http://www.news-press.com/article/20120222/OPINION/302220018/1005/ACC/Guest-opinion-Government-not-Catholic-Church-assaulting-freedom?odyssey=nav|head
The debates over abortion and contraception have often intertwined religion and politics creating two fervent and opposing sides. These touchy subjects have been renewed in recent weeks over proposals suggesting that companies, religious institutions, and so forth must mandate contraception in health care programs. Naturally, the Catholic Church, one of the leading institutions preaching responsibility and against contraception see the proposals as an assault on their faith. Those in favor of the mandate cry foul on claims of infringement of religious liberties and freedoms and say these measure are looking out for women. The article above begs to question that if a women believes she deserves contraception to be included in her healthcare, isn't it her duty to go to a place that offers such programs? Why should historically conservative institutions be forced to change core principles embedded in their foundations. In the end, the article provided an anti-proposal perspective and argues that for the benefit of tax payers and our long standing traditions, we must oppose the new proposals.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Monday, January 23, 2012
SOPA & PIPA
http://www.ted.com/talks/defend_our_freedom_to_share_or_why_sopa_is_a_bad_idea.html
In this piece Clay Shirky, a speaker for "Ted Talks" analyzes and breaks down the new proposed legislation of SOPA and PIPA regarding copy right claims and online piracy. In this lecture, the eloquent and well versed Shirky warns of the potential ramifications of these two bills if they are passed into law, the most important ones are not the most explicit. After a thorough run down on the history of the media and its push to control data dating back to 1992 with the Audio Home Recording Act (originally aimed to create discretion on legal and illegal practices) to the new legislation, SOPA and PIPA, or as I call it SPADEWRI (SOPA/PIPA Are Dangerous Especially When Regarding the Individual). What he warns of is the potential for the media reverse a centuries old concept of innocent until proven guilty to "guilty until proven innocent". Now without trial or due process the media can consider any piece of information on the internet an infringement and can censor it. As a result, in order to get off these blacklists, the media has placed a burden on us to go through the process of redeeming our material, inevitably getting us out of the equation. Shirky believes this is an incredible dangerous possibility and we must unite against and future challenges to come.
In this piece Clay Shirky, a speaker for "Ted Talks" analyzes and breaks down the new proposed legislation of SOPA and PIPA regarding copy right claims and online piracy. In this lecture, the eloquent and well versed Shirky warns of the potential ramifications of these two bills if they are passed into law, the most important ones are not the most explicit. After a thorough run down on the history of the media and its push to control data dating back to 1992 with the Audio Home Recording Act (originally aimed to create discretion on legal and illegal practices) to the new legislation, SOPA and PIPA, or as I call it SPADEWRI (SOPA/PIPA Are Dangerous Especially When Regarding the Individual). What he warns of is the potential for the media reverse a centuries old concept of innocent until proven guilty to "guilty until proven innocent". Now without trial or due process the media can consider any piece of information on the internet an infringement and can censor it. As a result, in order to get off these blacklists, the media has placed a burden on us to go through the process of redeeming our material, inevitably getting us out of the equation. Shirky believes this is an incredible dangerous possibility and we must unite against and future challenges to come.
The Strained Social Relations in a region plagued by Conflict
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/01/19/blood-and-honey-courageous
Angelina Jolie has made her film production debut not as a weapon wielding super spy, but this time on the other side of the camera. As the director of her latest film "In the Land of Blood and Honey", she adresses the deep social strains and conflict that engulfed the Balkan peninsula 20 years ago and has remained ever since. Her story recalls a period of Civil War, where Religion, politics, and nationality tore apart what once was, and is trying to retain, the most beautiful land and people in the world. In the column that I provided the link for above, Liz Braun, a columnist for the Toronto Sun, attempts to review Jolie's work and hit hard on the deep undertones of the work. "It is a story about physical and emotional survival" she writes. Indeed, how can anything last in the ugly realities of war. Braun also comments on the overall response for the film. Serbians were angry at one point and Bosniaks at another, only echoing the strains that caused the conflict to begin in the first place. Braun brings across the points and provides a solid account on the film overall.
Angelina Jolie has made her film production debut not as a weapon wielding super spy, but this time on the other side of the camera. As the director of her latest film "In the Land of Blood and Honey", she adresses the deep social strains and conflict that engulfed the Balkan peninsula 20 years ago and has remained ever since. Her story recalls a period of Civil War, where Religion, politics, and nationality tore apart what once was, and is trying to retain, the most beautiful land and people in the world. In the column that I provided the link for above, Liz Braun, a columnist for the Toronto Sun, attempts to review Jolie's work and hit hard on the deep undertones of the work. "It is a story about physical and emotional survival" she writes. Indeed, how can anything last in the ugly realities of war. Braun also comments on the overall response for the film. Serbians were angry at one point and Bosniaks at another, only echoing the strains that caused the conflict to begin in the first place. Braun brings across the points and provides a solid account on the film overall.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
The Contreversy of Race in Illegal Immigration
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2011/1028/Obama-s-illegal-immigrant-crackdown-fills-prisons-with-Hispanics
In this article, the writer Patik Jonsson touches on the issue of race through the greater sphere of the problem of illegal immigration. Jonsson has focused the bulk of his article on the specific effects felt by Hispanics on the recent crackdown on illegal immigrants. Like many other columnists, he utilizes a flurry of statistics to help show the unfortunate situation. His research and interviews revealed the Hispanic community was suffering. He analyzes this unsettling reality through a variety of contexts and comes to the conclusion that a process of "racial profiling" has been operating under the red tape of recent immigration legislation. With an effective use of quotes and dialogue from those that he had interviewed, he is able to create a necessity. The necessity for a great change in legislation that would approach this issue from a more balanced and moderate perspective.
In this article, the writer Patik Jonsson touches on the issue of race through the greater sphere of the problem of illegal immigration. Jonsson has focused the bulk of his article on the specific effects felt by Hispanics on the recent crackdown on illegal immigrants. Like many other columnists, he utilizes a flurry of statistics to help show the unfortunate situation. His research and interviews revealed the Hispanic community was suffering. He analyzes this unsettling reality through a variety of contexts and comes to the conclusion that a process of "racial profiling" has been operating under the red tape of recent immigration legislation. With an effective use of quotes and dialogue from those that he had interviewed, he is able to create a necessity. The necessity for a great change in legislation that would approach this issue from a more balanced and moderate perspective.
How far is too far? The opposition to strict immigration laws makes their case:
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/alabama-says-no-to-illegal-immigrants-1895863.html?cxtype=rss_opinion%20ForceRecrawl:%201
In this piece, syndicated columnist Esther Cepeda has some issues with recent anti-illegal immigration legislation. In this column, she cites legislation passed in Alabama and draws on recent statistics as the bulk of her support. The legislation that she is strongly against has brought about a crackdown on illegal immigrants, detaining many and deporting others back across the border. What she focuses on are the children stuck in the middle of this situation. She provides statistics that over the last few months, "over 2000 children have been missing from school", meant to draw sympathy. She then asks "But is it wrong that Alabama is sending clear messages to its illegal immigrant population about the ramifications of their choices?", a rhetorical question meant to withdraw further sympathy from her audience as no one wants to see children suffer. She then claims that the American dream is not being provided for these poor children that are going through extraordinarily difficult times. Cepeda then criticizes what she believes to be the process of "racial profiling" that is relentless and "lacks compassion". To her, this is a "fear campaign" meant to make conditions impossible for aspiring and innocent young children. She proposes radical amendments to the Alabama legislation. By fabricating a feeling of sympathy and presenting her arguments through this sympathy she is able to draw support for her call for social equality and opportunity for all.
In this piece, syndicated columnist Esther Cepeda has some issues with recent anti-illegal immigration legislation. In this column, she cites legislation passed in Alabama and draws on recent statistics as the bulk of her support. The legislation that she is strongly against has brought about a crackdown on illegal immigrants, detaining many and deporting others back across the border. What she focuses on are the children stuck in the middle of this situation. She provides statistics that over the last few months, "over 2000 children have been missing from school", meant to draw sympathy. She then asks "But is it wrong that Alabama is sending clear messages to its illegal immigrant population about the ramifications of their choices?", a rhetorical question meant to withdraw further sympathy from her audience as no one wants to see children suffer. She then claims that the American dream is not being provided for these poor children that are going through extraordinarily difficult times. Cepeda then criticizes what she believes to be the process of "racial profiling" that is relentless and "lacks compassion". To her, this is a "fear campaign" meant to make conditions impossible for aspiring and innocent young children. She proposes radical amendments to the Alabama legislation. By fabricating a feeling of sympathy and presenting her arguments through this sympathy she is able to draw support for her call for social equality and opportunity for all.
Can cracking down on Illegal Immigration have unintended concequences ?
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=17807432&s_cid=rss-148
Illegal immigration is seen as a key reason for the growing unemployment problems in the US. Some argue that illegals take the jobs of potential American workers and damage our economy. Indeed, these arguments hold some veracity, but does cracking down on illegal immigration have its own problems? Candice Madsen, a syndicated columnist working with channel 5 Utah (KSL), would suggest so. She examines this issue through the context of the American Agriculture Industry. From the sale of produce and goods to the labor required to do work, it plays an integral role in our economy. After interviews with the local farmers and observing trends, she found out the unfortunate truth. Despite over minimum wage job opportunities and high unemployment, farmers are suffering from a lack of labor resources. Since illegal immigrants, the base of labor in the agricultural industry have been removed, the farmers have been forced to navigate impossible government regulations and processes in order to find alternate sources for labor. What Madsen is suggesting is that the labor for these types of jobs simply will not come from unemployed Americans. Many have college degrees and are searching for higher end stable jobs. She argues, however, foreigners are more then willing to find opportunity and to take on these jobs and in the end she concludes that these new harsh policies on illegal immigrants need to be reconsidered. Madsen gains credibility by conducting several interviews and including the dialogue from those she spoke to. By constructing this feeling of desperation of the farmers, through dialogue and diction choices, she is able to fabricate and need for change.
Illegal immigration is seen as a key reason for the growing unemployment problems in the US. Some argue that illegals take the jobs of potential American workers and damage our economy. Indeed, these arguments hold some veracity, but does cracking down on illegal immigration have its own problems? Candice Madsen, a syndicated columnist working with channel 5 Utah (KSL), would suggest so. She examines this issue through the context of the American Agriculture Industry. From the sale of produce and goods to the labor required to do work, it plays an integral role in our economy. After interviews with the local farmers and observing trends, she found out the unfortunate truth. Despite over minimum wage job opportunities and high unemployment, farmers are suffering from a lack of labor resources. Since illegal immigrants, the base of labor in the agricultural industry have been removed, the farmers have been forced to navigate impossible government regulations and processes in order to find alternate sources for labor. What Madsen is suggesting is that the labor for these types of jobs simply will not come from unemployed Americans. Many have college degrees and are searching for higher end stable jobs. She argues, however, foreigners are more then willing to find opportunity and to take on these jobs and in the end she concludes that these new harsh policies on illegal immigrants need to be reconsidered. Madsen gains credibility by conducting several interviews and including the dialogue from those she spoke to. By constructing this feeling of desperation of the farmers, through dialogue and diction choices, she is able to fabricate and need for change.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Columnists Ahoy! - Illegal Immigration (Take 2)
http://www2.highlandstoday.com/content/2011/oct/19/LRNEWSO5-immigration-law-should-be-a-federal-not-a/
In this commentary, the columnist approaches the very controversial issue of state vs federal government authority through the context of illegal immigration. At the beginning of the article, the columnist acknowledges this issue and explains the potential ramifications if a concrete policy is not enforced and this is what leads him to his argument. He cites recently passed "anti-immigration" policy passed in Alabama and begins to dissect its details. After examining the situation on the ground, he then leads off into the effects this state policy will have on other states in the region. In the end, he establishes that an inconsistent stance on immigration held by individual states is a problem and is ineffective. He suggests that the federal government develop a firm stance on this issue and we "end piecemeal legislation."
The obvious flaw in his argument can be found in the relative inability of the federal government to pass any concrete laws whatsoever, let alone the proposals he calls for. The topic of illegal immigration is one that is largely personal and unique for certain people and areas. Some benefit by having easier integration and citizenship policies while others deal with the terrible conditions that go hand in hand. It is because of these mixed emotions that legislation on state and local levels are the most appropriate means of confronting this problem. More individual representation and more strength in the voice of the American people.
In this commentary, the columnist approaches the very controversial issue of state vs federal government authority through the context of illegal immigration. At the beginning of the article, the columnist acknowledges this issue and explains the potential ramifications if a concrete policy is not enforced and this is what leads him to his argument. He cites recently passed "anti-immigration" policy passed in Alabama and begins to dissect its details. After examining the situation on the ground, he then leads off into the effects this state policy will have on other states in the region. In the end, he establishes that an inconsistent stance on immigration held by individual states is a problem and is ineffective. He suggests that the federal government develop a firm stance on this issue and we "end piecemeal legislation."
The obvious flaw in his argument can be found in the relative inability of the federal government to pass any concrete laws whatsoever, let alone the proposals he calls for. The topic of illegal immigration is one that is largely personal and unique for certain people and areas. Some benefit by having easier integration and citizenship policies while others deal with the terrible conditions that go hand in hand. It is because of these mixed emotions that legislation on state and local levels are the most appropriate means of confronting this problem. More individual representation and more strength in the voice of the American people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)