#8-Classmate commentary

     The commentary that caught my attention was written by Candace Fitzgerald. Her comments are in regards to the higher taxes for the wealthy that Republicans have been fighting against. She clearly describes the Democratic general views of the issue. President Obama wants Congress to approve a higher tax rate for those wealthy Americans that are making $250,000 or higher. He, along with the rest of the Democratic party, are claiming that not doing do will crash the economy. The additional taxes are intended to help reduce the deficit and allow Congress to spend more money on public services. Republicans have been against this proposed tax increase claiming that those wealthy Americans are the ones providing the jobs therefore stimulation the economy. Imposing higher taxes on the job makers will make it harder for them to fund jobs. Essentially, they are using the trickle down effect of their wealth to provide jobs for the middle class.
     This blog caught my attention because if Congress does not reach an agreement by December 31st, 2012, taxes for all Americans will increase. This in itself is a big deal. Ms. Fitzgerald's clearly sides with the Democratic view that taxes should be increased for the wealthy. Her blog is intended to fuel the fire burning with in those that already side with the Democratic party and maybe instigate a deep conversation with a hardcore Republican. Ms. Fitzgerald has shown her true party alliances by the previous blogs she has posted. I believe that most of her logic is not 100% fact, but more claims that many Democrats are currently making about Republicans. Like many Democrats and Republicans alike, I think much of what Ms. Fitzgerald is misunderstood. There is claim that the wealthy just want to keep the money to themselves, but honestly, if that was the case, why would many of them invest in providing jobs? Why would they fight to keep their businesses open? For any hardworking American that understands the value of putting your sweat and tears into your work knows that running a business can't be easy. Honestly, if the wealthy really wanted to keep the money to themselves they would not be providing jobs. I can't say that I am in 100% agreement with the Republican view, but I sure do disagree with the Democratic view that Republicans are rich snobs.

#7 - Execution Case in Ohio

In Columbus, Ohio, a judge has rejected an inmate’s claim that he should not be executed because he is obese. Death row inmate Ronald Post shot and killed a hotel clerk, Helen Vantz, in northern Ohio nearly thirty years ago and has been on death row since he was convicted of the crime. Post has asked for his execution to be delayed because his extreme weight could lead to a “torturous and lingering death.” The judge has rejected his claim because there are not enough issues to warrant a legal challenge. This is the second time that Post has asked for the delay in his execution. The first time he challenged his execution was in 1997 with similar claims. Post weighs nearly 480 pounds. There have been situations with previous death row inmates that were considered to be obese where it took hours to find the inmates veins. Post’s lawyers argue that his weight will make it difficult for the execution team to find a viable vein for lethal injection.

                The question of whether or not execution is humane punishment has been a long standing debate among many in the U.S. The U.S. has made it possible for the executions to be as humane as possible by using lethal injections, where the inmate is put to sleep before given the dose of the deadly second and third medications. So, in Post’s case, he is trying to convince the judge that because of his weight, the lethal injection would actually cause him pain during his dying moments. In other words, he’s trying to say that the lethal injection would be inhumane, therefore should be postponed until he is at a safe weight for the execution.

                The guy is on death row for a capital crime. The question that the judge is probably asking himself is whether or not it matters if Post suffers any pain at all while he is dying. He obviously had to make his decision with valid reasons behind it, but it really is a question of where the judge stands on the issue. In the United States, only 37 of the 50 states utilize the death penalty. For the people that were directly affected by the murder he committed, I’m pretty sure they could care less about how much pain Post will be in if his weight alters the process of the lethal injection. Post would need to come up with a better supported argument than just the pain issue.

#6 - Puerto Rico

     The commentary posted by my classmate is in regards to Puerto Rico voting to become the 51st state of the U.S. This caught my attention because as he stated, the nation and the nation's media were so enthralled with the presidential election that they paid little to no attention that Puerto Rico was also voting to become the 51st state. The presidential election was pretty intense and everyone's focused was who was going to be our next president. This is a thought that crossed my mind the very next day when  the media finally put some attention on Puerto Rico. I was caught by surprise.
     I think that Mr. Nooning's intended audience is everyone that had no clue about Puerto Rico, and that is a pretty large part of the nation. Even though Puerto Rico has always juggled with the decision, it's never been such a big deal to the majority of Americans such as now when 61% of the territory voted to become a state. That is pretty big news and Nooning is using this opportunity to make the readers aware of the difficult decision that Congress has to soon make. Those that are concerned about the budget should have their ears perked because of the financial burdens that could possibly be brought on by Puerto Rico. Nooning claims that the U.S. would be assuming Puerto Rico's unemployment rates and the the additional funding that would have to be sent to island. Nooning also states that there is issue over the fact that the majority of Puerto Ricans speak spanish because of the anti-immigrant sentiments of some of the states. Political parties are also playing an issue. While many believe that Puerto Rico would be a blue state, it is difficult to say which way it will swing because of the political issues that they tend to focus on. Nooning favors Puerto Rico, but is still concerned with the commitments that the U.S. will be making if Congress decides to make the island a state.
     I agree that Congress has so much to consider; however, the U.S. has been in Puerto Rico for so many years that it is about time it is made a state. According to the U.S. council for Puerto Rico, they are more concerned over equality than anything else. They believe that many of the territory's problems are a direct result of the undefined relationship between the U.S. and Puerto Rico. I believe they are right because with out knowing where they stand, they have little chance of moving forward.
   

The Nation's best interests, or self-interest?

On Friday, November 09, 2012, David Petraeus resigned as director of the CIA. Petraeus is a retired four-star general that is renowned for his leadership in Iraq and Afghanistan.  He has reportedly resigned after an FBI investigation discovered that he was having an affair with Paula Bradwell, his biographer and an Army Reserves officer. David Patraes has been married for 38 years to Holly Petraeus. There is no doubt that the act is a serious “no, no” because of the position he held. Such an act is considered a breach of security. Had a foreign government found out about the situation, Petraes and Bradwell could have been black mailed. And, this offence is enough to warrant court martial. However, despite the serious consequences of a marital affair for someone in the position of CIA Director, the timing of his resignation has stirred up questions of why now and how long did the President really know about it. Petraeus was supposed to testify about the 9/11 attacks this year in Benghazi, where terrorists attacked a U.S. consulate without ever receiving aid from the U.S. military. When news of the attacks broke, the CIA reported that it was a protest gone bad due to an anti-Muslim film. Weeks after, the truth came out that it was a deliberate premeditated attack and that CIA officials knew about it even while the attack was happening but denied sending military support to those still alive and fighting for their lives. The question about David Petraeus’ resignation is not "why did he do it", it is could there be an underlying reason why the FBI reported the information about the affair just before Patraeus was to testify about the Benghazi attack?

                The answer to that may never be known, but it is extremely suspicious. It’s possible that Patraeus had information that could be detrimental to the CIA and the Whitehouse regarding their decisions and failed cover up bogus story about the Benghazi attack. What is extremely worrisome is that Washington and our newly re-elected President have obviously determined that a marital affair is far more of a serious national security threat above a right out attack in progress on a U.S.  consulate by terrorists, especially during a presidential election where information most definitely would have hindered the chances for the incumbent to win the election. One can only hope and pray that there are some officials in Washington that have the moral standards to recognize what a serious national security breach is.

Let thy morals guide thee

So the blog I’ve chose to write on is found on The Daily Dish , and was written by Andrew Sullivan. The blog focuses on his moral beliefs and why has chosen to with hold support for the Republican candidate this election year. This blog editorial caught my attention because it puts into perspective for me why many people have chosen to support President Barack Obama this election year. I think Mr. Sullivan was reaching out to those with a moral conscious, those that truly consider who their going to vote for despite whichever political party the claim to be apart off. It also sounds like a bit of an “I’m sorry, but...” kind of article towards conservatives that read his blogs.

I’m not familiar with politics, as I’ve mentioned before, so I can’t offer much personal credibility about this author; however, I have been able to find some interesting fact about him. He is a former editor of The New Republic, has written five books, he is a speaker at universities, colleges, and civic organizations in the U.S., and is best known for his blog, The Dish. In his blog editorial, he talks about the main reasons he has decided to support the democratic candidate for this year’s election. He explains why he supports “Obamacare”, states that torture is “simply unacceptable”, and does not support a pre-emptive war against a country that has the ability to create a nuclear bomb but has not made threats to actually do so and use it. His logic is regarding all of these issues is coming from his own moral conscious. He states that the view comes from his Catholic faith and his personal challenges with a pre-existing condition that he would not be able to afford to treat if he did not have private healthcare. He believes that Mitt Romney will bring back torture into this country which Mr. Sullivan is morally against because he believes that allowing torture in the U.S. would give the green light to “every vicious dictator on the planet to do the same”. And in regards to pre-emptive war, he just doesn’t think that just because Iran has the material to make a nuclear bomb, they are still not a threat to any other country because they haven’t actually made any threats.

I appreciate what he’s going after, a clean conscious in regards to his voting, but I don’t 100% agree with his views. I don’t support the healthcare reform because I believe it can be done a different way. I can’t say that Romney won’t bring back torture, but being familiar with his views, I highly doubt it. Ryan on the other hand, well, that’s a different story. I somewhat agree with the pre-emptive war issue. No, we shouldn’t go to war with Iran simply because they can make a nuclear bomb, but I do think they should be monitored very closely.

Death Penalty

I found this editorial in the New York Times. It’s titled A Schizophrenic on Death Row. I was unable to determine the author.It briefly highlights a case in Florida where a man diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia has been given an execution sentence andthen describes how this action violates his constitutional rights. John Ferguson was on trial due to murders he committed. The Florida Supreme Court decided on Wednesday, October 17 to allow the state to proceed with his execution for next week. His lawyers stated that they will be asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. A few things that stood out to me; the editorial states that the U.S. Supreme Court would have to review the case because there are two different interpretations of what constitutes competence betweenwhat the state of Florida says and what the Supreme Court says. The Supreme Court ruled that it would be unconstitutional to execute someone who doesn’t have the ability to comprehend the penalty, but Florida requires the accused to have only an awareness of the penalty.  

​ The authors intended audience is assumedly those that are somehow related to those with mental disabilities, more specifically schizophrenia, and those that may have strong feelings about the death penalty.  For the audience that have someone in their lives with a mental disability, this is a very sensitive issue that can stir up heart breaking emotions, but those that have strong opinions either for or against the death penalty are the ones that will possibly be more vocal about their opinions on the matter at hand. The author does well to argue against the death penalty in this particular case. He or she argues that the test Florida does to determine awareness is “plainly inadequate” because the level of understanding needed for the situation is not possible by Mr. Ferguson’s delusions and that “mistaken findings” from such tests have allowed states to execute many people with mental disabilities. He or she also argues that theU.S. Supreme Court’s ruling is the “law of the land” and should extend to Florida laws. In the closing comments, the author clearly states that the Supreme Court has an obligation to explain the different standards of Florida and the Supreme Court and how Florida is in clear violation and that they should stop the execution.

​I’m pretty sure I’m against the death penalty. I don’t believe men should decide whether a man should live or die unless that person is putting others in immediate danger, such as in self-defense. And I believe it’s just too easy of an out. If undecided, I would say that if there is any doubt at all that the accused does not understand or comprehend what is going on then they should not go to the extremes of execution.  Regardless, I agree with the author. Ialso think this editorial definitely makes those that are adamantly for the death penalty rethink their stance on it.

The Supreme Court on Affirmative Action

An article I found interesting was posted on USA Today Wednesday, October 10, 2012 titled Supreme Court to weigh in again on Affirmative action. This article mainly focuses on people’s weigh in on affirmative action in light of the Supreme Court dealing with Fisher v. University of Texas.  Abigail Fisher was rejected entry to the University of Texas in 2008 and claims she was rejected because she is white. The Affirmative action takes factors such as race, religion, gender, or national origin into consideration when it comes to employment, education, and business to promote equal opportunity. This article is worth a read because it gives insight into why many people disagree with affirmative action. I think many people are ok with it so it’s interesting to see legitimate reasons why people are on the other side of the fence about it. I found it relevant to me because it got me thinking about how affirmative action affects me and my family. We’re Hispanic. I have a better chance of getting into a university because of my skin color. How is that equal opportunity? I chose this article because this case could possibly alter the course of history for the U.S.