I thought since the blog discussions were going stale, I'd post this just to revive it a little and to take any special requests for tomorrow's pizza night. If anyone's allergic to any particular topping or has a craving for anything in particular, respond to this with your likes/dislikes (I'm getting 5 larges from Papa John's). Drinks are going to be up to you to bring, since the pizza is breaking my allotted budget for the class and then some.
Also, is everyone doing well with the research paper? I've had a couple of emails on general problems/issues, and if you're still having difficulties on this-and-that, now's the time to get those pesky *little* qualms out of the way... Just respond to this on the blog discussions (if you think everyone can benefit from it) or send an email my way. Either way is fine.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Paris Hilton -- above the law?
On September 7, 2006, Paris Hilton was pulled over by a Los Angeles Police Officer for driving under the influence of alcohol. After giving her a breathalyzer test, the police found that her blood-alcohol level registered at .08. Hilton pleaded not guilty for the DUI and accepted a lesser charge for reckless driving, the punishment being 36 months probation, a $360 fine, and attending an alcohol rehabilitation program.
An additional charge was added to Hilton's sentence, suspending her license from November to March. During that time, Hilton repeatedly violated her probation by driving. On May 4, 2007 Hilton was sentenced to 45 days in jail for the violation with a minimum of 23 days to be served contingent upon good behavior.
On the night of June 4, 2007 Hilton reported to the Century Regional Detention Facility in Lynwood, California. The conditions of her imprisonment consisted of being isolated in a 12 by 8 foot cell for 23 hours a day. She was allowed one hour for recreational activity that could involve showering, talking on the prison phone, or watching television. After serving a reported "5 days" (3 days, in actuality) in the prison, Hilton was released and given orders to be held under house arrest for the remainder of her sentence.
She was released today because of an undisclosed medical condition.
(Source: http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20041354,00.html & http://www.people.com/people/article/0,20038364,00.html)
Group Responses:
No one is above the law, not even Paris Hilton. This case infuriates me because it shows the break down of our judicial system. Bascially, our system says if someone has enough money, he or she does not have to abide by the law. Paris Hilton should be readmitted to the prison and shown that if she breaks the law, she has to suffer the consequences.
(Carrie Henry)
I believe her original sentence was fair-45 days in jail and 23 for good behavior, but I think that Paris being released after 3 days and then to finish her sentence under house arrest in a mansion is absurd. She should have been forced to finish out her sentence in jail like any other person, especially after her blatant disregard for her probation. It wasn't as if she couldn't afford a chauffeur for the six months her license was suspended -- she just wanted to prove the point that she can get away
with whatever she wants. By letting her serve her "punishment" out in a mansion, it appears she succeeded!
(Courtney Ball)
According to People magazine, Paris Hilton stated that "no one is above the law. I surely am not. I do not expect to be treated better than anyone else who violated probation..." If this wasn't Paris Hilton, let's say that it's me, I have a feeling that I would be in jail now and be in there for AT LEAST 23-45 days. Drunk driving is drunk driving, and I feel that there should not be be any way around it. Paris could feel "invincible" now, and she might actually cause people to be in danger the next time.
Besides that, I dislike Paris with a passion, so that may have swayed my point of view a little, but it's still not fair, regardless.
(Kimberly Ann Saunders)
I think that Paris receiving the minimal sentence was beyond fair. This was the chance for the judicial system to show that they have no mercy on celebrities, that every one is created equal. Instead, they showed to the world that celebrities can bend the law and get away with harsh punishment. Nicky Hilton, Paris' sister, stated in People Magazine that "(She) should be punished, but going to jail for a traffic violation is pretty absurd." If Paris would have said that, it would have made more sense since she is a high school drop-out, but Nikki should know better.
(Allison Gunter)
Friday, June 1, 2007
Life or Death?
In the United States, thirty-eight states have crimes punishable by the Death Penalty and Florida is one of them. In Florida, crimes that are punishable by the Death Penalty are first degree murder, felony murder, capital drug trafficking, and capital sexual battery. The three methods of executions used in recent years are via gas chambers, lethal injection, and electrocution.
Recently, the Florida Supreme Court reduced death sentence to life without parole for people with mental illnesses.
(http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=144&scid=10)
* Should all the states abolish the Death Penalty or keep it?
* Should people with mental illnesses receive the Death Penalty?
I have read numerous articles on the death penalty, and I found many pros and cons on this issue. There are many who agree that the death penalty should be dissolved, and there are some who feel that it is a just punishment for the people who deserve it. However, who is to say that the person who is condemned as a murderer is actually guilty or innocent? I found myself wondering, what if the person is innocent? Like the case with Byron Halsey who escaped a death sentence in New Jersey in 1988. Officials found DNA evidence that proved his innocence and found the perpetrator to the sexual assault and murder of the two young children, Halsey's supposed victims. I also came across stories of Jeffrey Dahmer, a notorious serial killer who admitted to his crimes and was not placed on death row but was later killed in jail by his inmates. Police found plenty of proof to condemn him to the death penalty, yet they did not. I found it unlawful that they would allow such a murderer to continue to live in this world after all of the innocent lives he took. I feel he deserved to die... and his inmates obviously felt the same way. I honestly feel that if a person can truly be proven guilty, as in the case with Dahmer, then the death penalty is the only fair thing to do, but if there is a reasonable doubt, then we should definitely not kill someone who might have a chance to be proven innocent. (Shirley R.)
My opinion on the death penalty is open. I believe that it depends on the situation and if the perpetrator really committed the crime. I think that it shouldn’t be taken lightly, for it is a serious matter. I don’t think that those who suffer from mental illnesses should get the death penalty because they don’t know what they are doing. They should be under close moderation to make them well, so that they could either get the death penalty or serve the time they should get when they are in a reasonable state of mind. (Shelby McGahan)
I do not believe in the death penalty. I personally find it immoral and unethical to kill someone when he or she can be removed from society without resorting to capital punishment. Sure, there is the possibility of escape or granting a parole due to an overlooked clerical error.
Many states still practice the death penalty. This surprises me considering the costs involved in bringing the accused through the court system to become the inmate on death row. Trial, sentencing and execution sound simple enough, but there is a lot more to it than that. There is the appeals process, which usually takes years and costs the taxpayers millions of dollars. Conversely, life imprisonment without parole will cost only hundreds of thousands of dollars. For example, “The (Timothy) McVeigh case cost taxpayers more than $100 million (the defense spent nearly $20 million, and the government spent more than $80 million)” (Bloom 70). DNA is not infallible, so there is that small percentage of erroneous test results. A tiny fraction of those tests could be correct but mistakenly prove that the accused is guilty. DNA is often critical in post-trial testing to prove the innocence of inmates with a death sentence.
“The (Innocence) Project has represented or assisted… including several death penalty cases, where convictions have been reversed or overturned.” (189). More information about the Innocence Project can be found at their website. http://www.innocenceproject.org/. (Mark Wheeler)
I believe that the Death Penalty should be in every state; however, I think that people who murder are the only people who should receive the death sentence. If you murder someone, you should be murdered. I think the same about people with mental illnesses. It is a sad thing, but I think you should get what you deserve.
(Travis White)
Recently, the Florida Supreme Court reduced death sentence to life without parole for people with mental illnesses.
(http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=144&scid=10)
* Should all the states abolish the Death Penalty or keep it?
* Should people with mental illnesses receive the Death Penalty?
I have read numerous articles on the death penalty, and I found many pros and cons on this issue. There are many who agree that the death penalty should be dissolved, and there are some who feel that it is a just punishment for the people who deserve it. However, who is to say that the person who is condemned as a murderer is actually guilty or innocent? I found myself wondering, what if the person is innocent? Like the case with Byron Halsey who escaped a death sentence in New Jersey in 1988. Officials found DNA evidence that proved his innocence and found the perpetrator to the sexual assault and murder of the two young children, Halsey's supposed victims. I also came across stories of Jeffrey Dahmer, a notorious serial killer who admitted to his crimes and was not placed on death row but was later killed in jail by his inmates. Police found plenty of proof to condemn him to the death penalty, yet they did not. I found it unlawful that they would allow such a murderer to continue to live in this world after all of the innocent lives he took. I feel he deserved to die... and his inmates obviously felt the same way. I honestly feel that if a person can truly be proven guilty, as in the case with Dahmer, then the death penalty is the only fair thing to do, but if there is a reasonable doubt, then we should definitely not kill someone who might have a chance to be proven innocent. (Shirley R.)
My opinion on the death penalty is open. I believe that it depends on the situation and if the perpetrator really committed the crime. I think that it shouldn’t be taken lightly, for it is a serious matter. I don’t think that those who suffer from mental illnesses should get the death penalty because they don’t know what they are doing. They should be under close moderation to make them well, so that they could either get the death penalty or serve the time they should get when they are in a reasonable state of mind. (Shelby McGahan)
I do not believe in the death penalty. I personally find it immoral and unethical to kill someone when he or she can be removed from society without resorting to capital punishment. Sure, there is the possibility of escape or granting a parole due to an overlooked clerical error.
Many states still practice the death penalty. This surprises me considering the costs involved in bringing the accused through the court system to become the inmate on death row. Trial, sentencing and execution sound simple enough, but there is a lot more to it than that. There is the appeals process, which usually takes years and costs the taxpayers millions of dollars. Conversely, life imprisonment without parole will cost only hundreds of thousands of dollars. For example, “The (Timothy) McVeigh case cost taxpayers more than $100 million (the defense spent nearly $20 million, and the government spent more than $80 million)” (Bloom 70). DNA is not infallible, so there is that small percentage of erroneous test results. A tiny fraction of those tests could be correct but mistakenly prove that the accused is guilty. DNA is often critical in post-trial testing to prove the innocence of inmates with a death sentence.
“The (Innocence) Project has represented or assisted… including several death penalty cases, where convictions have been reversed or overturned.” (189). More information about the Innocence Project can be found at their website. http://www.innocenceproject.org/. (Mark Wheeler)
I believe that the Death Penalty should be in every state; however, I think that people who murder are the only people who should receive the death sentence. If you murder someone, you should be murdered. I think the same about people with mental illnesses. It is a sad thing, but I think you should get what you deserve.
(Travis White)
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
FCAT: Is it fair to all who must take it?
The FCAT (Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test) is a state mandated test that is administered to students in third through eleventh grade. Its purpose is to bring about success in learning. It is assumed that it will have that result because the standards of education have (supposedly) been raised. The FCAT focuses on mathematics, reading, science, and writing from the Sunshine State Standards (SSS) as well as norm-referenced tests (NRT) in reading and mathematics, which are used to measure each child’s performance against others his or her age at the national level.
Kenneth, Trinell and I (Kelly) do not feel that is actually accomplishing any of the goals that it was mandated to do.
(Primary Source: http://fcat.fldoe.org/)
The state of Florida requires third graders to pass the state mandated FCAT, or Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test. In the 3rd grade, the children must have higher than a level one in order to pass to the next grade. These children will fail that grade, regardless of their grades during the entire school year, if they do not pass the test. Also, it should be taken into consideration that some children do not test well.
In 2007, more than 33,000 students -- up from 6,000 students -- will have to repeat the 3rd grade. Although our former governor professed an idealized concept of “no child left behind,” many children were, literally, left behind when they did not successfully meet the requirements of FCAT. Congress should ensure that our children have every opportunity that they are entitled to in life. Not passing the FCAT will hinder them by having them adopt a stigma of "failure." (Kenneth Clayton)
(Source: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1417313)
I do not believe that the FCAT is a "fair" test. There are children who take the test and are from a poorer demographic (such as migrant workers) or have a slight learning disability. They do not have the same advantages as those who are in stable, permanent homes or have the financial resources to receive extra help. Also, as Kenneth pointed out, there are children who simply do not test well. For those children, the pressure put upon them can be overwhelming, causing them to fail.
Additionally, since the test has become such an important part of the curriculum, it seems that educators only “teach for the test” and other subjects lose precedence. As a result, I feel that the FCAT does not prepare the student for the real world.
Schools also receive extra funding if their students pass the FCAT. Therein lies another problem. For example, if your child happens to be at a school whose students, as a whole, failed the test, he or she will have to suffer with limited resources and lower-skilled teachers. That causes a vicious cycle of failure. If a school is not given the financial resources to improve, usually they will never improve. (Kelly Slocum)
Source: http://www.fcarweb.org/
I believe the FCAT is biased against people who live in poor communities. Also, it is unfair that a student would have to pass the FCAT to graduate. Students today have a better chance passing the SAT or ACT. For many years, students have taken the SAT or ACT successfully and went on to college. I don’t understand why a student would have to pass the FCAT, when the SAT and ACT have been around for such a long time. It has not been proven that passing the FCAT makes the student any smarter than passing the SAT or ACT. Because of the FCAT, many students have failed or believe they would never graduate from college. In a July 24, 2006 Lakeland Ledger article about seniors setting an FCAT "failure record," it showed that in Polk County alone 418 seniors received a certificate of completion, which is given to students who don’t pass the FCAT. They represent 10.7 percent of district seniors. Superintendent Gail McKinzie said "more Polk high students may be failing because the district is not doing a good job teaching some of the items tested." (Trinell Webster)
Source: http://www.theledger.com/
Kenneth, Trinell and I (Kelly) do not feel that is actually accomplishing any of the goals that it was mandated to do.
(Primary Source: http://fcat.fldoe.org/)
The state of Florida requires third graders to pass the state mandated FCAT, or Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test. In the 3rd grade, the children must have higher than a level one in order to pass to the next grade. These children will fail that grade, regardless of their grades during the entire school year, if they do not pass the test. Also, it should be taken into consideration that some children do not test well.
In 2007, more than 33,000 students -- up from 6,000 students -- will have to repeat the 3rd grade. Although our former governor professed an idealized concept of “no child left behind,” many children were, literally, left behind when they did not successfully meet the requirements of FCAT. Congress should ensure that our children have every opportunity that they are entitled to in life. Not passing the FCAT will hinder them by having them adopt a stigma of "failure." (Kenneth Clayton)
(Source: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1417313)
I do not believe that the FCAT is a "fair" test. There are children who take the test and are from a poorer demographic (such as migrant workers) or have a slight learning disability. They do not have the same advantages as those who are in stable, permanent homes or have the financial resources to receive extra help. Also, as Kenneth pointed out, there are children who simply do not test well. For those children, the pressure put upon them can be overwhelming, causing them to fail.
Additionally, since the test has become such an important part of the curriculum, it seems that educators only “teach for the test” and other subjects lose precedence. As a result, I feel that the FCAT does not prepare the student for the real world.
Schools also receive extra funding if their students pass the FCAT. Therein lies another problem. For example, if your child happens to be at a school whose students, as a whole, failed the test, he or she will have to suffer with limited resources and lower-skilled teachers. That causes a vicious cycle of failure. If a school is not given the financial resources to improve, usually they will never improve. (Kelly Slocum)
Source: http://www.fcarweb.org/
I believe the FCAT is biased against people who live in poor communities. Also, it is unfair that a student would have to pass the FCAT to graduate. Students today have a better chance passing the SAT or ACT. For many years, students have taken the SAT or ACT successfully and went on to college. I don’t understand why a student would have to pass the FCAT, when the SAT and ACT have been around for such a long time. It has not been proven that passing the FCAT makes the student any smarter than passing the SAT or ACT. Because of the FCAT, many students have failed or believe they would never graduate from college. In a July 24, 2006 Lakeland Ledger article about seniors setting an FCAT "failure record," it showed that in Polk County alone 418 seniors received a certificate of completion, which is given to students who don’t pass the FCAT. They represent 10.7 percent of district seniors. Superintendent Gail McKinzie said "more Polk high students may be failing because the district is not doing a good job teaching some of the items tested." (Trinell Webster)
Source: http://www.theledger.com/
Friday, May 25, 2007
Pay for Performance in Customer Service
We have all expressed concerns about the decrease in good customer service in a majority of retailers. It seems that the treatment of customers is just not a priority anymore; some employees of these retailers lose their focus, are not properly taught or encouraged to respect and serve the customer, or just plain take the customer for granted. We’ve all had experiences with good and bad customer service and can say that it definitely made an impression on each of us and ultimately influences where we shop. As Jesse put it, “Customer service should definitely be a high priority, because products come in by the truck-full, but consumers (customers) are difficult to ‘restock’.”
The other major thing that we all agree on is the one retailer at which we almost always have a pleasing experience – Publix. This company caters to its customers and hires employees who feel the same way, according to Susan. They will go out of their way to accommodate a shopper; they smile, are polite and courteous, and provide a very pleasant atmosphere. We have discovered one of the reasons behind this:
Publix has a “Tie Pay To Performance” policy that if an employee does not perform up to the company’s standards, his/her salary is decreased until they improve their performance. Employees are given plenty of notice to improve job performance prior to a deduction in pay. On the other hand, employees who excel in job performance are rewarded with a raise. (Good performance referring to giving excellent customer service, not making a large sales, or getting the most stock processed) Also an interesting aspect of Publix’s treatment of their workers is that part time employees have the opportunity to receive benefits (not too skimpy ones either!) and tuition reimbursements.
Now, this “Tie Pay to Performance” policy is not a brand new concept – it has helped many companies score high in customer satisfaction. Here is an interesting fact, provided by Khim: According to the ASCI (American Consumer Satisfaction Index), which began in 1994, PUBLIX Supermarkets have always ranked 1st in customer satisfaction among supermarkets, mainly because of their policy.
Our questions to you are:
Do you think “getting paid what you are worth” is reasonable treatment of employees, and do you think this directly results in better customer service?
What are some of your good/bad experiences related to this (as either a customer or an employee) and what would you do to make improvements?
(Authors: Christine Penhale, Jesse Ritter, Khim Chang, and Susan Betz)
The other major thing that we all agree on is the one retailer at which we almost always have a pleasing experience – Publix. This company caters to its customers and hires employees who feel the same way, according to Susan. They will go out of their way to accommodate a shopper; they smile, are polite and courteous, and provide a very pleasant atmosphere. We have discovered one of the reasons behind this:
Publix has a “Tie Pay To Performance” policy that if an employee does not perform up to the company’s standards, his/her salary is decreased until they improve their performance. Employees are given plenty of notice to improve job performance prior to a deduction in pay. On the other hand, employees who excel in job performance are rewarded with a raise. (Good performance referring to giving excellent customer service, not making a large sales, or getting the most stock processed) Also an interesting aspect of Publix’s treatment of their workers is that part time employees have the opportunity to receive benefits (not too skimpy ones either!) and tuition reimbursements.
Now, this “Tie Pay to Performance” policy is not a brand new concept – it has helped many companies score high in customer satisfaction. Here is an interesting fact, provided by Khim: According to the ASCI (American Consumer Satisfaction Index), which began in 1994, PUBLIX Supermarkets have always ranked 1st in customer satisfaction among supermarkets, mainly because of their policy.
Our questions to you are:
Do you think “getting paid what you are worth” is reasonable treatment of employees, and do you think this directly results in better customer service?
What are some of your good/bad experiences related to this (as either a customer or an employee) and what would you do to make improvements?
(Authors: Christine Penhale, Jesse Ritter, Khim Chang, and Susan Betz)
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Revision of Florida State Law governing DUI
Under current Florida Law, a person’s license to operate a motor vehicle will not be permanently revoked unless he or she is convicted of a DUI for a fourth time or commits manslaughter while driving under the influence. (For extended information on DUIs and specific conviction laws please see http://www.hsmv,state.fl.us/ddl/dlfaqson2a.html#1 and/or http://www.hsmv.state.fl.us/ddl/duilaws.html )
Our group feels that these laws should be revised to a “Zero Tolerance” standard of dealing with individuals convicted of driving under the influence. We feel that an individual’s driver’s license should be revoked for a minimum period of one year, without the opportunity to apply for a hardship license after the first offence and permanently revoked upon a second conviction. We realize that changes to laws like these would require changes throughout the judicial and social systems. We will address some of these issues individually, but, as a group, we adhere to the above statement.
To help prevent Driving Under the Influence:
I’m not sure how everyone feels about the bar scene and who should be held accountable for drunk drivers -- either the bar or the customer. Personally, I look at the bars to be responsible for the well-being of a customer. The bar should pick up the responsibility to call a cab and pay for the cab ride. I know bars also need to make money but not at the extent of losing a customer forever. I’m sure others have different feelings about the responsibility, but why risk the chance of a drunk driver killing a loved one? (Eddie Lopez)
To address offenders who can no longer transport themselves:
I think that the state, county and/or city governments should have to provide more public transportation. They could try running a 24 hour bus system. Another idea I had was that they could consider having violators buy bicycles and bring in the receipt to reduce their fines. This way, no matter what they have shown, they’ve proven that they do have some other way to get around without driving. (Nicki Callihan)
To prepare for the influx of prisoners:
Under the law revisions that we are suggesting, changes in the judicial system would also need to be made. Though our revisions do not specifically address it, there would be more people in the jails because of the harsher laws. Even if they are only in for a short time after being convicted, we would need more space to put them. This problem could be addressed in one of several ways. The first and most obvious way would be to build more jails. I think that a better plan would be to determine the average number of convictions for an existing jail’s area and set out a part of it for the influx of inmates. (Garrett Sheumaker)
Our group feels that these laws should be revised to a “Zero Tolerance” standard of dealing with individuals convicted of driving under the influence. We feel that an individual’s driver’s license should be revoked for a minimum period of one year, without the opportunity to apply for a hardship license after the first offence and permanently revoked upon a second conviction. We realize that changes to laws like these would require changes throughout the judicial and social systems. We will address some of these issues individually, but, as a group, we adhere to the above statement.
To help prevent Driving Under the Influence:
I’m not sure how everyone feels about the bar scene and who should be held accountable for drunk drivers -- either the bar or the customer. Personally, I look at the bars to be responsible for the well-being of a customer. The bar should pick up the responsibility to call a cab and pay for the cab ride. I know bars also need to make money but not at the extent of losing a customer forever. I’m sure others have different feelings about the responsibility, but why risk the chance of a drunk driver killing a loved one? (Eddie Lopez)
To address offenders who can no longer transport themselves:
I think that the state, county and/or city governments should have to provide more public transportation. They could try running a 24 hour bus system. Another idea I had was that they could consider having violators buy bicycles and bring in the receipt to reduce their fines. This way, no matter what they have shown, they’ve proven that they do have some other way to get around without driving. (Nicki Callihan)
To prepare for the influx of prisoners:
Under the law revisions that we are suggesting, changes in the judicial system would also need to be made. Though our revisions do not specifically address it, there would be more people in the jails because of the harsher laws. Even if they are only in for a short time after being convicted, we would need more space to put them. This problem could be addressed in one of several ways. The first and most obvious way would be to build more jails. I think that a better plan would be to determine the average number of convictions for an existing jail’s area and set out a part of it for the influx of inmates. (Garrett Sheumaker)
Friday, May 18, 2007
The Great Debate for 2008
It seems in recent years, the Presidential Election has become more of a spectacle than a duty and more of an obligation than a right. From the slanderous debates to the embarrassing “Florida Recount,” it’s becoming increasingly difficult to take the elections as seriously as generations past. Many voters today view voting as a nuisance and dread pretty much every aspect of the process except for the final announcement of concession, which, in recent elections, has generated more drama than any soap opera on television. It’s confusing to voters as to whom they should side with and vote for. Many voters are stuck in political limbo...not us. In the blog below, Cassie, Natasha, Collin, and I have decided whom we would or would not vote for, with a little background as to why and would like to extend the same question to you:
How do you feel about the presidential candidates, and whom would you vote for in The Great Debate for 2008?
For a complete list of candidates and credentials go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Presidential_Candidates
Natasha votes Rudy Giuliani:
Rudy Giuliani served as mayor of New York City for two terms. During that time, he cut taxes and balanced the city’s budget turning a deficit into a surplus. Also during this time, he lowered the crime rate, emergency response time, and the number of people on welfare. Giuliani is “pro-life” but doesn’t let his personal judgment get in the way of what is best for the country and respects the rights of women regarding choice. He understands the Second Amendment to the Constitution is clear with regard to the right for individuals to bear arms, but he feels there needs to be reasonable restrictions conducted on a state-by-state level. He is looking for Supreme Court judges to apply this reasoning and look deeper into what is meant in the Constitution. While he doesn’t support gay marriage, he believes in equal rights for all individuals and will support domestic partnerships. He is doing what he feels a president should do – put aside his personal views and apply the greater good of the country.
(Sources for this information are from the following websites: www.foxnews.com - interview transcript of the May 13, 2007 edition of Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace & www.joinrudy2008.com – the candidate’s official campaign site)
Cassie’s vote is up for grabs:
No candidate has my vote in this election yet; it is too early for me to decide. But I will say this: the one person I will absolutely not vote for is Hillary Clinton. The war in Iraq is an important issue to me. Recent news headlines, however, say that Clinton voted to cut off money for the war in Iraq, but she stated that she supports it. She is confusing and seems to contradict herself often. Even Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd said, "We're as confused as anyone on Senator Clinton's position." My personal opinion is that the people who vote for Hilary Clinton are just supporters of her husband’s accomplishments while in office.
(Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070517/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_iraq_5;_ylt=AgqeU.VizLIQw4ViBKSRvKC6mt5F)
Collin votes Mitt Romney:
Mitt Romney is pro-life, but he believes that government should not intrude on the woman’s decision. I believe the woman or couple has a right to choose; this is a personal decision and each situation is different. Mitt Romney is opposed to gay marriages; however, he supports benefits for gay partners. I know it may seem prejudiced or old fashioned; however, for me, marriage is between a man and a woman. He also supports having a universal healthcare plan, and I find it ironic that a country as rich as America does not have a universal health plan similar to Canada’s or the United Kingdom. Governor Mitt Romney also believes that President Bush gave an inadequate rationale for the Iraq war; however, to leave Iraq precipitously would be a mistake. I agree with Romney on this issue as well. Candidates can promise to withdraw from Iraq within three or six months after being elected, but is it possible? I would not be surprised that, if elected, some of these candidates may give us an excuse like “remember Vietnam and the chaos caused by rapid troop withdrawal,” so we are unable to withdraw at this time. I also support Romney’s views on taxes also because capital gains and the death tax affect the average American.
(Source: http://internetnewz.info/?rid=756225)
Kevin votes Hillary Clinton:
The one thing we all know about politicians is they’re all full of “crap,” and the only thing we can do is align with the candidates who are full of the same “crap” as ourselves, or at least the type of “crap” we can deal with. All politicians promise things they can’t deliver, so honesty is awash, and their political agendas are pretty much “bs”. So what are we left with? I believe you have to look at the individual’s resolve. How does that person handle adversity? How do they bounce back from being knocked down? Do they have that rubber suit for when “crap” hits the fan? Hillary Clinton has already shown that resolve and proves to be quite qualified. She’s been a senator, a First Lady of Arkansas, and one of the most politically active First Ladies of the United States in history. No other candidate even comes close in comparison in regards to responsibility and prestige, so if anything, she’s in by default. And let’s be honest: if she were a guy, there wouldn’t even be an election, there would just be an appointment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Presidential_Candidates
How do you feel about the presidential candidates, and whom would you vote for in The Great Debate for 2008?
For a complete list of candidates and credentials go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Presidential_Candidates
Natasha votes Rudy Giuliani:
Rudy Giuliani served as mayor of New York City for two terms. During that time, he cut taxes and balanced the city’s budget turning a deficit into a surplus. Also during this time, he lowered the crime rate, emergency response time, and the number of people on welfare. Giuliani is “pro-life” but doesn’t let his personal judgment get in the way of what is best for the country and respects the rights of women regarding choice. He understands the Second Amendment to the Constitution is clear with regard to the right for individuals to bear arms, but he feels there needs to be reasonable restrictions conducted on a state-by-state level. He is looking for Supreme Court judges to apply this reasoning and look deeper into what is meant in the Constitution. While he doesn’t support gay marriage, he believes in equal rights for all individuals and will support domestic partnerships. He is doing what he feels a president should do – put aside his personal views and apply the greater good of the country.
(Sources for this information are from the following websites: www.foxnews.com - interview transcript of the May 13, 2007 edition of Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace & www.joinrudy2008.com – the candidate’s official campaign site)
Cassie’s vote is up for grabs:
No candidate has my vote in this election yet; it is too early for me to decide. But I will say this: the one person I will absolutely not vote for is Hillary Clinton. The war in Iraq is an important issue to me. Recent news headlines, however, say that Clinton voted to cut off money for the war in Iraq, but she stated that she supports it. She is confusing and seems to contradict herself often. Even Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd said, "We're as confused as anyone on Senator Clinton's position." My personal opinion is that the people who vote for Hilary Clinton are just supporters of her husband’s accomplishments while in office.
(Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070517/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_iraq_5;_ylt=AgqeU.VizLIQw4ViBKSRvKC6mt5F)
Collin votes Mitt Romney:
Mitt Romney is pro-life, but he believes that government should not intrude on the woman’s decision. I believe the woman or couple has a right to choose; this is a personal decision and each situation is different. Mitt Romney is opposed to gay marriages; however, he supports benefits for gay partners. I know it may seem prejudiced or old fashioned; however, for me, marriage is between a man and a woman. He also supports having a universal healthcare plan, and I find it ironic that a country as rich as America does not have a universal health plan similar to Canada’s or the United Kingdom. Governor Mitt Romney also believes that President Bush gave an inadequate rationale for the Iraq war; however, to leave Iraq precipitously would be a mistake. I agree with Romney on this issue as well. Candidates can promise to withdraw from Iraq within three or six months after being elected, but is it possible? I would not be surprised that, if elected, some of these candidates may give us an excuse like “remember Vietnam and the chaos caused by rapid troop withdrawal,” so we are unable to withdraw at this time. I also support Romney’s views on taxes also because capital gains and the death tax affect the average American.
(Source: http://internetnewz.info/?rid=756225)
Kevin votes Hillary Clinton:
The one thing we all know about politicians is they’re all full of “crap,” and the only thing we can do is align with the candidates who are full of the same “crap” as ourselves, or at least the type of “crap” we can deal with. All politicians promise things they can’t deliver, so honesty is awash, and their political agendas are pretty much “bs”. So what are we left with? I believe you have to look at the individual’s resolve. How does that person handle adversity? How do they bounce back from being knocked down? Do they have that rubber suit for when “crap” hits the fan? Hillary Clinton has already shown that resolve and proves to be quite qualified. She’s been a senator, a First Lady of Arkansas, and one of the most politically active First Ladies of the United States in history. No other candidate even comes close in comparison in regards to responsibility and prestige, so if anything, she’s in by default. And let’s be honest: if she were a guy, there wouldn’t even be an election, there would just be an appointment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Presidential_Candidates
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)