You can post to either post 1 on the post 1 strand or here. Either is fine. Your response post is due 9/18. Remember the goal is for everyone to get a response. Please do not respond to someone's post if they already have more than 1 response. Please attack the ideas/argument of the person & not the person her/himself. Also, please respond in a manner which fosters rather than shuts down dialogue. Thanks. Good luck. M. Aby
PS. I will post soon a response to your post 1.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
48 comments:
To Josh Vincent
From Me
You and I obviously have similar points of view that Iraq SHOULD not be the biggest issue here, but you speak too much for the masses. In the eyes of America, Iraq is the biggest issue, bottom line. The election will probably be decided based on whether or not a candidate’s plan for Iraq makes sense. You say that Hillary is leading current polls because of her character? But I’m afraid you couldn’t be much further from the truth. As shown in my link (1) to the meanest candidates, Hillary is 2nd meanest on the list. She is the top democratic candidate right now, but if character is the biggest issue (in the eyes of America) then she would be last. As a matter of fact, the 5 “nicest” overall candidates on the list were democrats who are behind Hillary. I think if the vote came down to you and I it is obvious which candidate would win based on character (Ron Paul (2)). However that most likely will not be the case. Character, though I find it to be of utmost importance, is more or less irrelevant to other people, so I find it hard to believe that this election will be decided based on which candidate is the strongest and most just. As this blog has shown us, it will definitely be an election of issues, and whoever pleases the most people with their plans will win the election.
1. http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2007/08/15/forbes-tracker-mean-oped-cx_daa_0815mean.html
2. http://www.ronpaulfacts.com/
To: Victor Wang
From Elise Gale
I respect your choice of Social Security as the primary issue of the next election, especially since it will affect so many Americans. However, the sacrifices you suggested making seem unfair while we are also confronted with rising health care costs and the need for an education system that actually prepares students for a global economy. In light of these other pressing issues, I would suggest privatization of the Social Securtiy system. The main principle of such a system is that instead of our tax money paying for the retirees of today, our money goes toward our own retirement. Chile has had a privatized system for 26 years, and although the cost was high to start it up, the investment in their national economy more than paid off any debts incurred. I know many people are suspicious of a system where the government has less control over the welfare of our fragile citizens, but I would not consider using the Social Security Trust fund for pork barrel spending particularly responsible. If we are to properly care for our elderly and disabled citizens, privatization must be given a chance.
"Social Security Should be Privatized"
Social Security Reform
Apparently my links don't work. If you would like, I printed off copies of the articles I used and I can show them to anyone on Monday. Just let me know.
To: Katie Wuchiett
From: Mia Howard
I agree with your argument that healthcare is going to be one of the most important issues of the 2008 election. The current state of our healthcare system is unacceptable, as you explained, and so is our average citizen’s health.
133.6 million American adults are overweight and 63.6 million are obese, meaning that less than one third of adults are a healthy weight. This raises a number of health concerns, such as diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and more.
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is currently the number one health related cause of death among adults in the United States, taking about 871,500 lives each year. It is estimated that about 79,400,000 Americans are currently dealing with some form of CVD. Although there are some genetic predispositions to CVD, many cases could have been prevented by maintaining good health (exercising, not smoking, healthy eating, etc.).
Obesity has more effects than just diseases and deaths: it is an economic drain on society. It is estimated that the total cost of obesity is more than $117 billion dollars, $61 billion being from direct healthcare costs and $56 billion being from other indirect costs such as a loss of productivity due to days of work missed.
As you noted, the number of senior citizens is going to rise drastically in the upcoming years. Given the fact that they have the highest voting rate out of any age category, the issue of healthcare is bound to be influential.
The American healthcare system is already failing our people and I think that a universal system is necessary, especially with the nation’s current state of health. If an effective plan is not implemented, the health of Americans’ will continue down the path it’s on.
Sources:
http://win.niddk.nih.gov/statistics/index.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/index.htm
http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4478
http://www.healingwithnutrition.com/cdisease/cardiovascular/cardiovascular.html
Oops--sorry Katie, I think I spelled your last name wrong.
To: Liz Palin
From: Molly Conrad
Liz, I agree with you completely about your argument on global warming. Though I believe that the war in Iraq will be a deciding issue in this coming election, it is also true that climate change seems to be the big issue in the fact that it concerns the entire planet. This issue does not just pertain to a few countries.
I found it encouraging that there seemed to be little controversy among the potential candidates as to whether or not global warming exists. In fact, Sen. Barbara Boxer even said in one of your articles that, “We’re going to need a president who gets it.”
I also think that Al Gore has greatly increased awareness and given people motivation to take action with his film “An Inconvenient Truth.” As he says in the movie, global warming really isn’t a political issue. “It’s our civic responsibility” to do something about this problem.
The issue with global warming is not just that temperatures all over the planet are changing/rising, its that the rising temperatures causes many other serious environmental problems. For example, the increasing amount and intensity of hurricanes that have been occurring may have something to do with climate change. This is a frightening reality that will have to be dealt with eventually, be it in this or future elections.
Sources:
http://wpherald.com/articles/3107/1/Global-warming-expected-to-be-2008-election-issue/Presidential-hopefuls-take-climate-change-seriously.html
http://www.an-inconvenient-truth.com/
http://www.globalwarming.org/node/848
I meant to say:
rising temperatures CAUSE many other serious environmental problems
To: Katie Whelan
From: Michelle Ludwig
I agree with your views on abortion and overturning Roe v. Wade, however I do not feel that the argument over abortion is one of the most pressing issues for the upcoming presidential election. I can understand where you are coming from though, because I agree that abortion is simply another form of murder. For me personally, I believe that a real live person has been created the moment of conception and to get rid of it in a case other then rape or incest is unjust. While I do feel like this is an important issue, according to an online poll, 97% of Americans stated that the war in Iraq was going to be the biggest influence on their voting in the election, as opposed to the 73% that said this for abortion. I do agree that it is time for the Roe v. Wade decision to be overturned, because according to a number of different polls, around 95% of women simply use abortion as a form of birth control, and sadly only 1% of abortions are actually in cases of incest and rape. However, looking at the overwhelming problems with the war in Iraq, I feel that these issues are the ones that will have the most consequences if not addressed immediately.
http://www.associatedcontent.com
http://www.abortiontv.com
To Tony Bader
From Rachel Brummer
After reading your response, I couldn't agree with you more. While I was planning out my blog, I was unable to decide on which issue to write about. The Iraq War immediatly popped into my head but then I thought, we won't be in Iraq forever, so why should we choose a president based only on his (or her) opinions of the war? After many more minutes of indecisiveness, I decided to write about global warming (mostly because I believe that if we don't start stopping it now it will kill us all).
There are many issues circulating around the candidates at the moment. Education, health care, abortion, social security, and illegal immigration are just a few of the many. How exactly are we supposed to know what will be the most important issue in electing our next president? There's really no way we can see what will happen in the future. When Bush was elected in 2000, did we base our choice on what he thought about foreign policy and Osama and Al Qaeda? No, because September 11th hadn't happened.
Rather than focusing on a candidate's view of one issue (example: Iraq War), we should think about his or her opinions on all of the issues and look at that as a whole. Instead of thinking if the candidate will get the country out of Iraq or keep fighting, we should think about who we would trust most to lead the United States into the unknown that is the future.
http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abortion.htm
This is my response to what Whelen posted:
"Many may disagree with me but I have to say that I think that the most important item for this election is the case of Roe Vs Wade. I believe that the Supreme Court decision needs to be overturned. In the past years the number of abortions has risen greatly. Although many people say it is the woman’s choice who gave them the right to take a life. Many women choose abortions believing that it is the easy way out, but are not actually informed of the sides affects and later regret their decision. Women need to be responsible for their actions; there are other options such as adoption. I have included links of Roe’s story of switching sides and also of women who regret their decisions along with statistics over the past years."
First of all I don’t believe the Supreme Court decision needs to be over turned. Women have the right to do what they want with their body, in this case an abortion. Yes there may have been a increase in abortions but majority of the time they are just causes.
For example women get abortions for the following reasons:
-Age: most abortions are done on women under the age of 25.
-marital Status: don’t want to bring a kid into a life without a father around
-Economic Status: Would want money to be able to raise the child instead of bringing them into a unfit environment.
- 6% of the time it is because of medical reasoning
-1% of the time it is because the pregnancy is a result of sexual abuse ex. Child would be the result of a rape ( I know I wouldn’t want to be reminded of that every time I looked at my child).
The reasons they seek abortions are generally justified as well the women have the choice to be as informed as they want to be on side effects of an abortion. Clinics could have lawsuits against them if they didn’t properly attempt to inform the women about the outcomes.
Yes many women may regret having it at some point of their life but they know deep down inside that at the time it was the right action to take rather than bringing a child into an unfit environment.
So in conclusion, instead of over-turning the Supreme Courts decision in Roe v. Wade we can help lower the abortion rates by teaching better usage of contraceptives and establishing social programs to better teach the youth about safe sex to prevent an increase in abortions. This would still allow abortions to be legal if it was still needed and it couldn’t be prevented.
I would like to add to whelan08’s post. Although I don’t feel abortion is the top issue in the 2008 election, I agree that it is and will always be very important. People feel so strongly on this issue, which is why I think it will always be a cause of great debate and will always be important in government elections. Depending on how people look at a fetus, some people (the pro-life view) may feel like 1,400 babies are dying everyday in America because of abortion. Since people feel this way, abortion would definitely be a top issue for them. I am pro-life, and along with many other issues, (the Iraq war, global warming, etc.) abortion is a very important issue for me. I agree with what Sophie said about cases where women are raped or the mother’s life is in danger, I think these cases can warrant an abortion. I also feel that a big solution to unwanted pregnancies is stressing the use of contraceptives. I think we should especially stress this for teens, who have about 30 percent of all abortions in America.
Here is some information I found about abortion online. Although not many women die from abortion, the main reasons for the few deaths connected to abortions are hemorrhage, infection, embolism, anesthesia and undiagnosed ectopic pregnancies. Some statistics show that there is a 2.3 relative risk of cervical cancer for women who have had an abortion, and women with multiple abortions have a 4.9 relative risk. This may be because cancer rates for the women who have had abortions are connected to the abnormal disruption of hormonal changes that come with pregnancy and untreated cervical damage. Researchers are currently testing the idea of whether or not abortion is connected to some cases of breast cancer. For about 1 percent of first trimester abortions cervical lacerations occur. For teens and second trimester abortions, the risks of cervical damage increases. Also, teens that have an abortion have 2.5 times a greater chance of getting endometritis after the abortion than women from 20-29 years old.
The risk of placenta previa, which is life threatening for the mother and baby, in pregnancies after an abortion increases by seven to 15 times. Abortion has also been linked with uterine and cervical damage that can increase the chance of a premature baby, labor complications and abnormal development of the placenta in pregnancies after an abortion. These problems are some of the leading causes of handicaps for babies. Problems with placenta development because of uterine damage also increases the chance of prenatal death, excessive bleeding during labor and fetal malformation. Approximately 10 percent of women who have abortions have complications, and about 2 percent are named life threatening. The most common major complications are: excessive bleeding, infection, embolism, ripping or perforation of the uterus, convulsions, hemorrhage, cervical injury, anesthesia complications and endotoxic shock. Common minor complications are infection, fever, chronic abdominal pain, vomiting, second-degree burns, bleeding, gastro-intestinal disturbances and Rh sensitization. According to the John Hopkins University, “Occurrence of genital tract infection following elective abortion is a well-known complication.” The same university rated about 5.2 percent of first trimester abortions and up to 18.5 percent of midtrimester abortions cause genital tract infections.
Some information about the fetus is that at 18 days, the baby’s heart beats. At 21 days, the baby’s heart is pumping through a closed circulatory system and has a different blood type than its mother. After 28 days the ear, respiratory and eye systems start to form. All body systems are present at two months; they all function at 11 weeks. At 6 weeks, all of the milk-teeth buds are present. At 40 days, brain waves have been detected on the Electroencephalogram (EEG). “In the sixth to seventh weeks…If the area of the lips is gently stroked, the child responds by bending the upper body to one side and making a quick backward motion with his arms” (from Arey, Developmental Anatomy 6th ed). By the end of the seventh week, lip tactile response can be evoked. At nine weeks, the baby will “bend his fingers around an object in the palm of his hand” (from “What the Fetus Feels“, British Med. Jour.). The baby can swallow, squint, move her tongue and will make a tight fist if her palm is stroked at nine to ten weeks.
By 11 weeks, all upper and lower extremities including the face can feel. The fetal umbilical cord contains no pain receptors; a test was performed by puncturing the abdomen and the umbilical cord. They found “the fetus reacts to intrahepatic (liver) needling with vigorous body and breathing movements, but not to cord needling. The levels of these hormones did not vary with fetal age” (from Fisk, Fetal Plasma Cortisol and B-endorphin Response to Intrauterine Needling, Lancet). The entire body except the back and top of the head can feel pain at 13 and ½ to 14 weeks.
At 20 weeks and longer the baby can completely feel pain. If you have ever researched how partial birth abortion is performed, you will probably realize how inhumane it is. This is especially true because the baby can feel pain. On April 13, 2004, Dr. Kanwaljeet Anand, a trained neonatal pediatrician and pain expert from Oxford and Harvard testified at the New York federal court hearings. He stated that by 20 weeks the fetus can feel pain, but doesn’t have the coping mechanisms that infants and adults use to deal with the sensation of pain. Dr. Anand said delivering the child to its head and then slicing open its skull to suck out its brains (partial birth abortion) would be “prolonged and excruciating pain to the fetus”. In some extreme cases, the baby was inches away from birth and fully developed, yet a partial birth abortion was performed.
There is a lot more information on abortion and you can find the arguments for both sides of the issue. I think adoption is a good alternative to abortion. Approximately 2 million couples are waiting to adopt babies, and many would want two or three babies if they were available. Many couples would joyfully adopt the babies that weren’t aborted. That is why I think adoption should be stressed as an alternative to abortion.
Most of this information was provided by the Elliot Institute, sources for the information were: Tanner, Taylor, Editors of Time-Life Books, Growth, Life Science Library; Hamlin “Life or Death by EEG”; Hooker, Davenport, The Prenatal Origin of Behavior, University of Kansas Press; Longman, Med. Embryology; “Life Before Birth” Life Magazine; Hellgers M.D., “Fetal Development” Theological Studies; Burkman, “Culture and Treatment Results in Endometritis Following Elective Abortion,” Amer. Journal. OB/GYN; Reinis, Goldman The Development of the Brain.
If you want to know more about partial birth abortion, this site has a great diagram, http://www.culturewars.com/CultureWars/Archives/cw_recent/pbabort2.htmIf you want to know more about different abortion procedures, you can find a lot of sites with explanations, but if you want diagrams you will probably find more on pro-life websites. If you want to read about stories of abortion survivors (people whose parent tried to abort them, even multiple times, but lived), you can go to http://www.teenbreaks.com/aboriton/abortionsurvivors.cfm . Also, if you would like to watch footage of a video of a suction abortion where a fetus is seen trying to avoid the suction, (narrated by Dr. Nathanson, a former abortionist), you can go to Google video and search “abortion- the silent scream #3”. Although the abortionist who performed that abortion openly admitted to it, some people feel this video has been doctored; you can watch and research it for yourself if you want.
http://www.abortionfacts.com
www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/DE_diagram%5B1%5D.jpg
To Shaun
From Liz
I both agree completely with your thoughts and applaud you for them. I also elected to write about global warming, but I didn’t make the connection between the climate change and the war. Plus, I appreciate your use of the word “paradox.” It’s a great word.
But I digress. You are very right in thinking that the two problems are not unrelated. That also brings forth the point that they will not be unrelated in the upcoming election. It is becoming a rather common belief that President Bush did not invade Iraq for reasons of national security, but as something more of an oil conquest. The only people who seem to be benefitting from this “War on Terror” are men and women invested heavily in the oil industry. These also happen to be the same people who financed President Bush’s campaign.
Just something for all of us to think about, isn’t it?
"Is oil a motive for the military conquest of Iraq?"
To: Christina R
From Liana
Although your argument clearly states the large number of illegal aliens coming over our country’s borders, I still question how much can be done about these seemingly large numbers, how significant the issue is-- especially in comparison to other current issues. I have researched United States’ efforts to stop illegal immigration and there was one general conclusion: the more we spend, the more people illegally cross our border. The Washington Post acknowledged that between the years 1986 and 2002, there has been roughly a 1,000 percent increase in budget spending, and a threefold increase in Border Patrol manpower. Despite these valiant efforts, when the number of arrests are divided by the overall Border Patrol budget, a single arrest cost $1,700. That figure quintupled between 1992 and 2002. Some argue that it is not the number of Border Patrol officers, but the use of technology that is vital to fixing the growing number of people crossing illegally. I have learned, however, that even this approach has proven to be ineffective. Two separate ‘electronic fences,’ have failed and cost the United States $429 million. Despite these failed efforts the United States has begun to implement a new technology that is estimated to cost up to $30 billion, yet the Government Accountability Office is still doubting its effectiveness saying, the project's budget "lacked specificity" on "anticipated costs" and "expected mission outcomes."
I agree that the topic of illegal immigration should be on our future presidential candidate’s agenda, but it should not be the top priority. We are already spending significant amount of money, no more of our nation’s federal budget should be designated to this issue.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/31/AR2007083101464_2.html
to Kelsey Shirriff
love ME!
I agree with most of what you said except the part about people realizing that going to Iraq was a mistake. I think going to Iraq was really our only option at the time based on the evidence we had about terrorist groups and possible weapons of mass destruction. Things may not have worked out perfectly how we would have wanted, but that doesn't necessarily mean going to Iraq to begin with was a mistake. President Bush obviously wouldn't have chosen to go there if he thought it wasn't going to do any good, and I think it was worth our time. I agree it's time to start getting our troops home because not much more can be done without causing more damage, but i don't think going to begin with was a mistake.
I do not have the academic background to feel strongly one way or the other about the national debt and deficit, as I know little, if anything, about economics. However, I’ll be presenting the other side of the argument concerning the United States national debt, with the other side presented by lu. Lu seems to think that simply by existing, the national debt is damaging our economy. This is simply not the case. According to Larry Hunter, chief economist at Empower America, “Debt is intrinsically neither good nor bad.” He goes on to say, “Sound borrowing generally produces steady long-term growth, greater security, and a higher standard of living than does rushing to pay off the debt at the expense of other more beneficial endeavors.” Paying off the debt has become a talking point of many politicians, as it always sounds good to the average American. Personal debt is a bad thing, they reason, so national debt must be as bad or worse. The two are mutually exclusive, as national debt is allowed to roll over into the next fiscal cycle while personal debt problems are exacerbated as time goes on.
In conclusion, as youth in high school, we do not have the necessary qualifications to discuss such topics as the national debt and the economy as a whole. We are more than qualified, however, to talk about issues that affect us as teenagers, such as voting age, driving laws, etc., as well as morality issues such as gay marriage and abortion. Ideological differences aside, we would do well to debate topics in which everybody has a firm grasp of the basic idea at hand.
Larry Hunter’s paper can be reviewed at
http://www.ipi.org/ipi%5CIPIPressReleases.nsf/PublicationLookupPressRelease/0E654162E1CDFA4185256B9F00557D9F
-Silas Berkowitz
To: Melissa Nemcek
I completely agree with you that Global Warming is a very important issue that should be considered in the upcoming election. I would even go so far as saying that it is more important of an issue than my issue. My issue was the need for reform of the Social Security System. Even though these issues are about our next Presidential Election, Global warming will not only affect us here at home, but everyone across the entire world. In the end your issue will have an affect on more people than mine will.
In your post, you had a lot of evidence that supported your point of view, but some of that evidence was not very good. First, you mention Al Gore exposing the problem of Global Warming with his shocking documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, to the world. I would like to add the fact that he has been one of the most outspoken politicians for the environment for many years. Despite all of this, he leads a lifestyle that is very hypocritical of his own documentary. Mr. Gore owns a 10,000 square foot, 20 room mansion with a pool, pool house, and a separate guest house. All of these are heated with natural gas. This “home” consumes more than 20 times more energy than the average American home. This house is not in a cold climate like you would be lead to think with the massive consumption of energy. It is in fact located in Nashville, Tennessee. Your second piece of evidence dealt with New Hampshire’s “resolution requesting increased governmental action regarding climate change.” New Hampshire is not a very diverse state. 96% of the population is White, and the next largest race after that are Hispanics at 1.7% of the population. In my opinion, New Hampshire does not give a very good picture of how America as a whole feels about Global Warming. These are only two minor issues I found with your evidence.
As a whole, I thought you had a very strong argument. Your facts were very surprising and convincing. This upcoming election will have a huge effect on what is going to be done to stop Global Warming. Hopefully people will become more motivated to help stop global warming when more and more information comes to their attention.
Sources:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/states/new.hampshire.html
Though global warming may be an issue in the world today its important to keep in mind the level of importance it should have in the realm of politics. Many believe that global warming is an issue that Republicans have put on the back burner, but I believe it’s for it’s for a good reason. More important issues are on the agenda. If peace is not achieved within the world (the war in Iraq, genocide, nuclear technology in Iran) there is going to be little need to worry about whether or not the ice caps are melting. The loss of aquatic animals and polar bears do not compare to the loss of human lives. If another country were to drop nuclear bombs on the United States they could “cause the end of civilization in the countries concerned, and perhaps over the whole world, as well as radioactive contamination of whole continents, and terrible damage to the environment and ecology.” (3 AM Magazine). As stated above, the environment effected by global warming could easily be destroyed with the single drop of a nuclear bomb. If a bomb were to drop on the United States it is estimated that “for a city of one million or two million struck by a single one-megaton bomb …around one third of the inhabitants would be killed instantly or fatally injured, one third seriously injured, and the rest uninjured or only slightly injured.” (3AM Magazine). The long term effects from radiation are quite visible when looking at the Hiroshima and Nagasaki cases in the late 1940s.The military powers of the world must be able to peacefully cohabitate together, because many of them have access to blowing up a country in a matter of seconds.
Secondly, though there is scientific evidence backing global warming, one must always consider the politics involved with the evidence. As stated you support the Democrats because they seem to be taking the faster and more accurate approach to global warming, but always keep in mind that when in the minority its easy to point the finger. In the article “The Abdication of Oversight” Peilke states that, “No matter where one comes out on the climate issue, it is obvious that the Democrats are playing their politics through science.” We know what the Democrats SAY they will do on the issue of global warming, but it would be interesting to see how they would have dealt with a glacier melting in the midst of terrorist attacks (9/11). Though global warming is a topic that needs to be dealt with, there are much more important things to consider in the upcoming election.
www.3ammagazine.com
globalwarming.org
p.s. I am not sure how to post "to" someone so this is in response to Rachel. Goodness,'m bad with technolgy:)
To: Tony Bader
While I agree with you that it is hard to project what a candidate will have to deal with in the future, I do not think it is practical for many voters to decide who to vote for based on "trustworthiness." First of all, even the candidate who seems most trustworthy may in fact be deceiving the public. For example, George Bush (the old one) seemed about as trustworthy as you can get in his "no new taxes" speech. What came next? Taxes. Secondly, if politicians cannot see into the future, how are voters supposed to? Voters are not going to try to predict something three or four years down the line. Instead, they are going to focus on what they care about right now. Thirdly, it appears that you are equating trustworthiness with good decision making. I believe a president can gain trustworthiness by making good decisions, but he or she cannot suddenly become a good decision maker by being able to win voters' trust. In fact, your proposal could result in the nation having trust in a bad decision maker. This would be a very disastrous result. Instead, I believe that if you do not want to pick a candidate based on his or her belief in one or two certain issues, you need to look at the candidate overall in attributes like leadership, intelligence, his or her ability to work with others, and decision making.
Sources:
http://www.forbes.com/2007/08/15/forbes-tracker-mean-oped-cx_daa_0815mean.html?boxes=popstories
Your link to political meanness, Hilary is ranked second yet she is ranked as the top Democratic candidate in many various polls:
http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/state-polls.html
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/georgehbush1988rnc.htm
To Meghan Miller
I agree that we definitely need to help Iraq to form a stable government in the image of their citizens. I also agree that we need to focus on pulling out troops. However, I don’t believe that both of these goals can be executed simultaneously. I believe that with the way we have come in and destroyed major cities and incited riots and random acts of violence pulling out our support of non-violent Iraqi progress would be a grave mistake. Rudy Giuliani said that this is “just when our troops need all our support to finish the job” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/15/us/politics/15adbox.html . The differing religious groups in Iraq competing for political influence makes the country unstable and particularly vulnerable. To combat this vulnerability that ultimately inhibits peaceful resolution and political progress, we must supply support for the formation of an effective government where the leaders can be free of violent persecution. People need to feel comfortable with expressing their political opinions through voting and influencing government before we can pull out. Otherwise we have done Iraq no service all we have done is created ultimate political and social unrest among the citizens who are ultimately innocent in the grand scheme of the situation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/15/us/politics/15adbox.html
To: Rachel
From: Katie Wutchiett
I definitely agree with you that Global Warming is a serious issue and that it should be an important deciding factor this election. However, as dangerous as our current use of fossil fuels is, I believe it is important to also address it’s threat to our country’s independence and our economy.
Currently, our country consumes 1/3 of all oil used each year. Not only does this oil use hurt our environment, but it is also making us dependent on foreign countries for oil. The United States has only 2% of the world’s known oil reserves while the Middle East has 71%. While many of us may think it would be easy to cut back on oil by just driving our cars less, we use oil in almost everything we do. 10 calories of fossil fuels are used to make every calorie of food we eat in the U.S.. If we were to be cut off from Middle Eastern oil again as we were during the oil embargo of the 1970s, oil prices would sky rocket, changing our daily lives greatly.
As troublesome as our dependence on the Middle East for fossil fuels is, peak oil is most certainly a bigger threat. The basic idea of peak oil is that eventually the amount of oil drilled from the earth will one day hit an all time high, and from then on, continuously decrease. While think this is something that will not happen for some time, others believe it has already happened in the U.S.. The amount of oil produced in the United States has been steadily dropping since the year 1970. Peak oil theorist believe that if the world as a whole were to reach peak oil, the global economy would be sent into a depression worse than that of the 1920s.
Overall, while Global Warming is most certainly the most devastating consequence of our energy consumption, our energy use is having many other negative affects on our world.
http://www.2facts.com.ezproxy.hclib.org/ICOF/temp/74605tempi1100270.asp
http://www.2facts.com.ezproxy.hclib.org/ICOF/Search/ib110272.asp
http://www.2facts.com.ezproxy.hclib.org/ICOF/temp/74682tempin111003.asp
Response To: Mia Howard
Former President Bill Clinton once said, “It is wrong and ultimately self defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our migration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it.” I definitely agree with you, Mia that illegal immigration is a growing problem and it must be addressed in the upcoming 2008 election. However, my opinion differs from yours in how we need to be addressing this issue.
First, I think that the biggest concern with illegal immigration relates to the threat it poses to national security. The large number of illegal immigrants that reside in this country displays just how poor our border security truly is. It is important now, more than ever that our borders are secure. We live in a world in which a lot of anti-American sentiment exists in addition to serious threats of terrorism. I agree with Republican candidate, Ron Paul that “It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is unlocked.” If 12 million illegal immigrants are able to cross the border, terrorists would easily be able to do the same. This mere statistic is a clear statement that our borders are not secure. As Donald Barlett states, “In a single day, more than 4,000 illegal aliens will walk across the busiest unlawful gateway into the U.S, the 375-mile border between Arizona and Mexico. No searches for weapons. No shoe removal. No photo-ID checks. Before long, many will obtain phony identification papers, including bogus social security numbers, to conceal their true identities and mask their unlawful presence.” If the United States government is unsure about who is crossing the borders, national security is at a great risk. For this reason, I think that the government needs to take more drastic measures to enhance border security by building more fences along the border. Furthermore, we must increase border security by hiring more border patrol agents and improving border technology.
The second issue of illegal immigration is trying to address the illegal aliens that currently reside here. I agree that it is quite obvious we cannot just deport 12 million people. This is a completely unrealistic approach. However, I also do not think we should simply grant illegal immigrants citizenship. This is not fair to legal immigrants who had to go through the long, complex process of trying to get into the country legally. Furthermore, illegal immigrants displayed a disregard for American laws by simply entering the country illegally. We should not reward these people for doing so. Before granting illegal immigrants amnesty, I believe we must do thorough background checks and research their history. Illegal immigrants who have committed crimes must be deported immediately. Initially, these are the people we need to focus on. Drug trafficking is a serious problem tied to illegal immigration and it could be drastically reduced if we took greater measures to capture illegal immigrants who are involved. Only illegal aliens who are able to prove that they will be upstanding citizens and make meaningful contributions to society should be allowed to remain in the United States. Furthermore, I disagree with Mike Gavel’s comparison of deportation to the Trail of Tears. The Trail of Tears was a tragic, unjust, forced relocation of the Cherokee Native American Tribe that is not even comparable to the deportation of illegal immigrants. The Trail of Tears resulted in an estimated 4,000 deaths. We must also remember that unlike illegal immigrants who reside in the United States, the Native Americans were forced off their own land. The U.S government does not kill people in the process of deporting them.
I must also respectively disagree with your idea that helping Latin American nations prosper and grow would help reduce the illegal immigration problem. Although this is a great idea in theory, I am unconvinced that it would be effective. Many Latin American countries have corrupted governments and money directed to the poor may never reach them. It is my belief that illegal immigration would continue despite efforts to help. We also do not currently have the money to help these countries due to the high economic spending in Iraq.
Overall, I agree that illegal immigration definitely needs to be addressed. It has become a serious issue over the past few years due to the increasing number of illegal immigrants entering this country. We first must stop illegal immigrants from crossing the border before we can even begin to take measures towards the illegal immigrants that already reside here. This means more border security and punishing employers who hire illegal immigrants.
Sources:
Barlett, Donald, and James Steele. “Who Left the Door Open?” Time http://www.sks.sirs.com
http://ngeorgia.com/history/nghisttt.html
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7305528/site/newsweek/
To Lauren
Okay, so I totally agree that we need to get a handle on the global warming issue. Clearly our planet is in danger and we need to put into action some ideas that could potentially keep our earth from going into an ice age. Although global warming should be on the forefront, if not the most important issue in relation to humankind, it's not the biggest issue for the 2008 election. Honestly, I don't know enough about the war and it's pros/cons to supply an opinion as to whether or not we should withdraw troops immediately, but it's a hot campaign issue that GOP prospects are already using. John McCain's campaign tours have involved speeches insisting on staying in Iraq (NY Times). CBS's Katie Couric interviewed General David H. Petraeus, who recently presented his report to congress as to why we should stay in Iraq, including detailed statistics and figures that gave Iraq an optimistic view (CBS News). Most democratic candidates disagree. Hillary Rodham Clinton has said that as president, she would end the war, leaving some troops in place that would keep terrorism at bay (Washington Post). In August Barack Obama is reported to have told a group of veterans that "There is no military solution in Iraq", and that he would pull troops out if he were elected president(MSNBC). Anyways, my point is, as much as I would personally like global warming to be the forefront issue, it's not. The Iraq war is.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/14/us/politics/14repubs.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/03/eveningnews/main3229425.shtml
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20378758/
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/hillary-clinton/
To Katrina T
I agree with your assertion that the question of what is the most important issue should be subdivided further into domestic and foreign policy.
However, I disagree with issues you chose as most important to domestic policy. Both of the issues you mentioned are part of social domestic policy, while I think that economic domestic policy will be considered more important by most voters. Social security and healthcare are both issues that would probably draw more attention from voters than abortion and gay marriage, in light of how most voters are older Americans, to whom these would be more important issues.
In the case of abortion, at this point in time there is no evidence that Roe v. Wade will be overturned at some point in the near future, rendering it a moot point despite being a hot issue. People who favor banning abortion completely constitute less than 20% of the population. [1]
In the case of gay marriage, I don't consider it a national issue at the moment. Unless a candidate makes a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage a part of their platform, the decision will probably continue to be left to the states, for better or for worse.
[1] http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
To: Katie Whelan
From: Lauren Vann
Although I fully understand the overturning of Roe v. Wade is a rather touchy issue, I do not believe it will be one of the main focuses in the 2008 election. However, I believe there will be many consequences if Roe v. Wade is overturned and am strongly opposed to banning abortion.
First of all, I think it is a woman's choice of what she does with her body. I'm not advocating 'free love' in any way but I'm just saying there should be many options for women who are pregnant when they don't want to be. I know giving the baby up for adoption is one option but I don't believe a woman who doesn't want to be preganant in the first place would want to carry a baby around for nine months. Along with that, there are medical bills that need to be paid along with restrictions for pregnant women (i.e. no caffeine, smoking, alcohol).
The overturning of Roe v. Wade could mean many at home abortions causing many deaths and injuries. Also, the dropout rate of schools may increase because a woman has to concentrate her time on taking care of a child. Taxes would eventually be higher because we would be paying for low income women who can't afford to raise a child. This may also lead to higher crime rates in the future due to the fact that the mother may simply not care about raising the child properly.
On the other hand, I do agree that the rising number of abortions is a concern and there should be more that is done to educate the masses about protection. I strongly support teen clinic establishments where teens can go on programs to learn about protection and receive free contraception, such as birth control pills, depo shot etc. The problem is that many pro-lifers have been simultaneously working to limit access to various methods of birth control. This only creates demand for the abortions they wish to eliminate. At some point the pro-life movement is going to have to decide between fewer abortions or less birth control. They can't have it both ways.
www.affbrainwash.com
To: JBecker
From: Heather
First off, I agree with you that education is the key to success. Your points are logical and well supported and it is undeniable that in order to grow economically, we must focus on education. Although the U.S. has indeed made education a priority in years of late, (between 1971 and 2002 the average per-pupil spending for all levels of school has nearly doubled and Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act set higher standards of achievement in schools) China is indeed surpassing us as a consumer country while still spending less of their GDP on education. I do not, however, personally believe that the ultimate goal should be economic growth in relation to other countries. Producing more cars and computers should not, in my opinion, be the measure of our country’s success. Rather, we should educate people with the intention of furthering scientific research that could help save our planet from global warming or discover new treatments for illnesses and disease. I therefore agree with your statement that alludes to the fact that education will play a key role in ending wars, poverty and corruption. I believe that while education is something the U.S. should continue to focus on, we should not educate our citizens with the belief that staying on top economically is the ultimate goal in life.
www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update45.htm
http://www.edu.cn/english_1369/
www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA02
Response to Lu
I too wrote of the economic issues dominating our present political campaign, and while I admire your offering a solution, I believe slightly different actions would serve to more effectively restore our struggling economy. With our present industrial outputs rising at the slowest rates in months, drops in the stock market, and a noteworthy increase in unemployment, I disagree that thrusting money at the economy will suffice. Spending more deficit dollars in an effort to reverse America’s economic slump will not serve as enough stimulation to generate the economic momentum this nation will need in order to reverse its mounting deficit. Instead, it is my belief that lowering interest rates and increasing the purchasing power of the people will collectively soothe the burden. The BBC notes, “By making money cheaper to borrow, people would spend more and invest more, revitalizing the economy.” Rates of 5.25% have been held as such since mid September 2006, after dozens of repeated increases. Lowering these rates will stimulate the economy and further empower more citizens, without the government having to reach farther into their vast deficit to do so. Overall, I appreciate your perspective on the issue and that you too recognize the irrefutable economic concerns this country must soon face.
Sources:
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/BUSINESS/09/25/gurus.Farthing/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6995115.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6999821.stm
To: Victor Wang
From: your favorite ginger
I agree that social security is a huge problem in the country that should be dealt with, but I do not believe that it will be a huge issue in the upcoming election. As you stated the war in Iraq is sucking up almost all of peoples' attention. The social security problem is really only a major problem for the younger crowd, 18-30. This will not be an issue in the election because, as our textbook points out, this is the age group that has historically been the least likely to vote in an election. The older crowd, 60 and up, do not care about the issue because they are already getting their social security benefits and therefore don't care if it runs out in the future. The middle aged crowd may be concerned with this problem, but many of them will not think that they will be affected by the shortage of money in the program. These are the many reasons why I do not believe that social security will be an issue in the upcoming election.
To: JBecker
I disagree that education is the most important issue in the upcoming election. The United States is a leading country in innovation and knowledge advancement. The reason for the reputation of the US is due its extremely dedicated education of our youth.
First, it is important to realize that workers in other countries such as India and China face completely different demographic and geographic circumstances than the United States in regard to economic opportunity and performance. It is difficult to compare the solitary impact of education on the economy and employment without considering the other above factors.
Despite initial generalities that those countries face better economic situations, the United States actually fares better than it’s worldwide competitors in the business industry. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate of the US is 4.6 percent, respective to it’s population. In comparison, India’s unemployment rate is a substantially higher 7.8 percent, respectively (CIA). In reality, more Americans have jobs.
In regard to China, its high billion dollar surplus is undermined by it’s population. The Central Intelligence Agency for the US Government found that, “China in 2006 stood as the second-largest economy in the world after the US, although in per capita terms the country is still lower middle-income and 130 million Chinese fall below international poverty lines.”
Education of American youth has proven successful. The US Department of Education reported that about $67.2 billion federal dollars per year is used towards education. The statistic does not include all state and local funds additionally used to further public education. Funding for American schools has proven successful in educating youth. The literacy rate among Americans is over twenty-five percent higher in comparison to citizens in India, based on percentages computed using individual populations. Because of the strong support for education, the average income for someone who, at minimum, receives a GED high school diploma is $29,700. High-school drop outs are capable of earning up to $20,100 per year (National Center for Education Statistics). Both incomes are over fifty-percent higher than the poverty threshold in the US of $10,160 for one person (US Census Bureau). Education in the United States is a thriving institution for educating youth in society for the future.
Sources
http://www.bls.gov/
http://www.cia.gov/
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/dropout05/
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld/thresh05.html
http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/index.html?src=ln
To Tenzin
I would like to expand on Tenzin’s idea. I agree that the United States relationship with the Muslim world is certainly an issue to address in the upcoming election. Certainly, the discrimination against American citizens who happen to be Muslims must be stopped. In one article I read, a Muslim family had their tires slashed on the anniversary of 9/11. That was just this last week. I have especially noticed discrimination in the airports, which as Tenzin correctly assumed, Muslims are singled out to be searched more than the average citizen. I’ve noticed that when I travel with my dad, (who is a Muslim and has an Arabic name) we often just happen to be the ones singled out for a more thorough search. One particular instance that I can think of was on a family vacation overseas. My dad was questioned “So, there are three Zayed brothers going to France. Why are you meeting?” The three Zayed brothers left on different days from different airport in different states. Clearly, the government was “watching” us.
The United States needs to address the image that it puts out to its own citizens: Muslims are terrorists. This image began in the Gulf War and has heightened since 9/11. However, if the United States makes an effort to change its citizen viewpoints to be less discriminating and stereotyping against Muslims, the image that the United States projects to other countries will be better. The media has often misled Americans with misconceptions about Muslims. Terrorist groups may try to justify themselves using Islam but that does not mean that all Muslims are terrorists. Ingrid Mattson, the President of the Islamic Society of North America expressed this sentiment when she said, “The war in Iraq has such a negative effect on the ways Americans perceive Islam. The chaos there has led many Americans to have this association between Islam and violence.”
Sources:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/11/AR2007091101995.html
http://www.jannah.org/articles/misc.html
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/10/psyk.mattson/index.html
Response to Liz Palin’s post:
I must agree that global warming, as well as the Iraq war, is an extremely pressing issue in the 2008 election. But as Liz seems to have left out many of the effects global warming would have if nothing is done about it, I am going to expand on her argument.
The list of problems caused by global warming is never-ending. Many of those effects are either health related or environmental. In the Midwest region specifically, we can expect lake and river levels to decrease because of an increase in evaporation. The temperatures in the summer will increase significantly, especially in urban areas like the Twin Cities. Because of these temperature changes, the demand for energy may change as well. Hotter summer months will bring an increased need for air-conditioning. Increases in temperature and evaporation may also lead to more energy needed for irrigation and farming, especially in dry areas. Basically, not only is global warming harming our earth, but also making our dependency on foreign oil worse. Unless we find an alternative energy source, the global warming theory will continue to pan out as we need more and more oil to continue living as we always have.
Higher temperatures also result in melting mountain glaciers and small ice caps, causing the sea level to rise. In the last century alone the sea level rose five to six inches. As the sea level rises, coastal marshes and wetlands are eroding, forcing the outer boundaries of these wetlands to move inwards. According to IPCC, 22% of the world’s coastal wetlands will turn into open water within the next century due to rising sea levels. Sea levels rising also increase the salinity of water because of salt-water intrusion.
Global warming is also linked to many health effects, especially in the elderly, the poor, and young children. Climate change has the theoretical ability to alter the frequency and transmissions of infectious diseases, partly because changes in the carriers (such as ticks, mosquitoes, rodents) are inevitable. Temperature changes are also likely to have an effect on heat or cold related stress, increasing and decreasing respectively.
Global warming obviously also has an effect on our climate. An average temperature increase is likely to occur, as well as change in rainfall amount and patterns. Extreme weather is also likely to be more frequent as concentrations of CO2 rise in our atmosphere.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
http://www.climatehotmap.org/namerica.html
To: Shaun Fernandes
I agree with Shaun on his view that global climate change is a more serious issue than the war in Iraq in the future. When thinking on a global scale, the effects of climate change are much more serious than "losing" the war. Not only could the sea levels of the Earth possibly rise and cause flooding in lowland areas such as San Fransisco Bay and New York City, but effects may be felt here in the midwest, as well. Warmer temperatures cause malaria parasites to mature faster, increasing the risk of an epidemic, especially in places like Minnesota where mosquitoes (which transmit the parasite) are plentiful. (http://www.exploratorium.edu/climate/global-effects/data3.html)
That's just a sample of the possible effects of global climate change, without even adding the possibility of stronger and more severe weather across the plains and in the oceans. And those are just effects in the US; what about the shrinking ice caps and ecosystems that will be destroyed at the poles?
If only the nations of the world could cooperate and attempt to prevent this possible oncoming disaster. But then I suppose we wouldn't have wars in the first place, would we?
Reply to Christina R.
Though I agree that the topic of illegal immigration is important, I don’t believe that it will be the most important issue in the upcoming presidential election. There are some places like big cities and border states that this is an important issue, but it is not a key issue in the majority of the country.
An opinion poll done by NBC News/ Wall Street Journal asked "How much of an impact has illegal immigration made on your own community where you live: a great deal of impact, quite a bit of impact, just a little impact, or no impact at all?". Just 25% said it impacted their community ‘A great deal’ and 20% answered ‘No impact at all’. According to another poll done by NBC News and Wall Street Journal, when asked "Would you say that immigration helps the United States more than it hurts it, or immigration hurts the United States more than it helps it?", the results were more or less even. 46% said it ‘Helps more than hurts’, 44% said it ‘Hurts more than helps’, and 10% were ‘Unsure’.
Also, because this issues refers to mostly the southern states and the Mexican border, presidential candidates do not want to lose important Hispanic voters according to BBC News.
I am not sure what the best remedy for this issue is but it is certainly not something that is going to be solved by just putting a wall up, literally and figuratively.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6684923.stm
www.pollingreport.com/immigration.htm
To Prisbaby
I completely agree that healthcare needs to be reformed and that it should be a primary concern in the upcoming election. However, I do not think that your proposed system of universal healthcare for the elderly and poor will be economically feasible or supported by American’s values.
First, I do not believe that we can afford to completely pay for all the elderly people’s sicknesses. Not only are they the sickest demographic, the age group is “ripening” and will soon – or is already – the largest age group. Our small workforce can barely sustain Social Security, which is barely a reasonable sum now, much less pay for health care costs. The only way this plan could work would be to raise taxes by exorbitant amounts. This relates to my second point. I believe that there are many stubborn Americans out there who are terrified of change (Canton). They would strongly resist this slight move towards socialism. Socialism is not necessarily a bad thing, but many people do not want to touch it (Canton).
I believe the solution would be to control the costs of health care and make it more efficient. This trimming of the fat would make healthcare much more affordable for many. Most of the candidates support using more information technology, improving medical practices, and letting consumers shop around for the best value (NPR). Some candidates specifically think the answer lies in the insurance markets. Romney believes deregulation will increase profitability which will finally benefit the consumer. Giuliani believes the same thing. Clinton has a universal health care plan all laid out and will reveal it soon. This might work if it is gradual and well laid out so that no one group is held with a huge burden (NPR). Others believe medical subsidies are the answer (NPR). Whatever happens, it is important that healthcare is treated as an important issue and is handled well.
http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?style=newstyles2.css&Section=&ID=374901&Category=7
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14004843
Response to Mia
I too would like to agree that the population of illegal immigrants in the United States is rather ridiculous. Over 12 million illegal aliens from Central and South America live within United States borders.
Our immigration policy is one of the most important issues that is craving a solution. Besides the war in Iraq, I believe that this is a top priority that the 2008 presidential candidates face.
Currently, Washington plans on building a 700 mile long fence between the United States and Mexico (also known as the Secure Fence Act). Personally, I think spending millions of dollars to create a fence seems like a waste. The truth is we have no idea how effective this fence will be; people find loopholes in every aspect of life. I think immigrants are willing to sacrifice a lot just to live in America.
I think that as we worry about how to prevent illegal immigration, we need to get the 12 million illegal immigrants that currently live in the US out. The United States would be completely within their rights to deport all 12 million back to their home country. It is unfair that so many of them smuggle themselves in against the law and reduce the chances of a foreigner that went through the application process and has been patient for months/years to become an American citizen.
But I too agree with Mia in that the best way to solve this crisis is to make life in their homeland more reasonable to live with. The way to go about that is to financially boost their economies. By doing so, we create more jobs and more money for the country and its employees to use. So instead of spending those millions of dollars on a semi-promising fence, let’s use the money to boost Central and South American countries; that way there will be a win-win situation.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/i/immigration_and_refugees/index.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.html
To: Tony B
From: Alyssa V
I agree with you Tony, I really do. I would like to trust the candidate I’m voting for and know that they would do well under high stress situations. If only your plan were so easy. You see I do have several qualms. First, and most simple of all, how do you plan to do this? How do you tell if a candidate is competent or not? What determines that you trust them, and even with your trust; does that mean they automatically make good decisions?
All candidates are out to get your vote, and so all of them are trying to get your trust. That’s part of the game; they are out to make themselves most likeable, most reliable. Take Hilary Clinton, for example, changed her running platform to be more moderate so she can gain more votes, and it’s worked; according to polls the majority of Americans would be likely to vote for Clinton in 2008. By ‘becoming’ middle of the road, she’s trying to convince the public that she won’t make radical decisions. That doesn’t mean that if she wins the election she won’t go back to her original stance. There isn’t a way to be sure about the future performance of any candidate, it’s all variable, even if they have preformed well in the past. Besides, most Americans assume that their opinion is the yardstick for ‘correct decision’. They want to ‘trust’ the candidate to make a good decision for America… as long as that’s the decision they support. And to be honest, isn’t that why we vote? I agree that it’s more important to trust the candidate for president than agree with them on everything, but isn’t the measure of decision making capabilities based on what you believe? The problem is, America doesn’t rally behind a president if he or she goes against the grain or doesn’t do what the people think the president should do. Take the War in Iraq for example in 2003, a majority of Americans not only felt the war was the right thing to do, but also felt that troops should stay as long as it takes. Support is now down from 63% in 2003 to 41%. Even if you still support the President when he makes decisions you don’t agree with, doesn’t mean most Americans do. This is why President Bush’s approval ratings have dropped from round 70% in 2003 to around 35% in 2007. Americans will vote for the candidate that proposes the right things for the first six months, not necessarily the one who might be best equipped to deal with unknown situations in the future.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-26-hillary-poll_x.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/10/opinion/polls/main930772.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/6038436.stm
This is in response to Rachel's original post that global warming would be the most important topic.
I would like to agree with you that global warming is indeed going to be an important issue for many voters. In particular, our generation seems much more highly invested in the issue that all the other generations before us. It also seems that everyone in the political sphere is begining to feel some kind of pressure to come up with an answer to the rising problem (http://www.planusa.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/168223). Most politicians are seeing how great of an issue global warming has become to Americans lately ( Youtube! : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_56ANrR3ZQQ)
I agree with you that something does need to be done to find some way to check back against global warming, regardless of who is really doing it. However, it seems that, as a whole, the Democratic party is seen as having much more to do with the issue than Republicans in the media (http://www.crosswalk.com/1409429/) Therefore, if we are to believe that global warming will end up being one of the deciding factors on the 2008 ballot, then it's probably fair to say that this allows a fairly steep Democratic advantage before the race has really even begun (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/19/AR2007011900898.html).
Reply to: Megan
Hey!
There are lots of things that I agree with on your post but I will get to that later.
First of all, I don’t believe that Bush originally had a good reason to for going to Iraq. The horror of 9-11 galvanized our nation and thus Bush was able to use the situation to his advantage. He claimed that Saddam had WMD and tried linking Saddam to Al Queda. It now goes without saying that Saddam did not have WMD and that he had no links to Al Queda. In fact, Saddam was greatly looked down upon as being too secular by the Al Queda leaders and he made sure to keep them away from Iraq.
I personally don’t think there was only one main reason for going to Iraq. I believe it was a combination of finding new oil resources, propping up a new sphere of American influence in the Middle East (and maybe also finishing up daddy’s uncompleted project.) However, now the situation has completely changed and Al Queda’s influence in Iraq is growing at an exponential rate. Not only that, but the U.S. seems to have ignored the main source of Islamic extremists, Afghanistan. Even though the mighty American military toppled Taliban, they have been resurging ever since the U.S. has been too busy trying to clean up its mess in Iraq. Taliban has filled up this power vacuum once again and is not a very good sign when it comes to evaluating the success rate of the War on Terror.
Now, getting on to the better part, I agree completely that we can’t expect our model of government to work for them. Our societies completely differ on many levels. If the U.S. did believe Iraq would be the “city upon a hill” for other Arabic nations to follow, they were very wrong. Even though it is a fact that democracies don’t fight each other (democratic peace theory), most Americans would be surprised to find out that many countries in the world don’t choose our kind of democracy when given a choice. This was shown when Yugoslavia willingly became a communist state. When you force something on someone who is resisting, the result is obviously going be violent. This is exactly why there hasn’t been a smooth transition in the governmental affairs of Iraq. I also agree with you completely that it is now time to look for what is the best for Iraq and its citizens, not America. I don’t think this choice is very hard when innocent civilians are being caught up in the battle between the Islamic extremists and the American military. The choice is also made easier when Iraqi parents send their children to join the extremists to fight the American “invaders.”
Lastly, I agree that this change should be gradual but gradual can be interpreted in many different ways. The new president will have to make this ‘gradual’ process soon enough and effective enough so that no more lives are lost.
Sources: 1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2007/09/15/AR2007091501452.html
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/08/AR2007090801845.html
To ericmortensen
First and foremost, please let me compliment you on your outstanding post regarding the most important 2008 presidential issue. With that said, I absolutely see education as being an issue that needs to be assessed and agree with your post as a whole. Truly it was an epiphany, of which I now see the vivid picture that is the current state of our nation and the many faults within our present educational system. Currently there are wide academic achievement gaps, under prepared teachers (as many as 2 million), and failures in trying to salvage urban school systems. Luckily some have tried to alleviate this problem, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation which helped launch a 60 million dollar initiative for higher standards, more efficient teachers and more time and support for students to learn. Even some political candidates have tried to help. For example, Barack Obama set up summer education opportunities for disadvantaged, and has even said he supports free public college for any student with a B-average. With such support for education reforms, perhaps the concerns will serge through the nation and produce a substantial issue. However, in the 2008 election education may be overlooked once again and remain on America’s do to list.
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/08/01/44levine.h26.html
http://www.issues2000.org/Education.htm
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=education&id=5245709
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/UnitedStates/Education/Announcements/Announce-070425a.htm
To Katie Wahlen
I would like to respond to your post on abortion being the main issue of the 2008 presidential election. First off, I do not see this issue as the main issue to focus on in the 2008 election, as there are pressing issues that currently need our attention, such as the war in Iraq, social security, and health care. This has been an on going issue for many years, and I feel it is more of a personal choice of women, rather then a pressing issue that is affecting the entire U.S. as a whole.
I disagree with you that the decision of Roe vs. Wade needs to be overturned as well.
I believe that women do have the right to decide what to do, as it is their body and the changes that they must go through when they're pregnant. In situations such as rape or incest, it is wrong to force a woman to fulfill the pregnancy term.
Instead of overturning the ruling, I believe we need to edcuate women of their choices. Educate the public about abortion and contraceptivevs, and help lower abortion rates, rather than taking the right away.
In response to Jazmyn, I agree that education is a very important issue in the upcoming election. You have a lot of statistics; I can tell you did a lot of research. Educatino may help reduce outsourcing of US jobs, but it will not stop it. I am unsure that American student would be able to compete with those in other countries such as China and India. If the students' knowledge is comparable, what would give companies the incentive to hire an American student over an Indian student if the American would cost them five times as much?
What can we do to stop falling behind in education? I doubt that spending more taxpayers' money is the answer. During 2000 - 2001, the US spent about $8,830 per child, while districts in China last year spent only about $1,400 per student. In 2003, China was one of 25 countries to have done better than the US in the PISA math test.
http://www.china.org.cn/english/education/220382.htm
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1207/p01s04-ussc.html
To Rachel
From Chelsey Jernberg
I agree with your opinion that global warming will also be a very pressing issue in the 2008 Presidential election. I also strongly agree with your point that the Iraq war won’t last forever, but global warming will have everlasting effects on everyone.
Just to add to your points on what global warming will do to the planet if we do not take some sort of action soon. We already are beginning to see some of the damages of global warming with rising sea levels, an increase in hurricanes, glacier decline, changes in freshwater supply and extreme weather events. What is even more frustrating is that many are choosing to ignore the issue and deciding it doesn’t exist. Even when there is plenty scientific evidence and many easy ways to decrease emissions from fossil fuels many people choose not to do anything about it. In six to ten years we are going to start seeing effects of global warming that we cannot change.
California is beginning to act on global warming, and hopefully other states will follow. California’s Global Warming Solutions Act plans on cutting emissions by 25% by 2020 and reporting the biggest polluters. Since California is such a big state and the 12th largest emitter of green house gases having this state make changes will hopefully make a big difference. More states need to follow in California’s path and start to make changes before we see effects that cannot be changed.
http://www.globalwarming.org/
http://www.globalwarming.net/
http://www.worldwildlife.org/climate/basic.cfm
I was really impressed with John P's post. He does a really good of evaluating the original post's evidence, using his own evidence, & clearly laying out both his agreement & disagreement with what she said. This was really articulate. Excellent work!
I was intrigued by the number of posts that were made about the war in iraq. to me it seemed that a majority of the posts were geared toward an anti-war tone like my own. i found it refreshing to read macall's post. i though it was intresting and nice to have a differing perspective than my own to read about.
-Anne McNeill
My response is to anyone that posted on the Iraq war. If you think I am responding to you...then I probably am.
I agree with most of what everybody had to say about the war. United States should have never invaded Iraq on the basis they used. I am sure I don't need to state the facts for many of you to know the results of this war. What the government needs to be focusing on is ways to end the war. After going through many of the eligible presidents in the future, I agree with Barack Obama's plan to end the Iraq war. This is not in any form of me saying I am in support of Obama for president. His plan just coincides with what I think should be done to end the war. The troops in Iraq, should be pulled out gradually and not in a bulk. This way, there would still be troops to counteract terrorism in Iraq but then also get others to their friends and loved ones. There should also be a timeline set for when every troop should be home. I also believe the United States should train Iraq officials to properly handle the government, when the presence of the United States has diminished. Also there should be some construction projects started in Iraq to restore the basic needs of life like shelters, water, electricity, roads etc.
In response to Tenzin:
It is true that ignorance of Islam and culture in the Middle East is very detrimental to progress in both the war and foreign relations. Many people lack a basic understanding of the Middle East and write off the culture and religion as inherently violent. Meanwhile, prisoners are still held and tortured in Guantanamo Bay, denied due process of law because President Bush had declared them “enemy combatants.” With racial profiling over-present as well, it is easy to see why other countries might consider the U.S. in gross violation of human rights. The federal government is unable to attract speakers of Arabic or other Middle Eastern languages, making their job abroad even harder, and making the U.S. look even more incompetent. As of 2006, only 33 FBI agents could speak even a modicum of Arabic—this is out of approximately 12,000 agents (Washington Post).
The statistic was cited that many countries believe China to be more globally responsible than the United States. I would like to expand on that. While there are no doubt reasons for that conclusion, China’s record is arguably worse than America’s. China is responsible for many domestic human rights violations (torture, high execution rate and censorship being high on the list), and has meddled with the affairs of other countries as well, exerting control over Tibet and Taiwan. In Tibet, China has attempted to control religion as well as politics and society, most notably with the exile of the Dalai Lama. While racial profiling and the War on Terror are hardly shining moments in U.S. foreign policy, those who would declare China any better should think again.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001388_pf.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/country_profiles/1287798.stm
I don't know why my original post disappeared, but I copy and pasted it again!
To: Katie Wutchiett
From: Michelle Radle
Katie, I definitely agreed with you that health care will be a major issue in the upcoming election. This is an issue that makes me very nervous. While I completely support expanding health care so that there are not so many people left without it, I am worried about how politicians will go about this. I feel that universal health care is not the best option for our country. Many things have led me to feel this way. I have had many people close to me that have had bad experiences with this system, and in my case I would not feel comfortable putting my health in the hands of universal healthcare.
My family has friends that live in England, which is under universal health care. They are very unhappy with their health care. They told us that many people pay for their own health care to supplement national health care because they cannot get into the doctor fast enough or pick which doctor they would like to see under the national health care program. They knew a kid who needed knee surgery, but would have to wait 6 weeks to get it under the system. According to the LA Times, at any moment 900,000 Britons are waiting for admission to a hospital and shortages force the cancellations of 500,000 operations each year. This is appalling to me.
This is not just occurring in England. The wait for a knee surgery in Sweden is 25 weeks. Australia is also under a universal health care system. My friend was over there for 6 months as a foreign exchange student and vowed that she would never support universal health care after her experience with it. After becoming very sick, she had to stick her name on a long waiting list and then the doctor that she got didn’t even know how to do a throat swab. Wouldn’t that make you nervous? Canadian Supreme Court Chief Justice McLachlin spoke on this issue and said, “Access to a waiting list is not access to health care.” I fully agree.
Personally I worry about a system like this because I have many health issues. I was born with only one kidney and had a heart procedure when I was in seventh grade. I only go to doctors that I trust and I feel that under universal health care I would not always feel comfortable with those doctors. I don’t feel that it would allow my family and me to really choose who would perform surgeries on me, etc. The whole thing makes me very uneasy. On the other hand I do understand that if my family wasn’t lucky enough to be able to pay for health insurance how devastating to our finances my medical bills would be. That is why I support a change in our health care system, but not a move to universal health care.
Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-tanner5apr05,0,2227144.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
Post a Comment