Gang Member Punishment- Solitary Confinement?

Gang members and threats are a very serious issue in many states around the country.  Different states have different laws that deal with accused gang members.  Among the states, California has some of the most intense laws for convicted gang members according to the New YorkTimes. 

According to the California Penal Code Section 186.22, any small felony that goes along with any gang-related incidence, there is an additional one, two, or three years added to their sentence from the crime they have been convicted of. 

California, though, has made this a regular habit.  They have punished many gang members or accused gang members under these terms. The penalties for gang members, once convicted consist of solitary confinement for years and, in some cases decades.  No matter how they act in prison, most are still placed in solitary confinement.  Even if they cause no problems or convicted of a small felony, they still spend their sentence in the same conditions as the leaders and trouble-makers in convicted gang members.

In one instance, Ernesto Lira was arrested for carrying three grams of methamphetamine in his car.  Upon his conviction, they considered him as part of gang, even though he was not.  Lira spent eight years in solitary confinement, with an hour or less out of his cell a day.  Lira was released, but now suffers from emotional disorders such as depression and a fear of crowds.  The toll this experience took on him was extreme.  According to his sister, “He is not the same person at all” (New York Times).  Social confinement for eight years causes many harmful side-effects and because of Lira, California has now recognized this.

The state of California has begun to propose new changes to their penal system.  They are trying to decrease the number that will be put in solitary confinement during their sentences.  If these changes do occur, it will be the biggest shifts in how the system handles gang members. They are trying to make well-behaved inmates be able to stay out of solitary confinement, while the leaders and trouble-makers would still be placed in solitary confinement.

I believe California should make these changes.   If a convicted gang member has been well-behaved, he should be able to stay out of solitary confinement.  I don’t believe that if one convicted member who has committed a small felony should be suffering in solitary confinement.  If he poses no threat to other inmates or carrying on the gang in the prison, he should be able to experience some rights.  I also believe that leaders and convicted trouble-makers should be placed in solitary confinement because they will carry on the gangs and problems in the prison system.  They don’t have to stay in solitary confinement for eight years at a time, but they could use some time so they don’t cause more problems. 

Can we really trust them?

A longtime Californian Democratic Campaign treasurer embezzled $7 million over a ten-year span. I guess it just goes to show you that you cannot trust a democrat. Kinde Durkee, the lady charged with embezzlement. Durkee would take checks made out to the party and use it for personal expenses. Durkee was also selected to be treasurer for Sen. Dianne Feinstein. This case really shows that it is hard to trust someone. However, the real thing that needs to be taken from this is that politics are corrupted. As my one professional has said, “it comes down to who can cheat the best and not get caught.” In order to take a stand on this and fix the corruption is to become informed. If people are voting and have no idea what the people they are voting for can lead to problems. We need to constantly keep our politicians in check. For we do not it can lead to several major issues; such as something like this case. Naïve people are too lazy to really take action in politics. Several Americans feel that if they are in a position of leadership they will do what is beneficial to people. There is no room for complaining about politics if we put the people in charge causing these problems. A real democracy is set up to where the government fears the people for the people are in charge. Such as in France, the government is fearful of the people. French people will take action, cause riots, and protest if they do not agree with the government. However, Americans will just be like, “Oh, well I’m sure it will be fine.” This is a major issue and needs to be fixed. Politics are just going to get worse unless we take action and actually get informed on the matter at hand!

The Long Awaited Bill

It has been a long and tedious journey to figure out this health bill. This was unbearable not only for the congressmen, but for the public. Was the health bill proposed a terrible idea or completely AWESOME? The Supreme Court began its third and final day of hearings pertaining to the health bill. There was a long and un-joyous two and half hour meeting to discuss the health bill. The majority showed that the future is going to be shaky. This only strengthens my confidence in the fact that I believe Obama and several politicians in office now are just down right incapable of doing what truly benefits the public. Politicians will look at one aspect thinking it benefits the people and forget a bigger aspect that truly does help us. Such as the health bill could end up being extremely beneficial. Several politicians are saying that this bill is completely unconstitutional and must be void. To me I believe that access to public health care would be awesome. I strongly feel that we need to take a very close look at Norway’s health care. They know what they are doing over in Norway and it seems like we have no idea. So we need to step back and take a second look, with a very educated influence, at the health care bill.

Twitter and the freedom of expression

Recently, twitter announced a new policy that restrict illegal expression in that country according to each country's law. Many twitterian resisted against the announcement on the Internet. People criticize that it is a decision making freedom of expression reducing. Some twitterian started a movement to stop using twitter because it betrayed them. However, I think Internet, democracy, freedom of speech are not a simple matter. We need to more considerate about this problem. Twitter's recent new policy is declaration which they will obey the rule of each country. Who criticize the declaration that "obey the law"? No one can not force certain corporation not to confirm the law. The problem is that the levels of law are very different country-by-country. North Korea's level, China's level, my country (South Korea)'s level, the U.S.'s level are different in respect of freedom of speech. Expression which is nothing can be illegal in other nation. For example, praising Nazi in my country is not anything serious but it will be able to crime in German. On the contrary to this, it doesn't matter that people praise late Kim Jong Il (was North Korean leader) in German. However, it will seem very uncomfortable in North Korea. What bans in common around the world is just child pornography etc. This is an extremely small part of many expression on the Internet. I think these differences appeared because each countries have their own culture, historical experience, diversity of development of democracy. In these circumstances, criticizing twitter's new policy seemes that they should unconditionally protect freedom of speech ignoring level of differences. When a person posts a piece of writing about  child pornography, bomb-making instructions, a state secret on the Internet, do you think no restraint is needed? Probably, there is no many agreeing these things. These speech need to be obviously restrained. Then, on what basis, should the speech be banned? Twitter's management should decided arbitrarily the basis and level of the speech? I thinkg it is not true. Only company can not decide the level of freedom of expression that is one of the human rights. Ultimately, it can not help being based on the law. Unfortunately, it seems clear that some autocrat will restrict twitter according to the law that they made. 

-Hye Jung

WATCH YOUR MOUTH

I would have to say I was raised the right way by my parents, looking back I realize how much of a brat I was and deserved the punishments placed upon me. I know I was naive and didn't understand things when I was a child, I went to a public school so I was by no means sheltered half my life, but it seems as if children know and understand a lot more then when I was a kid. I'm not talking about smarts or anything like that, I'm talking about the use of vulgar language, disrespect, and such. I recall as a child whenever I cursed or even replaced a a curse word with a silly word, I would get a thorough spanking, a long lecture, and vinegar or soap in my mouth.

Kids these days seem almost fearless, saying and acting as they please, showing lack of respect, and just awful attitudes. When I was young the nearest flat object was against my backside, when I did something bad, even in public it was a good way of telling your kids to cool your pistons or show some respect. Nowadays there have been numerous court sessions and quarrels based on beating your child, so seeing children getting slammed out of a ballpark after cursing by a former NFL linebacker father is considered a bad way of doing things. I've heard some of the dirtiest of words come from children's mouths, even said to me and they are so complex and so well thought through even I have been stumped on how to retort back. The blame for this behavior can go countless different ways, a big one, video games, television, and music are a few sources.

The blame usually goes straight to these sources, people say, "It's those darn video games!" Well yes it is because of those darn video games but beyond that it's the people that find the things being allowed  into video games and TV are considered part of one's way of life and are acceptable to be displayed to the public. I believe media is getting more and more lenient on what is being censored, especially on TV. Sure some shows don't show the more adult features until late at night, but whose kids don't stay up that late right? Movies and some TV shows are turning into soft adult films, and the shows that express using ridiculous language and actions is funny and cool so it does reflect tremendously on young viewers. Also may I point out the sexual messages in little innocent Justin Beiber's music on the radio that kindergartners are singing!

Reed Hanke

Women and Athletics

I blogged about a topic similar to this blog earlier in the year.  This blog deals with Women in other countries, more specifically the Middle East, and Athletics. I guess this particular subject interests me because it’s nothing for females to be athletes at the collegiate or professional level in America and many other countries but in some countries women are not allowed to participate. I love sports and athletics are really important to me and the fact the people aren’t allowed to participate because of gender or other issues is difficult for me to accept.

There are two specific events that have occurred that have shown there may be some progress with women in athletics in the Middle East. First, a ban on headscarves has been overturned for Iranian women, and second, two other Middle Eastern countries have allowed women athletes to participate in the 2012 Olympics in London this year.

According to The Independent “Last year, Iran was prevented from playing their 2012 Olympic second round qualifier against Jordan because they refused to remove their hijabs before kickoff.” FIFA officials decided just before the kickoff that the tight headscarves the Iranian players were wearing to cover their hair broke the association’s dress code, according to the Washington Post. This ruined their chance of qualifying for the Olympics in London this summer. The International Football Association Board, world soccer's rule-making body, unanimously agreed to overturn a ban on the headscarf. For this decision to be made it took “the intervention of a Jordanian prince, Premier League footballers – and a new Velcro-based design.” 

The hijabs are held together with pins which made it a concern for injury, but now with the new Velcro-based design, injury will be less likely. The team that designed the new headscarf said they were in line with guidelines set by the football association. It was also said that long hair would cause more of an injury than the headscarves. The decision has will been ratified in July.

Other Muslim female athletes however, have a better chance at participating in the summer games this year because Brunei and Saudi Arabia have decided to send their first ever female athletes to the Olympics, according to the Atlantic. Maziah Mahusin has been formally nominated by Brunei to perform in the games and the Crowned Prince of Saudi Arabia announced that women are allowed to compete in "sports that suit the nature and decency of women and don't conflict with Islamic law teachings," and “equestrian Dalma Rushdi Malhas is a possible candidate” for the Saudi Arabia team.

The decisions made by the soccer authorities and the Saudi government are caused by a combination of outside pressure, regional upheaval, women's demands, and support--or at least acquiescence--from within the Islamic world. Human Rights Watch released a report last month that forcefully criticizes "an effective ban on women's participation in national competitive sports" in Saudi Arabia. The report explains that “a shortage of physical education classes for girls and scant opportunities for women to compete in individual or team sports, whether informally within the Kingdom or in an official capacity abroad. It points out that Saudi Arabia lags behind even Brunei and Qatar since, unlike those countries, it has never sent female athletes to any regional or international competition.”

I hope that countries where people are not allowed to participate in athletics continue to make progress in allowing them to perform. We are lucky to have the opportunity to play sports and be involved in athletics here in America.

The FCC's So-Called "Safe Harbor" Rule

Television is afraid of the word "fuck," plain and simple.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) maintains the "Safe Harbor" rule, which says "indecent" material (i.e. profanity, nudity, etc.) on broadcast (meaning free) TV is okay only between the hours of 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. Live broadcasts (such as awards shows and sporting events) are often threatened with fines when an impromptu "fuck" is uttered or a woman's breast is bared (though it should be noted that these fines are usually later dismissed in court). The government has decided, after rulings offered by the Supreme Court, that subscription services are exempt from anti-obscenity rules. So if you can pay for cable television, you can hear "fuck" and see boobs and then, when you need to, dial on down to the Disney channel for the young 'uns—the theory here being that poor people who can't afford cable must be protected from words and images but rich people are competent to make their own decisions?

The "Safe Harbor" rule is not only classist, but also outdated. Today, for our generation, even DVRs are old-school; most people I know download almost all of what they watch. Technology allows people to watch what they want, when they want, therefore a 10 p.m. standard is meaningless.

So I say we should give up the ban on words like "fuck." It makes no sense, and having rules that are obviously silly, hypocritical, and classist undermines both the rules and the "rule-makers." And while I'm here, why can't they allow some limited frontal nudity, as they do on TV in Europe? As the youngest child of two self-proclaimed hippies, growing up I saw nudity in films and heard worse language from my parents than I've ever heard on TV, and I'm a healthy, sane, and reasonably productive member of society. We could just use the TV-Mature ratings on broadcast and basic cable like they have on HBO and Showtime, so poor and rich people alike can decide for themselves whether or not they want to see a show with certain themes and words.

Super PACs Are A Threat To Democracy’s Freedom Of Speech!?! Political corruption has evolved and its new form is the Super PACs!! Super PACs are negative for American politics because it allows the major or minor to rule American politics with their over flow of ideas toward those who are undecided, but for those with money to dominate with their campaign ideals. In my opinion Super PACs are an abomination that will plague American politics now with scandals and court cases which will completely choke the US Justice System with nonsense. I also disapprove of certain people, Steven Colbert-I am a Super PAC and so can you! of somewhat sugar coating and glamorizing Super PACs of being wonderful instruments in politics.  

Super PACs birth began with the Court Cases Citizens United v FEC(Federal Election Committee) and SpeechNow.org v FEC which gave the origins of this controversy which can be seen and explained in this video (SUPER PACs: Occupy the Courts, Colbert & the Fight for Free Speech). Even though most people understand and know what Super PACs are as well as how they work I would still like to refresh this information. So let’s start off with what is a Super Pac with this video (What exactly are Super PACs) which will describe the structure of a Super PAC. After viewing what they are watch this video (How Super PACs Work) which will explain how Super PACs work. Now back to the matter at hand, Super PACs are a threat to democracy because it eliminates the freedom of speech because it allows political corruption to reach a new found height. An example can be shown in this video (The man behind Super PACs). After watching this video the question comes to mind is this a system of corruption or politicians who are the corrupted? Examples of corruption can be definitely seen in this video (Super PACs And Secret Money: The Unregulated Shadow Campaign). My respond to this question is that the system is broken which is the error of Congress. However, in a pessimistic view I could be wrong and politicians could be the corruption to which causes the system to be broken. For reminders and highlights in corruption of politicians examples and sources can be seen in one of my older blogs listed here. (Let’s Flip A Coin To See What Your Fate Is… Heads You Die or Tails You Live! This is the villain Two Face flipping his iconic coin which decides whether an individual will live or die. This colorful example portrays how politician are two faced by saying one thing and doing another. So are politicians heroes fighting evil, telling the truth, and helping citizens or could politicians be villains committing crimes, lying left and right, and taking advantage of the needing citizens. In other words are politicians in the USA and in other countries telling the truth as well as lying for the common good or are they telling the truth and lying for their own self interests. Furthermore, there is a drug that fuels corruption in politics as well as politicians and that is money!

The truth and a lie can be a powerful weapon used by a politician to which he or she can have a positive or negative impact. Depending on the magnitude of the impact the actions or words of the politicians could affect an individual, city, state, and nation. In a positive view point the truth or a lie can bring a politician or the government he or she serves positive legitimacy, but in a negative view the exact opposite can happen which leads people, communities, and businesses to distrust their politicians and government. Corruption in a basic form can be found at all levels of society which starts at the individual, city, state, and national level. It is not always the politicians who are corrupt and spreading it. An individual, politician, may not be the main problem in corruption because maybe the interest group, city, or state is the one that is corrupt. This corrupting direction will dictate in how the politician will act in order to achieve the goals of the faction he or she represents. What is the basic solution to end corruption at all levels of society in general? The answer is quite simple it must start at the individual levels of the society. In this paper Political Corruption in America it tells how the individual level can impact corruption and eventually lead to its eradication.    

Money in any political arena is the life blood and it can be gathered legally and illegally. The list of political money corruption is listed in this article Political Corruption which gives a description of these criminal actions. Also in this article Corporate funding and buying of influence there are two more ways that politicians can make money and these two are legal. These legal and illegal actions take place all the time in US as well as in international politics every day. The individual solution is the most basic and simple solution to political corruption, but in a realists and pessimistic view I see that political corruption will never end. This is because power is a dangerous drug that will never go away as long as the political hierarchal structure exists throughout the world.--Will)   

   Congress is completely responsible for this error in its decision on the court cases of Citizens United v FEC (Federal Election Committee) and SpeechNow.org v FEC which in my view was vague as well as sketchy. If Congress would’ve acted differently on these two cases they maybe Super PACs would be nonexistent and strict laws would be in place to prevent this injustice against the US citizens and the system.

--Will

More Violence to come?

With Iraq no longer on our agenda who will earn a visit from our armed forces next? While the Middle East seems like a mess of candidates for the job, it seems as though Iran is the front runner. They have been in quite a hurry to improve their own nuclear capabilities with pressures from Israel and the US to halt all progress on weapon programs. Israel is fearful that Iran's capabilities will surpass theirs in the near future. How will Obama respond to this?

With Iran ignoring all warnings and talks from foreign leaders, including our own, we will soon be left with the decision to; let them posses nuclear capabilities that could be weaponized, use talks and sanctions to convince them to stop, or use force to ensure weapons are not created. The first option to let them possess these weapons would not be in our best interest. Not only has Iran ignored all efforts and sanctions placed on them but they feel the West and our European allies need to "back off". Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the US and European allies are "bullying" his country and none of these efforts will prevail. Iran has been linked to allowing Islamic Jihad fighters to cross from Iran into Iraq while US troops were occupying Iraq. With such extremist ideals being present and welcomed in the country, it is scary to imagine if they had nuclear weapons capabilities. If we cannot keep this country in check and under control then the lives of anyone in the world are at danger. Action must come soon as experts say we are 10 minutes from midnight on the clock to War with Iran. This is using a similar ideal from the doomsday clock.

What will Obama do? With Iran not being the only thing on his plate in these coming months, he is also looking to be re-elected president. Two very large issues facing him at the same till will soon test his skills as a world leader. While the Republican party has not yet shown a candidate who seems to steal the show, Obama still has
many questions to answer about his last 4 years of service. With spending more money and any presidents combined in just his first few years. He has left many Americans dissatisfied with his work, while he still has a very strong backing as well. Will Obama be forced to send our troops in?, or will he try his apologetic demeanor to possibly reason with people who know no reason.

jake

Gay Marriage

A gay marriage is one of the important issues for 2012 Presidential election. Maryland’s the House of Representatives passed a law that make sex-marriage legal. Maryland became 8th state where same-sex marriage is legalized after New York, Washington, Iowa, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Hampshire, and Vermont.  In additions, Supreme Court judged that ban of California on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional on last February. California did not see importantly whether gay couples are “getting married” or not. Because gay couples get benefits from marriage and owe a duty to it like heterosexual couples in California. Therefore, gay couples already have got a right to raise children. 

However, same-sex marriage can be problem through federal government. The problem conceding same-sex marriage in law is not whether gay couples can get married or not but whether they can get same rights like heterosexual couples in the Federal Law or not. According to the Federal Law, partners do not double pay property tax and can submit income tax returns at once. Also the Federal Law give couples rights above 1000. As a result, the problem of same-sex marriage is connected to money. Additionally, according to Defense of Marriage Act made in 1996, gay couples who a state make legal cannot get any benefits from federal government. So, if Defense of Marriage is not changed, gay couples cannot get rights of marriage. 

For now, same-sex marriage is illegal at 40 states of 50 states in the United States. Barack Obama, U.S president now, has been equivocal position on same-sex marriage because both of them try to read mind of people who oppose same-sex marriage. On the other hand, Mitt Romney, the strongest one of Republican presidential candidates, has opposed same-sex marriage. So, many people focus on how same-sex marriage will have an influence on a result of 2012 presidential election.

Support for same-sex marriage has increased in all states, even in relatively conservative places like Wyoming and Kentucky. This trend will continue. Nationally, a majority of people under age 30 support same- sex marriage. Awareness about same-sex marriage has been changed. As new voters coming, the support will increase more and more.

 -Minyoung Lee

The Kony Conspiracy

Joseph Kony is a war criminal and should be stopped. That being said, the group called Invisible Children is not doing it in an efficient or honest way. The video that they put out caught the attention of millions of young people across the globe. It was blowing up on Twitter and Facebook. Everyone was catching the fever that if Kony 2012. Their mission statement is to bring down a man that has been stealing children from families and using them for his army. On the cover, this sounds like a great way to raise awareness and to help fund the fight against this war criminal. However, as you dig deeper, there are many things to Kony 2012 that do not add up.

The first problem with the operation is that only 31 percent of the money that they raise goes to the people who really need it. This means that there is 69 percent of the money that goes to the people in charge, which are only four people. Other organizations could be raising money for the same cause; they are just willing to give way more money to it than the Invisible Children.

The biggest problem that I have with this organization is that they are not only late with this video, but they came in at a time where Kony was becoming almost nonexistent. Kony has been around for twenty six years. He has been declared by the United Nations a war criminal for six years. This video should have come out years ago when Kony and the Lord’s Resistance Army was at its height in 2003-2004. The United States sent in troops to Uganda already, so they can’t be raising awareness to put more troops in Uganda. The war in the Middle East is coming to an end, so I can’t imagine a lot of people want to immediately send people back out. If we did send people back out, we would be fighting a war that is basically over. Kony has been run out of Uganda. He has been fairly dormant in the last couple years also. Is it possible that this group put this video out at this time simply to make money for themselves? I believe this is exactly what they were doing.

Lastly, the backlash from the video put out by the Invisible Children could be worse than the positives of informing the masses. Because the video was put out online for anyone to see, Kony most likely has seen this video too. Kony will most likely become scared upon seeing that the American people are becoming more aware of him. This fear would cause him to kidnap more kids in order to protect himself from the impending danger. Despite their good intentions, they are actually causing Kony to kidnap more children for protection.

Invisible Children may have had the idea to help educate the common people about Joseph Kony. They may have had completely good intentions about what they were doing. However, they did not go about it in a way that would help anyone. Educating the public is not the same as helping save lives in a country that no longer needs their lives saved.

Putin is President...AGAIN

On Monday, Vladimir Putin was elected as Russia’s President for the third time.  Mr. Putin was acting President for Russia in 1999 when Boris Yeltsin resigned.  He then won the 2000 presidential election.  After serving one (four year) term, he was re-elected in 2004.  In 2008, he had no choice but to step down as President.  According to Russian law, you can only serve for two terms in a row.  There is nothing restricting the number of terms you can serve, however.  So you could be President for two terms, step out for a term, and then run for another two.  This can repeat as many times as you can be elected.  Putin is doing this currently.

Since Putin has been gone from office, Dmitry Medvedev has been President.  Vladimir has stood as the Prime Minister of Russia (which he still today).  The Prime Minister is the second most powerful official in the Russian Federation.  If the President dies, resigns, or is impeached, the Prime Minister would become President. 

Alright, that is enough education on Russian politics.  Now to the point of my story…

When Putin was elected on Monday, thousands of Russian’s protested.  CBS news has a story about 20,000 Russians rioting over his re-election.  The question is…why are they so upset?  Putin won 64% of the votes!

In Putin’s two terms of presidency, the economy grew, the GDP increased by 72%, and the poverty rate decreased by more than 50%, and made a flat tax of 13%!  What is the problem with that?  I know some American’s hear Putin and think KGB, Communist, or in simple terms…an evil man.  While it is true he was a communist and a member of the KGB, he eventually came around and became more for a democratic society.  He has been in power of one anyway.

I am not saying I agree with Putin being President again, but I had a though concerning American Presidential elections.  Why can’t our President run for more than two terms?

Is not this country proud of the fact that people have the freedom to run for an office?  If the President could be in office for more than two terms, I don’t think it would cause the US any problems. 

For Presidential Elections, the people would still vote on whom they want and their representatives base their vote on the people.  Nothing would change in the Electoral College.  If the people do not like the President, he will not win their votes.  Resulting in him not being President anymore.  Would the system really change that much?  If we have a great leader who is doing wonderful things for our country, why wouldn’t we let them stay in office longer?

Putin did do wonderful things for Russia.  Some may not be happy he is back in office, but not everyone is going to be happy when it comes to politics.  If we had a leader like Putin (or someone with the ability to do beneficial things to our country), why should we deny them of serving more than two terms?

To me, changing the Constitution and allowing the president to serve more than two terms would not have that great of an impact on the US.  I think the change would actually make the US more Democratic.  I am just wondering what other opinions are on this hypothetical change.  If the Constitution were to be changed so the President could run for more than two terms, do you think it would create a huge problem for the US?

What is a Wasted Vote?

Today in the United States the election system is primarily based on two main political parties, Republicans and Democrats. There are various other political parties such as the Green party, and the Libertarian party, but they are rarely voted for. This raises the question of why. In our current political state most people see voting for third party candidates as a waste of a vote. The general consensus is that only a member of the two primary parties can win, so why vote for someone you know won’t win.

                The main question that comes to mind here is what is defined as a wasted vote. Is it voting for someone you know has no chance to win? Or perhaps most Americans are already wasting their votes by choosing between the lesser of two evils. In this video by a third party candidate in the 2008 election Chuck Baldwin explains the stereotypes that go along with voting for a third party, along with what he thinks is the actual definition of a wasted vote. In the United States when we’re not happy with government we continue to flip flop between Republicans and Democrats in power when we should be looking to other views. Most Americans continue to vote the same way or flip from one side to the other every four years still finding no chance. If you ask me that’s the perfect example of a wasted vote. Instead of placing our vote for the candidate we think most definitely lines up with our view points and beliefs we choose to vote for one of two “should win” candidates solely on the fact they’re in one of the two major parties. If the United States is ever going to move away our current two party rut we’ll have to change a lot of stereotypes about our votes and whether or not they are wasted.

                In this article by Brad C.L. he explains some of the hardships for third party candidates getting their message to voters and name on the ballots. There are several factors that greatly contribute to the third parties in America being less known, liked, and voted for. One of the main factors is simply media exposure. The candidates don’t get the same amount of time or attention from news corporations or media outlets simply because they are in a third party. This causes people to be less informed about their policies and who they are. Another hardship is getting on states ballots. It’s difficult for the candidates to gain the support needed to be on all the states ballots especially considering that most require signed petitions given to each state before they are eligible for the ballots. The greatest hardship may be the American psyche though. We have the overwhelming thought that if they’re not Red or\ Blue, they have no chance so we shouldn’t waste our votes.

                If America wants to see real change in our country we need to change our views about voting down party lines. We need to find a candidate that we like and that we want to represent us in government, not just hop on a bandwagon and hope we vote for the winner so our vote counts. In my opinion the biggest waste of a vote is using it on a candidate you don’t completely support. So let’s stop wasting our votes on the same cycle over and over and move on to voting by our personal decision, not by what the majority of polls or stereotypes tell us.

Society and Tim Tebow

As one of the most talked about NFL players this year, Tim Tebow is one of the NFL players that is most looked up to by young athletes. Tebow has been getting battered by the media in ways that are both positive and negative in the general public's eyes. When reading another post about Tim Tebow at "thebloghouse.com" i learned how Tim can positively affect all of those who watch him.

Most people when looking at Tim Tebow will see just another money hungry NFL player that will do anything for money and the spotlight and it seems that he has been getting the spotlight as of recently. Tim doesn't ask for the spotlight, it is given to him because people see that if you take away his NFL suit then he is just a passionate football player that will do anything for his time and puts his faith before anything else. That is why, in my mind, Tim Tebow is a great role model for today's youth athletic players.

In a world where children no longer feel the need to work for the things that they want, and just expect the success without the time and effort, a role model is needed. If more kids can look to Tim Tebow and see that all the attributes he has and strive to be more like him, then today's youth would be in a much better position. When I have children, Tim Tebow is someone that I would want them to have as their role model. In all, even with some of the negative press that Tim Tebow receives, when stripped down to who he truly is, he is a man that everyone in society should look up to and strive to be more like.

United States Secrets

United States Secrets

When a President enters office, their enthusiasm is always incredibly high and the thought of change is motivating them to have an incredible term. People have hope for change and that the country will improve. Yet there seems to be a common trend of President’s getting in office and changing their minds on topics and issues. This makes me wonder what the President and high government officials know that the common population does not?

When Obama was on his campaign he said he wanted the troops out of the Middle East immediately. Yet when he got into office his views seemed to change on the troops in the Middle East. I find this very intriguing and it makes me wonder what is actually going on and what did Obama find out that changed his mind? The secrets that are kept from the public with military operations is obviously for the betterment of society. Area 51 in New Mexico where there was an apparent alien landing is another example. There are many people who passionately believe there are aliens there, and others just believed it was a military project, which the government cannot reveal to the public. It is impossible to discuss conspiracy theories without mentioning the assassination of JFK. There have been more documentaries and research done on this assassination than any other in the history of the United States. This is one of the first issues ever in which the government has released two different conclusions about the

The amount of technology the United States most likely possesses would be mind blowing for the average person. Just think about the possibilities of invisible plains or hovering jets. Society doesn’t find out about the best weapons until they are way passed their prime. For example the SR-71 Blackbird is a plane, which flew from New York to London in under two hours. The Blackbird has been retired by the military, which means there has to be a better plane than this one. The technology possessed by the Blackbird was way ahead of its time. As wvi.com says, the plane was first used in the 1960’s and the technology is considered incredible still to this day.

If a new President gets elected next November, I will be curious to see how many of their original plans and ideas get changed because of the knowledge and secrets of the United States they will learn. Whether or not I approve of the President, I have incredible respect for them because of the responsibility and top-secret knowledge, which they possess.

Phone Charges for Soldiers Outrageous!

Rip-offs.  Everyone has experienced it.  You get angry and want your money back.  But, what if the rip-off happened while you were serving your country?  Especially when it is an American company dealing out the rip-off?  People would be even angrier.  Well exactly that happened.

Msnbc.com published an article recently about American troops being ripped-off.  In this article, American troops experienced one of the worst rip-offs possible.   While on stops and hold-overs in Leipzig, Germany, pay phones sit there readily to be used by the soldiers.  Soldiers call their loved ones as much as they can so when they have the chance to call, they do.  The soldiers expect the call to be a little pricy, but they had no idea what they were in for.  One soldier was charged $41 for a three second call home.  No one expected that price.  Now these men and women are suing this company for these charges. 

The worst part is that these phone charges come from a United States Company, called BBG Communications.   BBG Communications is home-based in San Diego, California.  Unfortunately, the United States troops are not the only complaints they have had.  According to Bloomberg BusinessWeek, there have been complaints from people using the payphones at train stations, airports, and other locations.  These complaints are based on the fact that there is no information about how high these fees are.  Bloomberg BusinessWeek says that these fees can range from $10/minute up to $25/minute.  Also, you must use a credit or debit card.  Prepaid cards cannot be used.  When NBC News asked the largest phone company in Germany about the fees they charge on calls to the United States, the three second call would cost about $10, which is a huge difference from the $41 charged by the American-based company.

While other people are also suffering from these fees, I think the troops are suffering the most. While serving their country on deployments, American troops want nothing more than to talk to their loved ones.  They want to be with their families instead of where they are and these fees are hurting these soldiers who are risking their lives for our country.  They are willing to fight for us, but are charged horrendous amounts when trying to phone home on the payphones where their transportation landed. 

These victims should not have to deal with these fees and I hope our country will realize the problem of this when these lawsuits are taken to action.  So far there have been two lawsuits about this company, and I hope this company will change its ways and inform the people, or cease to exist.

Should politics be involved with the NCAA

Ok so heres the deal congress should not be able to interfer with the NCAA and its possible playoff situation. Not only is it not in there relm of study but why should a bunch of old men get to decide how and what is the rule. Look a a couple years ago when Boise state went undefeated and was really upset that they didn't get to play in the national title game but not only the strength of their schedule. The school not only filed a law suite but they decided that they need to sue the NCAA. The college lost that law suit because they were not in a major conference and because they didn't play major schools. We can see that when politics get involved things get messy. When congress got involved in baseball they ended up I think ruining the game there's to many investigations and way to many restrictions. Don't get me wrong there still needs to be drug testing but I don't think that a bunch of old need to be involved in a sport that they haven't been able to play in probably 30 years. We see with the NCAA that the corporation that makes up the NCAA has already begun looking at a possible four team playoff to not only cut out the need for a complete playoff but it will eliminate that possible of that extra undefeated team left out. Which I think is a great idea because they like I said can eliminate that extra undefeated team. With congress opening investigations on the NCAA for football not only started a huge uproar in the football community. Congress believes that they need to regulate the rules and formalities of th college football game which doesn't need to be infested with th corruption of politics. Congress has to much influence in today's games. With the Game of the BCS that has been established since 1998 and has been in place ever since. But the BCS has been under constant scrutiny over the years. Which has been more and more under fire because of the controversial title game which is picked by computers, the associated press rankings, and espn analyists. We will see what comes about With the upcoming seasons and future championships.