Journal Question 9

9. Do you listen to any musicians that are political? If so, who?

Senator Craig "entrapped"?

Republican Senator Craig pleaded guilty to charges stemming from an attempt to solicit sexual activity in an airport bathroom in Minnesota. The plea came weeks after the arrest. He had plenty of time to consult an attorney however he stated that he felt that if he pleaded guilty he could avoid the media storm and keep his arrest quiet. He also stated he did not disclose the arrest to his wife or kids. The Republicans called for his resignation and he is now attempting to appeal his guilty plea.
The police could have, and maybe should have, employed video or audio surveillance measures to strengthen the sting operation case against Senator Craig. This would have better illustrated if this case was just an accident or if the Senator was acting in an unusual manner in an apparent attempt to solicit sexual activity in the men’s room. In a recorded interview, Senator Craig stated that he was “entrapped”. There is a common public misconception about what it actually means, by lawful definition, to be the victim of entrapment. I could not locate the definition of entrapment as defined by Minnesota statues where the crime occurred however, the definition is similarly worded in all states. I have included websites where you can read the original arrest report, listen to a taped interview and read the legal definition of entrapment. What do you think? Does it seem to you that the Senator was attempting to solicit sex in the bathroom? How does it make you feel when the leaders of our country are accused of engaging in activity that would sully their personal lives?

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0828071craig1.html

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/31/craig.entrapment/index.html

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20Statutes&SubMenu=1&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=entrapment&URL=CH0777/Sec201.HTM

Health Insure for Whom?

Recently, President Bush vetoed a bill that expand budget for health care insure for children that are not eligible for Medicaid. Days ago, in an interview on NPR, a woman stated that her child, Taylor, did not qualify for Medicaid because she was working and making money. She, then asked, if she should quit her job in order to get insurance for her child. I do not know the specific requirements to be eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP, but I think that there are many children that do not have health insurance and it is sad that this happens in The United States which is a wealth country with many resources. Why do they (the working poor) not have health insurance? Is it because they are very poor? Or is it because their parents earn sufficient money to feed them, to dress them, but cannot purchase private health insurance? Nothing is perfect, but if you are working trying to provide for your family, you should not have to choose between the things you need to survive or having health insurance for you and your family

Plague to School System, or Making Young Men's Dreams Come True?

I came across this article on students getting 'molested' by teachers. This instantly reminded me of a stand up comedy routine that was not only hilarous, but slightly truthful. Now, I'm totally against some dirty bastard touching elementary school, or even middle school kids--I mean that is just sick (though this is mainly what the article was talking about). However, when it comes to high school aged kids I think things get a little blury. Now I can totally see a young girl getting tricked into sex or raped, but serioulsy, some of these female teachers that are getting busted for "raping" or "molesting" guys is just crazy (this is where I was reminded of the stand up routine, and I agree with it). On this, name a single heterosexual, or even bisexual, male who would turn down sex with a female teacher (unless she is really old)?? I don't know of any. I don't know, I just think it is kind of scketchy that these kids are coming out and suing the schools orthe teachers or reporting it. Is that just me?

SCHIP veto override

The current vote to override the president's veto of the SCHIP program is good evidence of the partisanship going on in Congress today. Not to mention the logical fallacies and poor judgement. Democratic Representative Pete Starks stated the following during a passionate floor speech; "Where are you going to get that money? Are you going to tell us lies like you're telling us today? Is that how you're going to fund the war? You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old, enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement," Stark said.
I can understand that he is passionate about health care for children and that he is vehemently opposed to the war in Iraq, but a tirade like this is uncalled for. He could have made his point more eloquently. He may have a point that the money is simply not in the budget for both programs but then he goes on to make the assertion that the United States is blowing up innocent people. He makes this statement as if innocent people are the sole target in Iraq. He then alludes that the war is killing off all of our young people, and if we could somehow find a way to allow our children to grow older, they will be sent off to war to "get their heads blown off" and all this for the "president's amusement". I think we are all smart enough to know that the war in Iraq is not killing off all of our young people. And not everyone who deploys to Iraq will have their "heads blown off". Lastly, I would wager that the president does not find it one bit amusing.
Just in case you would like to see the difference in how this story was covered I have attached articles from a liberal and a conservative source.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303119,00.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/washington/19health.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Science shows whites are smarter than blacks!?

Dr. James Watson is a Nobel prize winner for his work and study in DNA. He was recently quoted as saying, "he's "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours -- whereas all the testing says not really."
He also stated that while he would like to believe that all people are created equal, "people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true."
Dr. Watson apologized stating, "To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologize unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief."
Was Dr. Watson quoted incorrectly, misunderstood or does he believe that whites, in general, are superior to blacks? What do you think?
Below are several links to sources publishing the story.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article2630748.ece

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303432,00.html

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-liwats1019,0,1054521.story?coll=ny_home_rail_headlines

Negitave News

In POS2001, I learned the mass media reports on bad news more than good. This draws more viewers and overall makes the station more money. Every time I sit down to watch the news, I see car bombings, people being blown away, women and children dying, stories spun against Bush. Shortly after 9/11, there were more politicans and Americans alike in favor of the war on terror. As the war progressed, more and more are against it. I am wondering if all of this negitave media has played a role in the oppostiton of the war? If there were bits about the progress being made in Iraq, would the president's approval ratings be higher and would more Americans be in favor of the war?

Money Wasted

Presidental canidates spend so much money, millions, on campaigns. There are countries so much worse off than us out there that could use that money for medicine, food, shelter or clothing. I think we should tone it down a notch and give to countries less fortunate. What about the inaugurational ball? Millions are spent on it every year. We know who's president, so why must this money be wasted on a party? Give it someone who needs it!

No Spanish Allowed

An elementary school in Kansas has made it against the rules for students to speak Spanish during school time. English is the only language that can be spoken. The reason for this ruling is that a group of students refused to speak English to teachers and a few students thouht a group of Spanish speaking students were making fun of them. I think this is violating the free speech rights of these children. It's AMERICA!!! People can speak any language they want. The school has a descipline problem to deal with not a Spanish problem!

What's the big deal?

I was reading about democrats questioning the new attorney general about whether or not the U.S. uses torture techniques. They talked about waterboarding. This is where we put a piece of cloth over the terrorist's face and pour water on it to make him feel like he's drowning. I guess what I'm asking is what's the big deal? We're not harming them by doing this and it's not going to kill them. We aren't drawing and quartering these people. If the U.S. does indeed do this, and it makes terrorists give up informaiton that will save American lives, then what's so bad?

Industrial Hemp

Two ND farmers are suing the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) because they believe it's their right as Americans to grow industrial hemp. Industrial hemp is different from marijuana in that it won't get one high. Industrial hemp doesn't contain as much THC; the drug in marijuana that gets smokers intoxicated. Industrial hemp is used to make textiles, paper, construction materials, car parts, food and body care products. Although I agree with the farmers and think they should be allowed to grow it, because it doesn't get anyone high, it is the law and I think the DEA is doing its job. I don't think the DEA is imposing on anyone's rights.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/17/pip.hempregulation/index.html?iref=newssearch

Journal Questions

TCC students, you can submit these any time before Wednesday and receive no late penalties. Chipola students, these are due next Monday.

7. Who do you support in the upcoming presidential election and why?

8. Where, specifically, do you get your news from? Use specific names of shows, channels, newspapers, websites, etc.

Brainwashing or Journalism?

It has been said throughout the centuries, that if you repeat something enough times, people will start to believe it. This happens in politics, ALL THE TIME!

It was one of Hitler's favorite tactics, called,"the big lie", and we saw it again recently when George W. Bush and Colin Powell (who testified in front of the U.N., and later on T.V. acknowledged his regrets) claimed that Iraq had WMD. As it has been unequivicably been proven, Hussien never had WMDs. But it was all over the media. Of course, no one acknowledged on the mainstream media that independant investigators for the U.N. concluded before the war that Saddam wasn't developing WMDs. Coincedentally, one of those investigators, committed suicide. If anyone still believes the WMD story, please research your findings!

Now the same network(s) are starting up the same stories about Iran. Believe me when I say this, that I have no liking for the things that take place in Iran. But what I dislike even more, is the stirring up of the hornets nest that is currently taking place in this country, this time against Iran. Particulary, the Fox News Network, who helped GW gain public support for the war in Iraq, now is starting to bash the same ol' war drums, this time on Iran.

And what I dislike the most, is to see people blindly follow what they have been told without question.

So my question to all of you is, does the news brainwash us or provide us with good journalism? I have seen a decline in journalism. Even in such prestigeous publications like the NY Times, I have seen reporters go from reporting the news to telling stories as if they are trying to write a best selling novel.

I believe that Fox is trying to brainwash us. Not that the other stations aren't doing it, but Fox in particular is laying it on heavy. Why? Is that really what journalism is about? Telling you what to think rather than letting you decide? And to think that their slogan is "fair and balanced." They are popular, because they tell you what you want to hear! People want to vent their anger on someone. And Fox does that for us.

If anyone is interested there is a website, who currently is being blacklisted by our government for exercising their constitutional rights, called MoveOn.org that has an interesting article about Fox. https://civ.moveon.org/donatec4/foxattacksiran.html/?rc=fox_attacks_iran_frontpage&r=2916

Time will tell. I knew well beforehand, that we were going to invade Iraq. How? Not because we had reasons, but because I studied the mainstream media and saw that they were beating the war drums. I would have been shocked if we didn't invade. Now I fear that innocent lives, including our brave soilders, are going to be killed, because the war drums of the media, are pounding again.

As our professor has stressed, get your information from more than one source. And please, don't always believe what you see or hear or read. Remember who your source is. Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox and much more, has a history of trash journalism. When I lived in NYC, he purchased the New York Post, a respectable newspaper, created by Alexander Hamilton, yes, the A. Hamilton! It now is the equivalant to The National Enquire, shortly after his taking it over.

A woman for president?

A couple of weeks ago, I was driving down the road and read a bumper sticker on the back of a van that said "AnyoneButHillary.com". I thought it was pretty funny and I wasn't surprised at all that someone would make a website like that.

I'm not too sure who I'm going to vote for in the next election, but I know it is not going to be for Hillary. I grew up in a conservative family, but I dont always vote for the conservative candidate. Needless to say, my family didnt vote for Bill Clinton when he was running. I've been told by many people that Hillary was the backbone to Bill. Her ideas went through him, what he said was her words, what he did was her actions. Everyone knows that Hillary has always wanted to be president.

Regardless of who she is, I believe the United States isn't ready for a woman president. Socially, I know the structure of our society is changing and anything can happen, but a big change like having a woman as our president is kind of scary. What are some of the things that could happen if other countries thought of the U.S. as less powerful and less dominant if a woman was leading our country? What do you think about having a woman as our president?

Welfare Data From Class

Here is the data from the contended remarks in class about welfare and its recipients:

DHHS:

Recipients (with few exceptions) must work as soon as they are job ready or no later than two years after coming on assistance.

Also note that the maximum lifetime benefits are five years:

Families with an adult who has received federally funded assistance for a total of five years (or less at state option) are not eligible for cash aid under the TANF program.

Note that there are exceptions to these rules, particularly at the state level. States that do not force recipients to comply with these rules can be penalized.

Also from DHHS:

Half (50 percent) of TANF spells for individuals entering the program between 2001 and 2003 lasted 4 months or less, compared to 30 percent of AFDC spells beginning between 1992 and 1994 (See Indicator 7).

I was a bit off in class. 50% of recipients are on TANF for less than four months and 74% are less than a year, rising to 84% for 20 months or less. The other major welfare programs -- Food Stamps and SSI -- do not have the same time limits on them and they have longer spells of use.

Some students had the concern that putting people on welfare enables them to become poor and increases poverty. Research shows otherwise. Log in to JSTOR and read the following article if you'd like to read more: Welfare Spending and Poverty: Cutting Back Produces More Poverty, Not Less, Sanford F. Schram, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 50, No. 2 (Apr., 1991), pp. 129-141. Abstract

The "New Consensus" on welfare expresses the idea that the major problem in social welfare is dependency, not poverty. Much of the evidence for this perspective has come from trend line data indicating that over time poverty did not evaporate in the face of increases in social welfare spending. Using various measures of the "dependent" poor, the empirical analysis presented suggests that reducing welfare expenditures relative to need does not produce less poverty and dependency.

Total welfare spending for the poor is $362 billion (out of a $3 trillion dollar budget). Direct subsidies to corporations are about $172 billion and Social Security (84% of which doesn't go to the poor) equals more than $600 billion -- that alone is already twice as much as all programs for the poor and we've only touched the tip of the iceberg in social welfare for the nonpoor. Check out the books The Government Racket and The Tax Racket by Martin L. Gross for more.

Is it getting a little hotter in here?

I grew up in a very large city, in fact, the largest city in the United States. One side effect of this lifestyle was and still is pollution. I grew up looking down the avenue on hot sweltering summer days seeing nothing but black clouds hovering over the streets. It was not my ideology that was imagining this, it was real. Scienctists knew back then that pollution was harmful to all living creatures.

All through the years, it just amazed me how so many people have actually argued about human contribution to global warming. And what is even more astounding, is that there are actually people still who think that this latest global warming trend has nothing to do with human activities.

The U.S. Government has resisted for many years acknowledging what many other countries have already discovered years ago, that human pollution into the environment is contributing to the latest warming trend. So my concern is why our government is taking so long to face up to an extremely critical issue? An issue that goes far beyond corporate profit. After all, if we are all dead because our environment can't substain life anymore, what use is money.

Do we need any proof from "experts" to tell us that what we are doing to our environment is very harmful, not to the Earth, but to us! The Earth will survive. Its not the planet that is on its way out, it is us.

Another question, why is it that the some of the same people who argue against human contribution to global warming see those that are not in denial of global warming as "tree-hugging" hippies, or liberals? What does ideology have to do with this issue?

I believe it is time we all stop being in denial and start helping "our" situation. Is it not instinctual for all, or most, species, to want to survive, not only for the individual, but to continue the species? And wouldn't it be considered suicide or murder if we go against that natural instinct?

If anyone wants to check out an interesting website about the climate change and how we can start making a difference, then go to http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/.

Blackwater: Private Security Contractors

For those who aren't familiar with them, Blackwater Training Facilities is a private company that is contracted for undisclosed purposes across the world. Currently over 1,000 contractors are employed in Iraq to support the U.S. military. Contractors are held accountable for anything that happens to them while engaged in a job and no responsibility is held by the company itself.

Recently one woman, the mother of one of these contractors, is suing Blackwater to take responsibility for the poor equipment that her son received while in Iraq. Her son, an ex Navy Seal and 3 others were killed while on a mission. Many detest Blackwater's involvement in the war because they are not an official military and are not forced to adhere to the same laws and morals as the military does. Some feel they are a dangerous and unchecked private army.

I believe Blackwater should be more open about its operations and take more responsibility in the people they employ in the field. And although they may be a necessary evil in a war torn environment I think more checks and government should be in order. However, this may be a difficult task because Blackwater helps fund the republican party and undoubtedly has connections within upper levels of government.

How do you feel about the use of hired contractors in Iraq? Do you think they might do more interference with military operations than support? Should they be held more accountable for the men they hire and the equipment they supply them?

Inside from Iraq

I got an email from one of my friends that is stationed in Iraq the other day that he sent to many people, letting us know how he was, and the real conditions of the war. Among other things, he shared that things are VERY different from what the news and the politicians portray them to be. He also said, "It hurts to hear the politicians say,'we can't win this war'". I can only imagine! Whether or not we agree with our country being over there is not the issue. We must support these soilders not matter what! They are risking their lives daily becasue our country asked it of them. I can't type the whole email, but some of the statistics made me cringe, they are so brave! So, I just wanted to let you all know that things aren't always what others say they are. And, I also wanted to ask a question: why doesn't the news and the politicians show us both sides of the war, why is it so one-sided? Because of his email, I have a totally new perspective of the war in Iraq! I wish everyone could see both sides!