Check the lost and found for Anwar's rights

Anwar al-Awlaki is a United States citizen currently hiding out in Yemen. Scott Shane of the NY Times writes: "the notion that the government can, in effect, execute one of it's own citizens far from combat zone, with no judicial process and based on secret intelligence, makes some legal authorities uneasy."http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/world/14awlaki.html?ref=politics
???? Can someone help me out? Are we really sentencing this man to death because of information obtained through illegal wiretapping and are not trying him in court as granted through our rights? He is, after all a United States citizen. I do understand he is a suspect to terrorism, or that's what the eavesdropping the US is telling us, but why not give him his day in court. Oh right, no legal evidence. So then should wiretapping be legal? If this man really is a threat, then legalizing wiretapping could help save millions of Americans if he is planning another 9-11. But what about those of us that aren't terrorists? Griswold v Connecticut grants us the right to privacy, so would wiretapping phone calls then not violate those rights?
But why stop there. What does it matter if we have a right to privacy if they are going to violate our right as a citizen to a trial? I really feel this issue is bigger than the economy, bigger than health care, bigger than immigration. Everything that is happening to Anwar is a violation of our rights, regardless of the fact that he poses a threat. Serial murderers and rapists also pose a heavy threat, but measures this extreme are not being taken with them. Though I don't support any acts of terrorism he might be planning, I do think the authorities should be more than just "uneasy".

I see a light at the end of the tunnel, and a raise in my future

Finally some good news! It seems like everyday for the past year the topics of the day were: 1) the weather, 2)the war 3)the economy. Well, its still hot as hell outside, and our troops are still being deployed, but more people are being employed. That's right, we're hiring! Good news for the economy, which is great as I'm really tired of hearing all the negative news feedback. A classmate of mine reports that over the past 4 months, the US has had over 573,000 jobs filled. As a bartender, I have a sense of job security; people, no matter how broke they are, will go out and drink. First general thought is "Come in friends, drown your unemployment sorrows!" However, unemployed people don't tip very well, meaning I don't get paid well, which means I don't spend well. (This isn't true, I always spend well. But for the argument's sake...) Thus, the economy continues to plummet. But with more US citizens celebrating their newly found jobs, as one of my regulars actually did just the other night, my pay goes up and the economy continues to thrive as I head straight for the mall. Now the unemployment rate is still at a heavy 9.9% due to the unemployed who are not actively seeking jobs, but we won't think about the lazy ones that won't get off the couch to try to find work. So thank you Derek, for that bit of wonderful news! I had no idea I was getting a raise this weekend!

Are Not All Men and Women Created Equal?

The fight for rights denied to same sex marriages is on its way to the Supreme Court, as citizen Nancy Gill is unable to give her spouse the same benefits that her coworkers spouses are granted simply because they are a lesbian couple http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/us/07doma.html?ref=politics. Does this argument stand a true chance in court?

Many say that it doesnt. The advocates for gay rights have little hope given the priority of other issues. How does denying human rights have low priority? Considering the recent health care reform, the subject of same sex marriages had to have come up as a topic, as many same sex couples are denied health care coverage under their spouses benefits, causing these couples to have to pay twice for coverage. Arguments against acknowledging same sex marriages are typically the same; religious freedom from having to marry such couples, children will have to recognize homosexuality at a young age, and it will change our society forever.

Granted, there are pros and cons to every decision made. I know putting myself in the position to have to explain gay relationships to a child would be quite difficult. However, is the uncomfort of America really worth sacrificing the rights of its citizens? And would we not be teaching children discrimination by denying certain people rights? Putting a child in a home with two mothers or two fathers has to have some benefits over a home with only one parent. The number of homeless children would decrease as gay and lesbian couples could adopt children and give them loving homes. Even though this fight is only for the rights of same sex couples and not for the legalization of same sex marriages, the topic has to come up that you have to recognize the marriage to recognize the rights as spouse. Civil rights should not be denied because the genders on the health insurance forms for both spouses are male or female. Benefits to cover spouses are designed to help take care of your loved ones, regardless of their sex.

An annonymous blogger writes :"A loving man and woman in a committed relationship can marry. Dogs no matter what their relationship, cannot marry. How should society treat gays and lesbians in a relationship, as dogs or humans?" Even though I'm sure this quote is referring more to the actual marriages, it points in the same direction for rights.

Obama Makes Peace in the Middle East

Recently, national security adviser Gen James Jones held a meeting at the White House where President Barack Obama made an unannounced appearance and made an impromptu speech on the war in the Middle East. As he listened attentively to all the issues brought forth, the real question of the evening remained, “was it time for the president of America to step in and outline his own peace treaty for the Middle East? It is believed that neither side is ready to come to an agreement on their own, so is it now our responsibility to get it moving? I’ve always had somewhat of an opinion to everything, but this is not as straight forward. On the one hand, the US would be responsible for ending a brutal battle between the Palestinians and Israelis. While some are worried that neither party will accept a deal, others are simply suggesting it is a situation that cannot possibly be dealt with right now. Does our nation actually have issues that are bigger and more important than making peace? Is the Middle East really in need of our assistance? What can we do to help another nation make peace? The 1978 Camp David agreements have some proof that America’s interference in a peace agreement would not be a complete bust. However, with America’s more recent unsuccessful involvement with Iraq may suggest otherwise. Should America help others at war make peace when we ourselves are battling a war with Iraq While one side tends to lean towards helping others find peace, the other would rather see Obama focus his efforts on getting our nation out of debt. President Obama has some rather large decisions to be made in the future.

Pass or Fail? How to Grade an Incomplete Assignment

How do you fairly grade an assignment that hasn't completely been finished? A colleague of mine recently attempted to grade Obama's work as president. Every article, every news station, and even Jon Stewart on Comedy Central's the Daily Show have something to say about what Obama is doing in Washington. Obama's recent project: the health care reform. Some people see it as the only thing he's been able to accomplish as president, even though he is currently working on several different major projects at once. Guantanamo Bay, the peace treaties with Russia and Israel, the war in Iraq, and the economic stimulus are only some of the changes Obama has been working on in the past year and a half. So how do you grade a project that hasn't yet reached the deadline? I can't personally say that I think Obama is doing a great job or a horrible job as president. The author of the recently written blog themselves agree that it is hard to say what will come over the next two and a half years. Obama does have some hard critics that are just waiting to see him fail, and I can see how some would be quick to fail him, the decline in the economy being the number one reason. My personal opinion, don't be too quick to deliver a grade to an assigment that hasn't been turned in yet.

http://notjustcommonknowledge.blogspot.com/

An Eye For An Eye

After reading any of opinion articles that quite honestly I could care less about, this one struck my intrest harder than I thought an article ever could.
Roger Cohen of the New York Times writes about the attack of 9/11 and the war in Iraq. I've always heard different opinions on this topic and never REALLY knew how to feel or which side to take. I remember a middle school report I had to write on "just wars" (I went to a Catholic School) and what qualifies them as just. Originally I thought, a just war must be one that essentially serves a larger purpose, such as fighting for religious beliefs or freedom. As I grew older, I found it harder and harder to justify these just wars. Is there really ever a right reason to be at war with anyone? I've heard that when someone bullies you, you should always be able to stand your ground. "Fight for what you believe in", "Stand up for yourself", "Don't show them you'll put up with that" is what I've been told. What about being a bigger person? Where are the peacemakers?
Cohen writes: "U.S. government would be outraged at such extrajudicial executions on American soil. We don’t want to live in a world where nations blow up enemies, or smother them with pillows, in other countries with which they’re not at war." I don't know about the rest of Americans, but I would prefer not to be known as a nation that "blows up our enemies". He continues to say in reference the the C.I.A. directed covert programs, "The drone strikes are concentrated on Pakistan, with which America is not at war. The Obama administration has declined to say anything about this doctrine of targeted killing." Why is this?
Americans have always had a difference of opinion when it comes to the death penalty. Do we really have the right to take the lives of others who aren't even envoled? And even for those who are, do we have the right to take their lives? Cohens article addresses the war from a standpoint I have yet to hear, and that may be because I haven't really been to involved in politics, but it is the first to really make me think. He uses strong references and great analogies that make his column relatable.
Remember, "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind".

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/26/opinion/26iht-edcohen.html?ref=opinion