I read “Get ‘em the hell outta’ there!” critique written by my colleague Williams. Towards the middle paragraph Williams thinks that sending more troops over to help withdraw is necessary. I completely disagree because I just don’t think we need to be sending more troops over to help withdraw, I think we need to start withdrawing the troops that are over there right now without dragging anymore troops into Afghanistan. But, it is true when Williams says it’s not easy to bring them home all at once because that wouldn’t be possible. I also agree when Williams doesn’t know why were over there right now because I’m wondering the same thing.

I think that Williams could have been a little more clear and specific when she states, “In other cases, I feel that the U.S. spends a lot of unnecessary time trying to help “fix” other countries’ problems.” Williams could have given an example as to when the U.S. has helped fix another counties’ problem.

So overall, Williams picks a side that she doesn’t understand why American troops are still in Afghanistan but thinks we should send more troops over to help withdraw those who are there now. Williams’s statement is kind of clear to me but it was difficult to understand some parts of this blog post at times. And, then in the end Williams thinks that President Obama is being disrespected by being called Mr. Obama. I’m not sure what that has to do with the first part of the blog post, but I can clearly see her opinion when she thinks President Obama being called Mr. Obama is disrespectful.

Williams had a good thought out idea about this blog post but I think it could have been a little more organized but other than that Williams picked a side and argued.

Legislation should be passed for gay marriage to be made legal on political, social, and religious grounds. Homosexually is a way of life, and therefore government protects it. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (Section 1 of amendment 14)

This section of the 14th amendment states that if one person, or group, is given the right to do something then the same right and/or privilege must be made available to all people in all states. Since heterosexual people have the right to marry then gay people should also have the right to marry. One of the proponents against gay marriage is that some people feel that it will weaken the values of families. They feel it will downplay the significance of marriage and lead to indecent practices such as marrying family members and multiple people, to even highly unlikely pairings such as to objects or animals. Gay marriage however, actually has the potential to enhance the value of family life. Since gay couples can not procreate they will be naturally inclined to adopt children. In 2006 there were about 520,000 children in foster care, according to the North American Council on Adoptable Children in St. Paul. Of those, 120,000 were available for adoption, but only 50,000 found permanent homes each year. Gay couples could be the answer to giving thousands of kids loving homes that desperately need them. Some of the religious talk against used against gay marriage is based on the Levitical code which says, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination:” (Leviticus 18:22) Later text reveals that this one law was part of a whole set of outdated and unjust laws that the church would view as unreasonable. For example, the levitical code calls for the stoning of a women who is found not to be a virgin on her marriage day. Certainly the church would not advocate this practice or law so it should not try to give credence to the law code that demands it. This is the practice of eisegesis, which is the practice of adding extra meaning to biblical text in which the true intend of the writer of the text is misinterpreted. This is detrimental not only to the Christian church but to the American society and culture.

I read It's about time to end this war critique written by my colleague Ana. I really like the beginning and I completely agree when she says “WHAT WAR?!” Because those are my thoughts exactly. My colleague states all the correct facts about our American solider casualties and what President Obama is thinking about doing. It is true that we have lost a great deal of American soldiers and it is true that President Obama is thinking about sending more troops over. I think his idea on that subject matter is basically saying if we send over more troops it will help save more of our soldiers in general. But, the question is, how do we know if sending more troops over is the answer? We don’t know, and it looks like President Obama might want to find out.

I like how Ana points out “okay, lets go back home”. This is a great question that many Americans wonder about because even I want to know why we can’t just throw are hands up and say we’re out of here and head home. She made a good point about this question and it is an unanswered question President Obama has yet to answer and it is a question that many people are waiting to hear answers about.

However, I don’t think that we aren’t dropping out because of our pride or because we are cowards. I think we are trying to prove a point by staying over there, but it seems like we are getting slaughtered.

Everyone wants their family members to come home and be safe but if they are sending more troops over there, there is a possibility that the soldiers that were there first will be stuck there for longer until we untangle this mess.

In the end of my colleagues critique I learned something new because I didn’t know how much of our taxes were being used on the war and I found that quite interesting.

Overall, I enjoyed reading this critique because I agreed with it and found it very interesting. The questions that I would’ve liked to know more about is why President Obama doesn’t want to pull out our troops yet and is it going to help if President Obama decides to send over more troops. But besides those two questions I really liked this because we have the same opinions about the “so called war" and you made a lot of good points.

Decision Making Time for the U.S. National Government

Our U.S. nation government is needs to make some tough decisions regarding the Afghanistan and Iraq eight-year war, and they need to make these decisions thoroughly, but quickly too. Recently there have been many controversies about this eight-year war that is continuing in Afghanistan and there are many unanswered questions, there are many concerns, and basically the decision making process is very difficult right now. Whether or not to send more troops over is an obvious question, but the difficult question is whether or not this is going to help the troops there now. It easily might not work, but it also could easily work.

Since October is being labeled the deadliest month in this war, the U.S. government needs to do something about it. Should they send more troops over to protect certain cities, regional highways and the Helmand River valley? I think not. This decision is a tossup and I honestly don’t think it’s a good idea and I don’t think it will work or help. If President Obama agrees to send more troops over, it could possibly lead to more and more deaths and it could possibly extend the war way longer then we need it to. The argument President Obama’s advisers are making is if we don’t send more troops, then more people will die. But, wouldn’t it only make sense if we sent more people over that there is a greater chance that our soldiers will get hurt and possibly die, because we’re now giving Afghanistan troops a larger target.

They key that our U.S. government needs to take into considerations is by keeping our troops best interest in mind. As well as really thinking about if our country needs this. I think we don’t need this at all. We need to protect our troops and soldiers. Even though they want to send these new troops to these specific cities in Afghanistan, we can still do that now with our remaining troops over there. We do not need back up or any more troops to be sent. And if we don’t send troops over there it is going to save more people as well as having the remaining troops over there fight it out, and a major factor is that it will save the U.S. money.

This is a huge gamble our government has to take and I think they’re really going to screw up things if they send more troops. The outcome is unpredictable and it is a choice the government has to make. I hope they make the right choice by not sending more troops over so we can end this war as soon as possible.

In the LA times this editorial the price of overdraft protection it is basically saying that those who cannot keep up with the amount of money in their account should be warned before they overdraft in their account. Now, I am not saying that the overdraft fees aren’t expensive, because they certainly are. I am saying that I think it is irresponsible that people cannot keep track of their bank account statements. Therefore, those people shouldn’t be notified before they are about to overdraft. Towards the end of the editorial it is explaining that in order to avoid an overdraft fee, they would have to make a merchant check the bank authorization before approving or declining the debit card so that person can cancel the transaction if there is not enough money. So if that were to happen and the system were to change and make that a rule, it is definitely encouraging fraud. I do not think a merchant should have to approve the costumer’s bank statement before the purchase regardless if it will overdraft or not. There are other solutions to this overdraft problem, for example, some banks offer a “way to save” account. This type account is formed every time someone’s card it swiped, which means every time someone makes a purchase it takes one dollar out of that account and into your way to save account. And, over time this account adds up dramatically so that it will help prevent those overdrafts. So, when you have an overdraft that is about to occur and you don’t know it, it will automatically pull from the way to save account to protect you from having an overdraft overall. I think this is an excellent solution that will be able to help people manage their money more. I do not agree that other people should check your bank statement before using your card, because that is just a lazy way to have someone else help you manage your money and tell you when and when not to use your debit card. If everyone could get an account like the way to save then this would not be considered borrowing money without knowing it, and I think it would be a huge success for banks and their customers overall.

Blog stage 2:
The 3 R’s: Responsibility, respect, restraint was the editorial published in The Miami Herald on Wednesday September 23, 2009. This editorial is about violence in schools and what leads to it. It is asking who we should get involved to lower the crime rate in school, and who we should blame on responsibility for those children. First I think it is to no blame of the parents, this is because a lot of kids do drugs or commit crime to get attention or to get accepted from their peers, which is also known as peer pressure. I don’t think the crime rate in schools has anything to do with what the kids watch on television, or what video games they play, or with what they see on the internet. I believe it’s because of who they choose to surround themselves with. The editorial talks about a stabbing at one of the schools in south Florida, but there was a stabbing at the high school I attended and there was no security or metal detectors added and there shouldn’t be. Also I do understand that these crimes happening in these schools are not ok, but I do not believe that prayer or anything of the sort should be added. I do completely agree that if a kid was to know about someone having a gun or a knife, that they should report it. Overall, I think the schools should make some changes if a crime were to happen at that specific school, but nothing drastic, and especially nothing for those schools that have had no crime at all.

President Obama released his health care spending plan explaining how it’s going to cost $900 billion. This plan may seem expensive looking at it now, but by knowing how much good it could do for our country shows that it’s ok to spend that amount on a good health care plan that will work in the near future. In my opinion President Obama is adjusting our spendings on other things so we can save that money and concentrate on the big health care plan. The health care benefits include the people who cannot afford it right now or the people who don’t have a good health care plan right now. The government is going to be able to provide health care for those who have issues with it currently, so the cost really doesn’t matter as much since we will get what we need in the end.