the federal government’s job concerning illegal immigration. But I support the city for taking action rather than being a quiet victim or just whining about how little Congress is doing to help them.
Farmers Branch is not alone on this issue. According to CNN.com, the following cities have also passed similar laws: Escondido, California; Hazelton, Pennsylvania; Riverside, New Jersey; and Pahrump, Nevada (“Dallas Suburb Bans Rentals by Illegal Immigrants”, CNN.com, 6/8/08). According to this article, “Most cities said they acted out of frustration with the federal government for not enforcing immigration laws more vigorously.” So it’s obviously a country wide, federal issue which needs federal action. While Washington plays politics and politicians give big speeches about building fences across the border, the federal government doesn’t even provide the means to enforce the existing immigration laws adequately and small cities are left to deal with the problems of illegal immigration. Again from CNN.com, ”The effect of the government – the feds – not enforcing the law is 100 percent local.” Escondido City Council member Marie Waldron said in November. “We have to deal with the overcrowding in our neighborhoods. We have to deal with the overcrowding in our schools and the diseases that our children are exposed to. Our police department has to fight the gangs.”
I believe that if the Government isn’t taking control over this immigration issue it’s the right of the Farmers Branch community to take action. Even though the government has shown great progress over the years of catching and decreasing the amount of terrorists and imposters coming into our country, I think the community will be wise in their decision because they’re the ones that have to live and deal with immigrants in everyday life. The politicians residing in Washington don’t know what its like to live first hand with illegal immigrants that have to opportunity to smuggle drugs, diseases and gangs into their community. Illegal immigration is affecting the border cities in various ways and I think each city/ state needs to deal with their issue their own way. The government shouldn’t even have a right to object to and overrule Farmers Branch actions, unless they were already full handedly involved, which they aren’t. If the Government refuses to do their job dealing with illegal immigrants protecting our border towns and putting order to our country then it’s only up to us, the citizens, to take matters into our own hands.

The Problen with the Corporate Tax - New York Times

With the public uproar over rising gas prices, one presidential candidate's idea to temporarily cut the gas tax is getting the most attention. Most economists dismiss this plan as an effective response to the current spike in gas prices. Another candidate, John McCain, has proposed a tax cut that is lost in the general public, but some economists are realizing its merit. McCain plans to reduce the corporate tax on businesses. While it seems that corporations pay a corporate tax, ultimately the individuals that buy goods and services from the company pay the corporate taxes. Money paid for corporate tax results in lower returns on capital, lower wages, and smaller investment in research and development. Cutting the corporate tax would initially give a boost to after tax profits and stock prices. Rising stocks lead to more capital investment which leads to greater productivity, resulting in higher wages for employees and lower prices for consumers. The $100 billion deficit in tax revenue caused by the tax cut will be recouped from other taxes. Higher wages mean employees pay more income taxes and higher stock prices mean investors pay more taxes also. McCain says budget cuts will make up the remainder of the difference. The full article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/business/01view.html and is worth the quick read.