Commentary to "Nicaragua was left in a Ditch to Die"

“Nicaragua was left in a ditch to die” is a very informative article; it comes from an author that is clearly writing to Americans and those who are just uninformed of the past actions of the United States government. J. Fonseca attempts, and very successfully, to help the reader reflect on the issues of violations of the Nicaraguan sovereignty.
The Unites States government has earned its reputation. This Government creates and dismantles anything in its path, thinking only on the benefits for the U.S. and ignoring the effects it might have on other nations.
The American Government has its reasons for applying such tactics against the communist Nicaraguan government, but is it really justified?
The United States order the placement of mines around the Nicaraguan harbors and funded the guerrillas against Nicaraguan government. The U.S. government funded the El Salvador’s attacks against Nicaragua, and suspended all trade with this country, trade that Nicaragua was largely dependent on. The U.S. was found guilty under the treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation, treaty that was signed in 1956. How ironic, the actions committed are in fact terrorism.
The United Stated therefore was found guilty under international law, but decided to declare the ruling of the International Court “questionable” as a matter of fact, the U.S. called the judges questionable, how arrogant. During the presidency of G. H. W. Bush, many contributions to Nicaragua were made with hopes of declaring the charges null, now that is questionable.
Because of the embargo placed on Nicaragua and the ongoing “civil war”, Nicaragua has become the second poorest country in Central America; well, technically north and central. Nicaragua has a GDP of 16.17 million and a per capita of 2,800. One must realize that the actions of the U.S. affected Nicaraguans; the poor always suffer the most

Economy versus Ecosystem?

Gov Perry has warned that regulating greenhouse gases would cripple Texas’ economy. President George Bush has rejected such regulations, but President-elect Barack Obama is expected to enforce strict Greenhouse gas regulations.

Gov Perry may have been a bit of an alarmist by declaring that regulation of such gases would drive the economy into a ditch, because Texas has installed more wind power than any other state.
Do Texans have to choose between a healthy future for their children and economical stability?
Investing in alternative fuels would increase jobs in the lung run ,but might have an impact on an economy that is already crippled.

“Rising concentrations of greenhouse gases produce an increase on the average surface temperature of the Earth over time” that ultimately lead to climate change as stated by the EIA.
According to the EIA, an independent agency within the U.S. Department of Energy that seeks to provide unbiased and accurate information to the public: “Fossil fuels supply 85 percent of the primary energy consumed in the United States and are responsible for 98 percent of emissions of carbon dioxide. Eighty percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions come from the use of coal and petroleum fuels.”

The United States is currently the second largest producer of CO2 with 5800 megatonnes. First place is held by china whose per capita emissions are about one quarter of those of the U.S. population, but due to a large population china’s emission is calculated around 6200megatonnes.

Something must be done to reduce the pollution we have created whether it is investing in wind power or any other alternative biofuel. This is the challenge of our generation, to protect the environment that for so long has provided humans with refuge.
Providing a safe environment for our children should not be a partisan goal, nor should it be a goal that the United States addresses alone. The United States must act as a leader in environmental policies and reach out to other nations in the search of environmental stability.

Commentary to "Why I'm Pro-Choice"

The following is a commentary to Kat Kotz's editorial "Why I'm Pro-choice. Logic."

No person can decide for a mother to be, whether she should undergo such tremendous transformation or not. Motherhood should be defined as a period of time where a woman realizes her life belongs to, not herself but her child.
Not many are willing, and or able commit to such selfless metamorphosis.

As a nation that takes pride of an Idea of separation of church and state; I have found that great deals of politicians impose their religious views upon the public. If our government acts accordingly to separation of church and state; why are we so afraid of electing a Muslim or an atheist? But that is beside the point. I believe abortion is a moral religious issue, and should be dealt accordingly to the INDIVIDUAL’S ideology.

As I prepared to make a somewhat of a knowledgeable comment on this wonderful article; I came upon the infant mortality rate of the U.S., according to the CIA World Fact Book, In which our country ranks 181(on a scale where 1 represents the nation most prone to infant mortality) Ironically the communist nation of Cuba ranks 182. Needless to say Cuba does not operate on a health program that is considered “gold standard”. As one of my classmates, the author of “Politico Going Commando”, points out public officials should focus on reducing the rate of infant mortality instead of focusing on abortion.

As I dig a little deeper I found that government has currently decreased the funding for WIC; a wonderful program that provides basic need for mothers, and young children. If public officials are decided to conserve life; why not start by providing stable conditions for the mother? By providing a suitable environment the abortion rate is prone to decrease, for women tend to consider abortion as a last resort.

As a woman I share your emotional point of view. I have found your editorial refreshing because it provides an honest opinion, that many women happen to share. I feel you made a strong argument, bringing to the table a cynicism that gets the point across. Kat Kotz clearly shows she has done her research, bringing to the table a pleasant twist.

F1 students, a better way to pay for school!

Many American citizens find college financing a very difficult task, most file for financial aid to help with the economic strain of college tuition; some rely on grants and or loans. International students on the other hand receive very little if any financial aid and are not allowed to work to pay for their school expenses; for they must show they have the funds even before the visa is granted. Mark Kantrowitz says: “You will need to show that you have enough money to support yourself”, warning the student to be prepared for what is ahead if accepted. Applicants must demonstrate financial stability; this means they must have an institution, or individual who is willing to cover the students’ expenses, and cost of living throughout the applicant’s studies. These financial facilities rarely occur in Latin America.

I believe, the number of young illegal immigrants will decrease if student visa holders are given the opportunity to pay for their own expenses, because it would be possible for more people to afford a student visa, allowing more people to come to the United States as legal students. Most immigrants come to the United States with a wish for a better life. Many often see illegal immigration as their last resort after being denied of a visa. Most illegal aliens would choose to become legal, and to improve their education therefore these individuals would obtain a better job if given the opportunity. Most individuals who wish to apply for a student visa are rejected due to insufficient funds, and lack of sponsorship.

I believe, that if these liberties and accommodations are given, the employers of such international students should be in contact with the immigration office, this way immigration offices could keep track of such students. Students would only be allowed to work if enrolled in the minimum course load for full-time student status.

Many would say; why should we facilitate the immigration to the US?, and why should we give immigrants a chance to enter our work force? I will respond as a resident student that comes from a family who supports a 22 year old F1 student Visa holder. If such student comes to the United States and completes their studies; knowledge and skills will be acquired, with this knowledge there would be no need for a person to go back to their undocumented ways. With skills and education in their sleeves, many of these students are now qualified to go back to their country of origin and be top picks for jobs in their field. Now many of us ask; why should we let them enter our workforce? Well the sad truth is undocumented workers already hold a position in our workforce, the main differences would be that they would now have to pay taxes like everybody else and it is more likely that these people would be able to obtain health insurance; this way taxpayer’s money would not pay for undocumented workers who attend public hospitals.

Although my proposal is not near perfection, something must be done to decrease the number of undocumented immigrants in our work force and in our public schools. I must say that before a radical step like the one I proposed is taken the workers and students of the US must be helped first for they are now struggling to fund college and find a stable job.

Did Obama Write Dreams From My Father?

Who Wrote Dreams From My Father? By Jack Cashill is an article criticizing Obama’s book “Dreams From My Father”. The author is insinuating Obama contracted a ghost writer to help write this now renowned book. Acquiring help from a ghostwriter is not uncommon among political figures as the author points out. John McCain himself was aided by Mark Salter when writing his memoir. Jack Cashill also declares that Bill Ayers known as a domestic terrorist is most likely the person to thank for Obama’s “Dreams From My Father”.

This article is posted in American Thinker, a blog that claims to “write for the general public out of concern for the complex and morally significant questions of the national agenda” and “there are no limits to the topics appearing on American Thinker.” A quick glance through the front page would make clear to reader that this blog is just one more of those left-wing or right-wing blogs this one just happens to be very much so on the right-wing presenting only one side of the argument to always elevate their candidate one way or another. I could not find a single article critiquing John McCain other than to encourage him to be himself and to change up his political strategy in “Will the Real John McCain Please Stand Up” and other post like this with the same message of there is still a chance.

One must conclude this blog is directed to conservatives, rooting for their presidential candidate. I have a very big issue with this post as there is no proof whatsoever, no facts, no studies, no interviews, and no tangible information. This article is based on I think, what ifs and comparisons that seem coincidental. Ok, Jack Cashill brings up a couple of points; Bill Ayers and Barack Obama seem to have somewhat similar writing styles, but in my opinion that is not a tangible proof. Many authors study other author’s projects with intentions of obtaining ideas.

Yes, Barack Obama and Ayers use similar words in occasions but how much of this can be just a mere coincidence and how much can be accredited to a biased report? Jack also discusses the inconsistencies in both books “The Dreams From My Father” by Obama and “Fugitive Days” by Ayers stating that these inconsistencies are too similar to be coincidental. The “inconsistencies” the author refers to are dates; which to me prove very little. My first impression would be that Obama and Ayers embellished their stories to make them more appealing than they really are like many authors do.

The author of this article also uses a system called QSUM or “cursum analysis” to prove Obama is not the writer of “Dreams from My Father” this system counts the words per sentence. It was up to Jack to choose the thirty sentences that where analyzed by QSUM leaving room for a biased study. I find this not proof enough not only because it was up to him to choose the thirty sentences from both books but also because Jack does not refer to any analysis confirming that the number of words per sentences is always consistent of an author.

I am not for Obama neither I support John McCain I trust neither . I’m willing to take facts into consideration but this article simply is not effective in an undecided person like me. This type of article might be highly effective in a person who is already highly skeptic of Obama’s ties. If one looks hard enough for something one can find it, whatever “it” is.

Pro Life Without Parole Or Pro Death Penalty?

Jeanne Woodford is the former director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. She is also the former warden of San Quentin State Prison. During her career of 30 years she was part of four executions; the reader may conclude she is knowledgeable and a respectable source because of her first hand experience with the issue.The author is trying to reach LA. Times readers, which tend to be on the more liberal side. Jeanne Woodford has written this article with the intention of persuading them to not consider the death row as a solution to a “safer world”. The author relies mostly on moral and sentimental values to make her case. Death penalty is a sentimental and moral driven issue, for this reason her argument is effective.Jeanne Woodford also introduces some key facts to bring the argument together. Some of the pro death penalty supporters she has encountered argue about what it was cost the tax payer to keep an inmate on a life sentence. She clarifies to the reader that performing a death execution is much more expensive than keeping a criminal in prison for life. She states that it costs the tax payer “$117 million pursuing the execution of those on death row” and “housing inmates on death row costs an additional $9,000 per prisoner per year above what it would cost to house them with the general prison population”.Jeanne Woodford gives the reader a strong example from which to conclude and form their opinions: Robert Lee Massie was imprisoned for the murder of a mother of two, during a time California was facing a temporal ban on death row. This led for the release of Massie, as she refers to him, a couple of years later he was imprisoned for murder once again this time with the sentence of death.The author tries to persuade the reader into thinking that by using the capital that is currently used on death row on assuring the mental and physical security of foster children like Massie; crimes like this could be prevented. Woodford is implying that the death row does nothing for the society and we could help prevent more episodes like those of Massie, by funding prevention methods instead of directing the capital to take a life that took another life. The United States has 38 states that currently allow the death row penalty; 37 currently hold prisoners with the intention of performing the ultimate of penalties, the death penalty; California being one of these states. The author seeks to share her experience with hopes of changing some minds, and making a difference. As voters, we hold the power to persuade our government into denying or allowing the death penalty. This is the link to the original article. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-woodford2-2008oct02,0,6847008.story

Nature and Nurture reasons of homosexuality?

Recent findings show that being “gay” is ought to ones brain anatomy. Despite advances in technology and knowledge we do not posses the key to answer how much of this is influenced by nurture, and to what degree nature affect our sexual preferences.
Neuroscientist Ivanka Savic believes she found “the most robust measure so far of cerebral differences between homosexual and heterosexual subjects”. Jerome Goldstein a well known neurologist and gay activist is interviewed about this recent findings in this article. He declares he had an attraction for the sex same at age 8. Jerome also talks about his first homosexual “experience” and how shortly after this life changing event he began his quest to fix his behavior, searching for medical and psychiatric help.
In 1991 Simon Levay was accused of being part of a “gay political agenda” after his discoveries of the dissimilarities between straight and homosexual brains particularly in the section of the hypothalamus which development is manipulated by “the levels of intrauterine testosterone”. Simon Levay discovering where found to be “nonreproducible” and “controversial” becauseof the lack of open minded individuals perhaps?
I find this article interesting and a must read for those who are still taking a prejudice stand towards homosexuals. We have traveled a long way. Up until the 1970’s homosexuality was a cause for psychiatric intervention. In some states being gay is still consider to be unacceptable neglecting the rights of many Americans whose only sin was to be a victim of nature and nurture.