Comment on a colleague's work #2

I chose the article written by my classmate Ryan because this is a controversial matter in which the whole country is involved and the way how he spreads his ideas about it, seems to me logical for the wellness of economy and society. The government sooner or later will have to accept the medical benefits of this plant and make it part of treatments in different deceases in which this herb provide positive results. Pros are many as cons but at the end is the people who have the right to choose if they want or not be users of this stimulant as well as todays we can decide (having 21+ years old) in drink alcohol or smoke tobbaco knowing that can be more harmful than marijuana. It is only when the abused of this drug that the problem start to occur, but is not abuse of almost any bad substance a problem? If you see it from the outside, It is like the government try to limit how much tobbaco you will smoke or how many cups of coffe you can drink.The arguments about if it is positive or negative will depend in the popular opinion and the way of how this can be use. In the economical view, the legalization can bring a lot of pros; a recent report made by the Los Angeles Times shows that marijuana legalization (replacing prohibition with a system of taxation and regulation) would save $7.7 billion per year in state and federal expenditures on prohibition enforcement and produce tax revenues of at least $2.4 billion annually if marijuana were taxed like most consumer goods. I know this plant is used too for inappropriate intentions but banning those whom give it a bad purpose the benefits are multiples.

Policy Needing changes in Obama's government

Comment on a colleague’s work #1

The laws in the United States concerning the protection and care of domestic and wild animals are not enough, I agree with Ms. Trujillo in that matter completely. "The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is committed to protecting all animals—from the mouse in a laboratory to elephants in South Africa—through a variety of means. We rescue animals, lobby for laws, investigatecruelties, educate the public, and so much more" those are the words used by the HSUS. but if that is true, how is possible that Every day millions of animals are born into lives of unspeakable suffering. Every day millions more suffer terrible deaths and what is worst, a big part of this is cruelty rest in the hands of the scientific researchers using animals for testing, do not having any kind of mercy in the the pain caused to them. Its true that out there are many institutions trying to change this like ASPCA, S. 1834/H.R. 3907—Pet Safety and Protection Act: Sale of Dogs and Cats to Research Institutions, this is an act they are working on to make it possible in the congress. If the Pet Safety and Protection Act is passed, the Animal Welfare Act would be amended so that the only people who would be allowed to sell dogs and cats to research facilities would be:

1. Dealers who have bred and raised the animals.

2. Publicly owned pounds or shelters that obtained the animals from their legal owners.

3. A person donating a dog or cat whom they have bred and raised, or owned for at least one year.

this do not will change the system but step by step and with the help of the community, the laws can be more strict to stop the cruelty of the animal. Ms. Trujillo choose a good article and in my opinion this is an issue that needs our attention.

More guns mean more deaths

Isn't contradictory that a young man of 18 years old can buy a riffle but cannot drink alcohol? Guns control is an issue that the government needs to work on. The second amendment stated "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." For a self defense or hunting purpose this is acceptable but lethal violence, even in self defense, only engenders more violence and what about someone such as a felon who could use that weapon to commit harm against another citizen or commit a crime rather than use it as legal protection. Republicans and democrats have split points of view on gun control; republicans are more likely to own guns than democrats, in a poll made by Gallup survey shows that a 71% of Democrats favors stricter gun control and just 35 % of Republicans favor it. There are large differences between Republicans and Democrats on the issues of gun ownership and control. The government have to provide society in general with some degree of protection from putting a weapon into the hands of someone who may not use it as was intended by society, ban them can be the most effective way to solve the problem but we know this is too surrealistic for the today's thinking, but a more stricter law enforcement such a background investigation, credit statements, minimum studies degree etc. this kind of regulations can minimize the possibility to the incorrect use of a gun. 41% of all Americans believe that President Obama "will attempt to ban the sale of guns in the United States while he is president." reported a Gallup survey. If it is true, it can be a big and positive change in the criminal issues in the country also can decrease in big part the violence that have been growing a long the years since the right to carry law.

"The Founding Fathers would be ‘very severe critics’ of Obama if they were alive today".

Newt Gingrich a former house speaker made some declarations about what the founding fathers of America would think about the present government including of course the actual president Obama, this arguments that I considered a little out of context, do not have the purpose of a constructive criticism, it looks more as an ideology perspective from a republican who do not agree with the Obama's politics ways. The reporter who ask this question was looking for an answer where he shows his point of view after the book he wrote "to try man's souls" about a hero, George Washington who make a change in the revolutionary war, and how hard was to accomplish his goals in those difficult days. He try to compared that sacrifice to the present days and there is a big different in any aspect of the American thinking and living manner. It is true that if the founding fathers cold make an opinion of the today’s government, they will criticize it, but he came put all the blame in Obama, he is just starting as a president of the country and the actual government is a compilation of years and years of change and adjusts, and Second, the develops that The actual system is trying to bring up are exactly to fix anterior mistakes and probably futures. I agree with him when he said that government is too big and Washington have to be shrink to return power back to the people, but the ideas of the current government do not try to take this power away from the people with the health plan, I think they are trying to give opportunity to them. He also talked about drive god out of a public life going to put our freedom in risk, this been a debated issue since the American’s born, why does have to change today? I am anxious to see the doctrine of one god commenced in our state. - Thomas Jefferson. I do not agree with Mr. Newt and I can say his words don’t look for the wellness of our present issues.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/07/gingrich-founding-fathers/

By Faiz Shakir on Oct 23th, 2009 at 4:58 pm

Rebranding America

"Rebranding America" it's an article post in The New York Times newspaper by the Singer of the band U2, Bono. He has become one of the world's best-known philanthropic performers and I find out today also a really good columnist. The article is about the changes that can be possible by the union of the world in one cause, in this case, “three greatest threats we face on this planet”, they are extreme poverty, extreme ideology and extreme climate change. This three problems can be solve by the collaboration and unify of ideologies for the wellness of our world, He said that this can be possible following an equation formulated by General Jones: Stability = security + development. But this formula is effective only when American foreign policy conform to that formula; there is where Barack Obama, the Actually President of the United States plays the important role, his fresh and different point of view in the peace world’s matter can make the difference. Bono makes reference to a speech he gave at the United Nations last month, specifically a 36 words that can show his intentions to be the change that not just America, but the world needs in this days. Now as a Nobel of peace representative and his commitment on this change maybe this words can make a lot of sense in the General Jones’s equation. Like Bono, I do believe too that could well be a force for peace and prosperity but the change have to be in everyone of us, in our mind and ideologies, always looking not for our own benefit, but in the benefits of all the human being in this, our planet. It looks like a big task to accomplish and it is, so we have to start now because tomorrow it’s going to be too late. Bono show us an article with proof of what he is supporting that make it more trusty and attractive to different kind of believes. I agree with him and recommend everybody to read it.

Article link http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/opinion/18bono.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5087&en=3c33b818fd2a73f4&ex=1271304000

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/17/criticism.racism/index.html there is the link to the article.