Coroner: Murphy appears to have died of natural causes

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/12/21/brittany.murphy/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29

Brittany Murphy, who was 32 years old, was pronounced dead at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, in Los Angeles, at 10:04 a.m. pacific time, on Sunday (Dec. 20). Currently, as of Sunday night, an autopsy has not yet been scheduled. However, John Kades, a spokesman for the coroner's office, said there was no sign of foul play or trauma. He also said that naturally occurring dieseases could be found in any person that could lead to death. So, Brittany Murphy's death is currently being ruled 'natural.' Her family has just requested their privacy at this point, but many of her peers have expressed their sorrow on Murphy's Facebook page and on their Twitter pages. Brittany starred in many movies in her lifetime, many of which were romantic comedies. A final report of her medical history could take up to eight weeks.

In my opinion, I think there are many possible reasons as to why Brittany Murphy died at such a young age. Did she ever have a drug addiction? Was she recently sick with anything? Did she have a pre-existing medical condition? People 32 years old don't just die. As of right now there is no autopsy scheduled, and I think that is a good thing. But because she is a member of the "Hollywood Limelight," it is pretty much guaranteed that there will be one done on her body. However, if I was her family, I would not allow one. Yes, I would want to know what really went wrong with my beloved Brittany, but, knowing would not change the fact that she is dead. And if anything I think it would only create guilt within myself and/or my family because then we would be thinking, "okay, so what should/could we have done that we didn't?" I think it is just a thing that should be left unknown in my opinion.

Lieberman opposes Medicare at 55

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/14/health.care.lieberman/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29


As part of the healthcare bill, the Democratic Senators are trying to pass a section in it that says medicare benefits will be available for Americans that are 55 years of age and older. However, in order for them to do that they will need 59 or 60 of their 60 Democratic Senators to vote in favor of the bill because all Republican Senators oppose the bill. Senator Lieberman, a member of the Democratic party, also opposes Medicare benefits at age 55. Though, the Democratic party still has a hope in convincing a moderate Republican Senator, Senator Snowe of Maine, of voting in favor of the bill and being the one vote that they need in order to pass the bill. Most Democrats support the public option of healthcare as a nonprofit competitor to private insurers that would expand coverage and bring down prices. Republicans and some moderate Democrats, along with the health insurance industry, oppose the public option, saying it would be a first step toward a government takeover of the entire health care system.

Personally, I do not want government run healthcare. I think they have enough say in our lives as it is, why should they control our healthcare as well when they already take 40% of our paychecks. If we had government run healthcare our paychecks would just get hit that much more. And yes, they are many people out there that do not have healthcare, but I think there should be some other way for them to get it rather than literally forcing all Americans to have healthcare through the government. Maybe make government run healthcare available to those who need it or want it and let the rest continue on how they choose to be with either private health insurance or none at all. Also, I think it is very brave of Senator Lieberman to stand up and openly oppose the Medicare at 55 bill, knowing that every other Democratic member of the House is in favor of the bill. By Senator Lieberman standing up and openly opposing the bill it goes to show that the "One man, one vote" quote holds true. Senator Lieberman, one man, could stop a whole bill from passing; one vote could take the bill right off the table. Also, I think having Medicare available at age 55 would only hurt the American economy more at this point rather than benefit it. Were already struggling to fund such programs and if we make the age 10 years lower than it is, that's how many more people the program would have to provide for. I think it would be too much and would result in too many tax spikes.

Issue #2: Boosting the Minimum

Not everyone in the United States earns enough money to live comfortably. According to the federal government's definition of poverty, any U.S. family of four whose annual income in 2006 was less than $20,444 was considered poor. In 2005, 12.6 percent of Americans—about 37 million people—lived below the poverty line. For a significant number of the poor, the condition is temporary, resulting from job loss, divorce, or unexpected and dramatic changes in living circumstances. But for some Americans, poverty is a chronic condition. Although many poor people are unemployed or employed only part-time, nearly 3 million full-time workers also live in poverty. The reason 3 million full-time workers live in poverty is because the minimum wage is set how it is. The minimum wage sat at $5.15/hour for more than ten years before it was finally raised to $7.25/hour. That poses a problem because the cost of living changes but the wage that many American workers were earning was not changing along with the cost of living. This is why many Democrats in Congress were pushing to get the minimum wage raised. They believed the increase would raise the take-home pay of millions of Americans, allowing full-time work­ers earning the minimum wage—and with the assistance of food stamps and the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)—to rise above the poverty threshold. It's a moral outrage that a full-time worker earning the minimum wage would still live below the poverty line, protest those who support the minimum wage increase. They argue that the wage hike will positively affect the lives of millions of American workers, including single mothers, a group at high risk of severe and ongoing poverty. More people with more money to spend will boost the economy and counter any nega­tive effect from businesses raising prices to cover increased wages, say supporters. Finally, some proponents say that new tax cuts should not have been tied to the increase in the mini­mum wage because businesses have already received generous tax cuts in recent years. They fear the additional tax cuts will remove needed revenues from government coffers. Raising the minimum wage is counterproductive, declare opponents to the increase. These critics argue that the mini­mum wage is a weak weapon for fighting poverty because it affects only a small percentage of the workforce, and nearly half of workers receiving the minimum wage are teenagers, not people living in poverty. Raising the costs of doing busi­ness, opponents continue, will lead to higher prices and job cuts, which will hurt businesses and low-income workers alike. Critics insist that the market works best for the economy when the laws of supply and demand determine wages. Finally, many opponents suggest that a better way to help the working poor would be to expand the EITC, which rewards work with­out interfering in the market.

In my opinion, I believe that any person working full-time should be earning enough to live comfortably. I don't think it's right that a person can work 40, 50 or 60 hours a week and still live below the poverty line. And most likely they are working a minimum wage job that is not the most pleasant of all jobs. They could very well be working at McDonald's, or Wal-mart, or even as a factory worker. These are all very undesirable jobs, but someone has to do them. And yes, a lot of minimum wage workers are teenagers, but it wouldn't hurt to pay them more either. I mean I work at Menards and I get paid minimum wage during the week and an extra $2.50 an hour on the weekends, but it still doesn't seem like a lot. One week I put in over 50hours and I only get paid $350 for it. Only $350 for 50 hours of hard work. That just doesn't seem right to me. And the fact that there are people who work that much every week, and are only getting paid that when they have a family to support and way more living expenses then I have as a teenager, just doesn't seem right. I do understand the reaction effects of raising the minimum wage of prices at those businesses increasing for the consumer, but that contradicts the whole reason of raising the minimum wage. If the minimum wage gets raised, and then the price of consumer products also raises, that defeats the purpose and only continues on with the problem that we were trying to solve by raising the minimum wage in the first place. And it would be a lot to expect of businesses to not raise their prices for the consumer if they have to pay their workers more because that is extra money that the business owners don't have. So by the government providing tax breaks or some kind of financial aid to those small businesses who need time to adjust to the change financially, that help would be provided. Also, if the wages that workers were paid were determined by the laws of supply and demand, the workers of our country would not be in this financial crunch that they are finding themselves in right now. So, I believe that the minimum wage should be raised so that all working Americans are able to live comfortably, but I believe that it needs to be done in a way that keeps the cost of living in a realistic proportion with the wages that workers are being paid.

An article that supports my opinion: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/ideas/2008/06/060608.html

Issue #1: All Things Being Unequal

Issue #3: Putting Welfare to Work

Texas escapee recaptured

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/12/07/texas.escaped.prisoner/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29
Arcade Comeaux Jr. was being transferred from a prison in Huntsville, Texas to another one in Stiles last week when he pulled out a weapon and demanded that the two correctional officers drive to Baytown, Texas. He did fire the weapon, but no one was harmed. He then cuffed the two guards together in the back of the van, took one of their uniforms, both of their weapons and ran away. Surprising thing is, Arcade Comeaux Jr. was suppose to be wheel-chair bound, but evidently not. At the time of his escape he was serving time for aggravated sexual assault and two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. This amounted to being three life sentences. Now, however, he will face more. Not that it will change much though.

In my opinion this man is a psycho. His past consists of raping a child, aggravated rape of a child, burglary of a building with the intent to commit theft, indecency with a child, mulitiple parol violations, and while he was in prison the attempted stabbing of his wife and another visitor. And now, he runs off, but gets caught. Yet antoher thing he has that he can add to his on-going list of violations. It was the first time in several years that a criminal has been able to slip such a distinct weapon past the prison security and into the transfer vehicle with themselves, and it was lucky that no one got hurt. I think the prison security got a wakeup call and is probably a little bit more conscientious about checking for weapons now. I think checking for weapons and prisoners having weapons probably hasn't been a huge concern lately and not very common that prisoners have had them lately. But, now I think that prison in particular will be more conscientious of what is happening in their prison. I think since Arcade Comeaux Jr. already had the equivalent of three life sentences going into this ordeal, that he probably thought he didn't have anything to lose. So I think our justice system needs to better set itself up for people like Arcade Comeaux Jr. who really don't have anything to lose.

Study: Early autism intervention in toddlers is effective

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/conditions/11/30/autism.study/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29

Researchers have shown for the first time that if a child is diagnosed with autism as early as 18 months of age, offering the toddler age-appropriate, effective therapy can lead to raised IQ levels and improved language skills and behavior. Since 2007, pediatricians have been told to screen 18-month-old children for autism. But what the next step is once a young child is diagnosed has not been clear. Geraldine Dawson, chief science officer of the advocacy group Autism Speaks, and Sally Rogers, an author from the University of California-Davis M.I.N.D. Institute devised a trial involving 48 children with autism. All the children in the trial were between 1 1/2 and 2 1/2 years old at the beginning of the study. Half of the children were given community-based interventions or therapies and the other half were enrolled in a 20-hour per week intervention program called "Early Start Denver Model" (ESDM), developed by Rogers. The goal of this research was to determine how much the debilitating effects of autism can be prevented or reduced. ESDM was a program that was designed for children as young as 12 months old. The therapy is delivered in a very unique way; in the form of play, in the child's own home. This kind of therapy is very happy and can be done anywhere. But most importantly it creates a very fun and loving relationship between the child and their therapist. Much different from the classic relationship between a child and their therapist when the therapy is given in an office while sitting at a desk. At the end of the two year trial all the children showed improvements. However, the children in the ESDM group had increased their IQ by nearly 18 points -- 10 points higher than the children getting the standard autism therapy offered in the community. Scores for listening and understanding as well as motor skills and self-care skills were all higher in the ESDM group. Dawson noted that many of the children in the ESDM group had virtually caught up to other children their age. Rogers said that many parents can learn how to give their child the ESDM therapy in a short amount of time and on their own. She also noted that the ESDM therapy is much more cost efficient as well as effective. Although there is no known cure for autism, when it is detected at a young age and proper therapy is given, its damaging effects can be soothed.

In my opinion I don't see why they are waiting to put this form of therapy into use. This study obviously proves that it is much more effective and comfortable for all involved. And if they are a little uncertain about it, why not combine it with the traditional therapy until they are comfortable with it. It can't hurt anything. I think ESDM is a much more positive form of therapy and one that a child won't not look forward to participating in. Afterall, it is just play and interacting. I think the relationship that is built between the child and the therapist is much more healthy in the ESDM therapy than in traditional therapy. I think that because in traditional therapy the therapist sits on one side of the desk and the child sits on the other. It takes place in a formal setting, most commonly in offices. And the child is asked to perform certain tasks that are broken down into smaller components, while receiving reinforcements. And that's the therapy; "Good job!" That doesn't help a child with autism. A child with autism is just a little bit behind their peers. They are children that need that extra bit of attention to catch up to their peers and get socialized. And they are children that may need to be taught something ten different ways before they will learn how to do it themselves, they just need the time to be spent with them. And that is something that parents can do themselves, they don't need some fancy college graduate to do it for them. It's their kid and they know them the best. They can easily learn from someone how to give the therapy to their child without actually giving their child formal therapy. Also, it is much more comfortable for the child and not something they are apt to be embarrassed about as they get older. Where as visiting a therapist on a weekely basis, that's embarrassing for a child. But having a therapist come to their home, or their parents give them therapy without really giving them therapy, that's not something to really be embarrassed about, no one would ever know anyways. So, I believe that the results of this study speak for themselves. Spending time with a child while they are in their everyday environment is much more beneficial to them than sending them to traditional therapy on a weekly basis.

21 abducted, killed in 'gruesome massacre' in Philippines

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/11/23/philippines.hostages/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29

In Manila, Philippines gunmen killed 21 people. 13 women and 8 men. Among those 21, 12 were journalists. According to the Filipino media some of the bodies were beheaded and the killings most likely were politically motivated. Ismael "Toto" Mangudadatu was a man wanted to run for governor in the Maguindanao province in May but had received threats that he would be killed if he filed the candidate nomination papers himself. So, he sent his wife and sister to file the papers instead. He thought "that women would have some protection," journalist Maria Ressa told CNN. She also said, "It was supposed to be a media event, to let the public know that this politician would run for governor." But Ismael "Toto" Mangudadatu was wrong in thinking that his wife and sister would be safe in doing the nomination for him, because they were 2 of the 21 that were killed. When the 'massacre' happened a group of about 100 gunmen surrounded the group of 40 and ordered them out of their vehicles. They then took the victims hostage to a mountainous region where many of the women were raped and tortured. The military has said the gunmen are loyal to the governor of Maguindanao, Andal Ampatuan. Andal Ampatuan, has held control of the area for the past decade and is a longtime ally of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Neither one has commented on the issue. Maguindanao is a Muslim providence in the Philippines. Since the attacks the Filipino government has increased security in the Maguindanao area.

I don't think there is a logical reason for this massacre. I do believe that it was politically motivated because it had to do with filing papers to run for governor. However, there is no justification for killing. I get the feeling that the Filipino government is good and in control of the area(s) that it is in control of, but the area(s) that they are not in control of they are really not in control of. I feel like there really is no reason for racial problems in the world anymore. Look at America, we have every race of people in our country and we get along just fine for the most part. We respect eachother's beliefs and tolerate different styles of life. The Filipinos are having a problem accepting one race of people; the Muslims. Or the Muslims are having trouble accepting the Filipinos. Either way, there is something going on there. And I don't think it is that difficult to just accept the other and go on with life. Yes, they have different beliefs, dress differently and have a different style of life, but just accept that, tolerate that, and move on. I figure life is too short to get caught up in stupid conflicts like that. I don't understand the point. Just because a person wants to run for governor they fear for their life because they have been threatened of it. That's not right. If a person wants to run for governor, they should be able to run for governor. And they should be able to do it without fearing their life. I figure if the people want to change who is representing them after ten years they have the right to vote someone new into office. Fair is fair.

Teen vanished during Hurricane Andrew

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/13/grace.coldcase.occhi/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29

Leigh Occhi was 13 years old when she dissappeared from her home the morning of Hurricane Andrew. (August 27, 1992) She and her mom had a breakfast together that morning and talked about her plans to attend her school's orientation later that day. The plan was her mother was going to leave for work at about 8am and Leigh's grandmother would come pick her up to bring her to her orientation later that day. Leigh's mom was not at work very long before the weather from the hurricane began to get pretty bad, so she left the office and went home to check on her daughter. It was the first time Leigh had ever been left alone. Leigh's mom returned to the house a few minutes before 8:30am and discovered every mother's worst nightmare. Blood and blood trails all over the house, Leigh's clothes out of place and some missing, and most of all Leigh was missing. Leigh's mom checked everywhere for her but could not find her. She called 911 at 8:30am and the police responded immediately. They had blood hounds trying to track her scent but with the bad weather they could not hold the scent long enough. So once the weather let up they started a helicopter search. But they never were able to find Leigh. Today, Leigh would be 30 years.

In my opinion I don't think Leigh's mom should have any guilt or her grandmother. It was not their fault. And it was the first time that Leigh had ever been left alone. Leigh was 13 years old and plenty old enough to be left alone just like every other kid, it was just bad luck that she was left alone and something bad happened. However, I would question Leigh's mother leaving her home by herself, for the first time, during a hurricane...? That is questionable in my opinion. But, I feel that Leigh was of age to take care of herself and be left alone for a short period of time. However, it is impossible to gaurantee anyone's safety these days which is too bad. I think if the weather wouldn't have been like it was, the blood hounds probably would have been able to track her scent and follow her path, unless her capturer took her away in a vehicle. I don't understand why the police never moved the investigation to Booneville where the package that was addressed to Leigh's home, to her father who no longer lived there, was mailed from. I think it is possible that whoever took Leigh probably knew her father. And I think it would have been helpful if police focused more on him rather than her mother because obviously whoever took Leigh probably knew her father and her father probably knew him. They polygraphed Leigh's mother less than a week after the incident and again a few weeks later. I don't either of those polygraphs were accurate because a mother who just lost her daughter is going to react very oddly when questioned about her involvement in her own daughter's dissappearance which she had nothing to do with. I don't think either of her parents were involved in her dissappearance, but I do think her father could have possibly known who did take Leigh. I think chances are very slim of Leigh ever being recovered knowing that she would now be 30 years old. However, there is always a chance.

ISSUE #1 -Comprehensive vs. Incremental Health Care Reform

Many people involved in the political spectrum believe that universal health care is the solution to reducing the number of uninsured Americans, or even eliminating them. (That is getting them to be insured.) Supporters of universal healthcare believe that the best way to ensure equal access to medical care is to overhaul the financing of the nation's healthcare system. They think that decades of government funded provided programs like Medicare and Medicaid have contributed to the increased costs of medical care. Some supporters of universal health care say that the government could become a single purchaser, acting on behalf of all patients. In that way, the government could force health care providers to rein in charges and hold them accountable for the quality of care. Another proposal for comprehensive reform relies on mandating government subsidies in which the poor receive tax credits or money that enables them to purchase insurance. Finally, some policymakers favor a hybrid system of universal health care vouchers that includes government funding for basic health care, plus elements of choice and competition. Basic care would be universal, and there would be no means-testing for eligibility. However, participants could choose from competing plans and opt to purchase addi­tional coverage. Others do not oppose the idea of universal healthcare but they disagree in how the goal of it should be reached. In particular, they contend that a government-sponsored medical program would result in less competition among providers and would ultimately produce poor care. They say that in countries like Canada and the United Kingdom, countries that have universal healthcare, have long waiting periods before a patient receives care. So they believe that universal run healthcare would only drive up the cost of healthcare, but also make it more ineffcient. Other critics say that the American healthcare system is a vital part of our economy and if it is to become universal many working Americans will lose their jobs. So, people with this viewpoint think that certain changes should be made to the healthcare system. Changes such as enhancing tax-free Health Savings Accounts and offering tax deductions for people who buy their own health insurance. In general, detractors of universal cov­erage favor empowering consumers with greater information on medical costs and quality. By making consumers pay greater shares of health care insurance and medical expenses from their own pockets, these policymakers believe that the market will naturally rein in medical costs.

In my opinion I believe that the healthcare system is set up to benefit the elderly right now. I think that is how it should be because the elderly are the ones that face the most health problems, but younger people face health problems as well. And I feel that everyone has the right to healthcare IF they want it. I don't think a college student, who doesn't want healthcare, should be forced to have it and pay for it. It should be a personal choice. I think the system with medicare is a good one right now, kind of like social security, you get out of it what you put into it. But with all the baby boomers hitting that critical age of 65 right now the medicare system is a bit overwhelmed. That is where I feel something needs to change with our healthcare system. Because right now if a family is receiving government funded healthcare for example, they are only allowed to receive care at certain places with that healthcare, and I don't think that is right. If they have a serious health problem they should be able to go see the expert just like every other American. My view on health savings accounts, I don't like the idea. I don't want to be forced to put so much of each of my paychecks into a government account each month. This is America, the land of the free, and I want to be free to do what I want with my money that I earn. And I want the freedom to choose if I want healthcare or not. So my solution to decreasing the large number of Americans that don't have healthcare, create competition between the different healthcare companies. Right now, these companies are free to raise their prices as much as they want and are making a killing because of it. If competition is created, prices will decrease and healthcare should become more affordable for the average American. Or, have a halfly run government healthcare system, have government healthcare available to those who want it. And let those people have health savings accounts and pay the government a chunk of their paycheck each month. But as for me, I will take care of my own healthcare. It's my health, my responsibility, no one else's.

Glenn Beck shares a similar opinion to mine. You can read more about it at: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/196/32213/

ISSUE #2 -Ensuring Quality Care for Medicare Patients

http://sarahssocialblog.blogspot.com/

ISSUE #3 - Safe to Eat?

http://kategearman.blogspot.com/

Father fights mother over baby's life

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/11/02/uk.baby.life.support/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

In London, England there is a baby with a severe birth defect called CMS. Because of this birth defect RB (the baby) is not able to breath on its own and must be connected to a respirator. The mother and doctors feel that the baby should be disconnected from the respirator because its life is "miserable, sad and pitiful." The first time the baby was taken off of the repirator it lasted 40 minutes, 30 minutes the second time, and only 5 minutes this last time. But the father says that the baby, now one year old, is able to play and recognize its parents and respond to the world around it. The Mayo Clinic said, "different forms of CMS vary widely in their symptoms, from mild to severely disabling. With accurate diagnosis and appropriate therapy, even potentially fatal forms can usually be treated successfully." So, there is another doctor coming Saturday to evaluate RB. One possible solution is a tracheostomy.

In my opinion this is a very tricky situation. I see both sides of the issue, but don't really feel comfortable saying "this is my opinon" without witnessing the situation first hand. I feel that a person would be able to tell by seeing the child if it is just miserable or if it is actually there. From what I have read I believe that the child is actually there because it doesn't sound like it is completely out of it and just unconsious to the world around it. I feel that having another doctor come to evaluate the baby is a good move because he may be able to help RB. I think a tracheostomy is kind of extreme, but if it is the only option and will help RB I think that step should be taken. I think it complicates the situation that the parents are divorced, but also explains why they are on separate sides of the issue. I think all opinions from all doctors and parents should be taken into consideration and after further careful analyzation a decision should be made. If the decision is made to disconnect the child it would be very sad, but best for the child if it is never going to be able to fully respond to its environment. But I am leaning towards letting the child get older and seeing where the future leads. If the child is kept connected to the machine and one day becomes stronger he could have a life that would have other whys been taken away from him. So, I believe that before a decision is made his case needs to be carefully evaluated and CMS needs to be understood by all involved.

Iraqi man accused of running down daughter found in Atlanta

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/30/arizona.iraqi.daughter/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

On October 20 Faleh Hassan Almaleki, 48, hit Noor Faleh Almaleki, his 20 year old daughter, and her friend Amal Edan Khalaf, in a parking lot with the vehicle he was driving. The incident occurred in Peoria, Arizona, a town about 13 miles northwest of Phoenix. Faleh Hassan Almaleki says that he went after his daughter because he was angry at her. "She had become too 'Westernized' and was not living according to [the family's] traditional Iraq[i] values." Faleh Hassan Almaleki was taken into custody at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, according to the Marshals Service. The reason why Faleh Hassan Almaleki was in Atlanta was not immediately known. After the incident, according to police, Noor Faleh Almaleki was hospitalized with life-threatening injuries and Amal Edan Khalaf did not receive life-threatening injuries. Earlier this week, police said that both women remained hospitalized.

In my opinion, I think Faleh Hassan Almaleki is a physcho. And I feel terrible for Noor Faleh Almaleki and her friend. They did absolutely nothing wrong. I think it's wrong that Noor's father expects her to live according to traditional Iraqi standards. I feel that she lives in America, she is 20 years old, and she has the right to make her own decisions and choices. Therefore, she should be able to be free to decide for herself how she wants to dress and present herself. Besides how I feel about the expectations Noor's father has for her, I think he's out of his mind to go out and hit her with his vehicle. That's insane! How could a father do that to his own daughter?! I firmly believe that he is a man with some serious physiological problems and needs to be given some help. But more than anything I feel that he should be kept away from his daughter or at least monitored when he is around her. If I were Noor I would want nothing to do with my crazy-maniac father. And I feel that when deciding what Mr. Almaleki's punishments are going to be, Noor's safety should be taken into consideration. And I think that when Noor is better her view on the circumstance should also be taken into account. If she feels comfortable saying, "hey, he's my father just let it be," okay then. But if she feels in danger and says, "Please keep him away from me," then different measures should be taken.

Pilots who missed airport may face license suspension or revocation

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/27/airliner.fly.by/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

The two northwest airline pilots that were involved in last week's overflight of the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport are expected to have their licenses either revoked or suspended as early as Tuesday. (Oct. 27) The two pilots who were flying the plane were Timothy B. Cheney, age 53, and Richard I. Cole, age 54. The two lost contact with any airport for an hour and a half and overshot the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport, flying all the way into Wisconsin. Cheneny and Cole both told investigators that they were using personal laptop computers during the flight and lost track of time. This however, is a violation of the Northwest company policy. They said that they only became aware of the plane's location after a flight attendant asked about the landing time.

In this particular situation I don't feel that Cheney and Cole's licenses should be completely taken away, but I do believe they should be suspended until further information is uncovered. I don't think it is that serious of a deal that they overshot the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport because they weren't hurting anyone. However, by losing contact with the airports caused an uproar and fear that the plane had been taken over by hi-jackers or something. I do believe that when a pilot is flying a plane they should be totally and completely focused on that. They have other peoples' lives in their hands. I do understand that being a pilot can get somewhat boring just sitting up there watching the clouds go by while the plane is on autopilot, but it is their job to get the passengers from point A to point B safely and as on time as possible. When I hear of them using laptop computers while they are flying an airplane I relate it to texting and driving. People do it but it is not safe. And I think the same goes for flying airplanes, more so even because you have hundreds of peoples' lives in your hands. And I believe that some sort of punishment should be given out to these pilots because it is against company policy, and I'm assuming that they have done it many times before also. So, instead of completely taking their license away, maybe place them on some sort of probation or something.

Joe believes that the pilots were sleeping while flying the plane and feels that they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Obviously he has no mercy what so ever for either of them. Me on the other hand, I feel they should just be given some sort of probabtion because everybody makes mistakes. I understand they have many peoples' lives in their hands but no one is perfect. You can check out the rest of Joe's opinion at: http://jumpingjoeblog.blogspot.com/

Study: States can't afford death penalty

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/20/death.penalty/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

California houses 678 inmates on death row, but has not executed anyone in four years. But it does spend more than $130 million on the capital punishment system. Many people see this as a waste of funds and believe that it is taking away from other anti-crime and law enforcement programs. Currently, 35 states still have the death penalty but fewer and fewer executions are taking place each year. Death row seems to be turning into a sentence of life without parole. And that however, is becoming very expensive in a time of an economic shortfall. It is becoming expensive because more money has to go into increased security and police officers at the prisons. But, the Death Penalty Information Center study found that death penalty costs can average $10 million more per year per state than life sentences. Many death penalty proponents say part of the problem is that states have added unnecessary, time-consuming delays, and have been reluctant to carry out the death penalty that their own legislatures have enacted, and that the delays are what is causing the cost to go up. Some people believe that having the death penalty can offer powerful incentives in plea bargaining and could provide states with large savings in trial and incarceration costs. So, in the end it seems like it could be as simple as a flip of a coin to determine which would be more cost efficient, but the moral side of things is what the true controversy is. Becasue either way, whether they are on death row or serving a life sentence, if they are dangerous the security needs to be there to monitor them.

For once I feel like I don't really have an opinion on something. And of all things it is the death penalty, something that I feel a person should have a strong opinion on. If we focus on the cost side of it and what would be more cost efficient, whether to have the death penalty or not, it seems to be about the same. If we keep the death penalty it puts on a pressure on the people who have committed crimes to fess up to them because of the fear of the death penalty if they are proven guilty without admitting to it. But, if they admit to it then their sentence could be reduced to a life-long one. This could help reduce the costs of the court system because less lengthy trials would be being held because more people would be more likely to just fess up. But it could also somewhat increase the costs because the prison would have to house that many more inmates and higher that much more security personel. But according to the Death Penalty Information Center study the death penalty costs an extra $10 million per year per state more than life sentences. So there it is, doing away with the death penalty is the cost efficient way to go. But without the death penalty criminals will no longer have that fear lingering in their minds and have nothing forcing them to fess up. So, we could almost end up with more guilty criminals getting away with the crimes they have committed. But in my opinion I almost think a life sentence would be worse because you are caged in like an animal for the rest of your life. That's terrible. But I am aware that in many prisons and jails the inmates are allowed to do everyday activities just like they weren't incaged. So basically a life sentence turns out to be nothing more than being forced to live the rest of your life there like it is some sort of institution. The longer an inmate is held there and the more progress they show in their good behavior the more freedoms they will have, so basically after a few years of literally being behind bars they could almost be back to a normal life. So it roots back to the question of is a life sentence really severe enough, or is the death penalty a necessary thing?

How many troops are enough for Afghanistan strategy?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/12/afghanistan.troops/index.html?eref=rss_politics

President Obama faces a very difficult decision; how many troops should he send to Afghanistan, if any, in order to be successful. General Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, is requesting 40,000 more troops. On the other hand, Vice President Joe Biden is suggesting to use special forces and technology to reduce the number of al Qaeda insurgents on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Senator John McCain thinks that if we are going to send more troops to Iraq, adding any less than 40,000 would be a mistake. He doesn't think that the war could be won by sending fewer troops over. Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein said that Obama should take the recommendations of McChrystal if he is not planning on pulling out, but that it would be pointless if he has plans to pull out any time soon. But Republican Jim McGovern thinks that it would be a mistake for the Americans to increase the number of troops in Iraq. He feels that way because he thinks by increasing the number of troops it will put pressure on the Afghan government to step up to the plate, which it has not done so far. Originally, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's plan was to win the war in Iraq with smaller troop numbers and a large emphasis on technology, which would in turn let democracy take root. At the beginning of the war in 2003, troops quickly filled the country and were able to gain control of Baghdad. But in 2006, civil war broke out and U.S. forces struggled to maintain control of the cities they had once secured. Rumsfeld later said that no one was well-prepared for what would happen after major combat ended.

In my opinion, I think the whole war in Afghanistan has evolved into something more than I think our country should be involved in. It started off as a war on terrorism, and has turned into trying to set up a democracy over there. I think that it is their country, not ours, and that if they want a democracy and a civilized nation they will ask for our help in doing so or do it themselves. I think Obama should listen to General Stanley McChrystal if he is planning on sending any troops at all more over there. I think General Stanley McChrystal is the one who is in Afghanistan monitoring the troops and is seeing himself with his own eyes what is happening and going on. I believe that he is the one with the best perspective on the whole issue and that he should be listened to. But if President Obama wants to pull the trooops out of Afghanistan and call it quits, then I don't think it is worth sending any more troops over at all. So, I agree with Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein. I think Rumsfeld had a good plan in the beginning, but didn't have a plan set up for what would happen after the major combat was over. And right now, the major combat is over. So now what? No one seems to know. I think it is a decision that needs to be made rather quickly because our troops in Afghanistan do have families and do deserve to get back to them sometime in the near future. I don't think it's right for the government to keep dragging the war on, I think it's rather pointless. We are losing American lives and no longer gaining any ground on the war on terrorism. As I said before, the goal of the war itself has seemed to change. Our goal now seems to be more of setting up a democracy over there. I think we need to not be selfish in the fact that we need to worry about our own country and what is best for our citizens, but that is what we need to do. And I think it would be best if we pulled our troops out and called it good. And just worry about protecting our country from future attacks from our home ground.

Alexis feels that too many American lives are being lost in the battle. She says how numbers are just given to Americans of oh, "14 more were killed yesterday, and 8 the day before that." She says how to many Americans the lives being lost are just simply numbers and how they have no meaning to many Americans and how that is something that needs to change. And that many Americans who don't know anyone involved in the war have the mentality of "out of sight, out of mind," and how desperately that needs to change. I think that because she feels this way about the lives that are being lost that she would agree with me in that the troops should be pulled out. And that all the lives being lost are not worth what is being "accomplished."

You can read more about Alexis' opinion at: http://alexisnielsonssii.blogspot.com/

High court to decide if war memorial violates Constitution

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/05/supreme.court.veterans.cross/index.html?eref=rss_politics

The Mojave Cross sits in a quiet and lonely California desert. It was put there over 75 years ago by a group of veterans to serve as a war memorial. Now, it is boxed in plywood. It is boxed in plywood because it was ordered to be by the court. After all its years of sitting there, on what is now the Mojave National Preserve; government land, it is fighting to hold its place. People who oppose the placement of the cross say that it goes against the First Amendment's provision of separation of church and state. Riley Bembry, a man who served as a medic in World War I, was one of the veterans that helped set up the cross. He says it sits on top of a 4,000 foot plateau and served as a place of reflection for many returning veterans that retreated into the desert as a way to recover from the severe lung diseases caused by mustard gas attacks during the war. And each year an Easter service is held there, but until recently only locals knew of it. When the cross was first put up, no one seemed to care that it was there. But when the land changed ownership and went from just desert land to the Mojave National Preserve, it became an issue; It was now located on government land. It isn't uncommon for war memorials to have crosses on them or be faith related, but because this one is just in the shape of a cross and is located on government land, it's a problem. The people in charge of the preserve say that they would be happy to have a war memorial located on their preserve but that it would have to be in some other shape.

Personally, I don't think that it is that big of a deal. It's a cross, yes, it's been there for years, it was there before the government was even a part, it should be left alone and respected. I don't think that the government should just be able to step in and say it can't be there because "separation of church and state." Yes, church and government should be separate because everyone has different faiths, but this cross is just located on what is now government land. When the cross was originally placed on the plateau it was just desert, it was in no one's name specifically and was not government land. So by it just sitting there it's not effecting anyone or anything. It's not playing a part in what laws are passed or how people are treated. It's just sitting on a lonely plateau just like it always has. To me, the cross has no meaning. But to many locals I'm sure it does. And because of that I think if they were to take the plateau and put it into a private party's name the issue could easily be solved. Yes, it would be located right in the middle of a government preserve, which might tick the government off a little bit having to give up land right in the middle of their property, but then they could be satisfied in knowing that they no longer have a religious symbol on their land, and the veterans would be happy because their memorial wouldn't be being destroyed. But my true feelings are that it should just be left as it always has been. It's really not hurting anything; it sits on a plateau. And why go through all the effort to divide up the land and try to keep everyone happy when it has been there for years and nobody has blinked an eye at it. This issue is obviously only being brought up to bring it up. "Separation of Church and State." What about "in God we trust" on our money then? How is that okay but not a small cross in what used to be a desert?

Issue #3-Social Insecurity

The social security system was originally set up in 1935 to fight poverty. It is mostly known for supporting senior citizens but it also supports disabled workers, spouses and families of deceased workers, and children. The social security system is ran off of dollars taken out of current workers' paychecks. As you contribute to the fund during your working years, you receive a certain percentage of your contributions in return during your years of need, usually once you retire. Since 1983, more than enough dollars was being collected for the fund. But recently, we have way more senior citizens retiring and applying for social security benefits than we do young people entering the workforce. It is predicted that by 2017 the program will no longer be able to pull its own weight like it used to. In order for the social security system to be able to provide full benefits for everyone that is eligible through the year 2041 the government will have to repay the money it borrowed from the social security program. And after the government has repayed the system it will be able to function properly again, but only off of dollars collected through payroll taxes. So, it will still only be able to provide 60-80% of its promised benefits to its eligible people. Because of the predicted upcoming crisis, President Bush proposed allowing Americans to divert their Social Security payroll contributions to private investment accounts, but this idea was rejected by many legislators. Other people believe that with the social security system going bankrupt, that those who depend on it should be cut to a minimum. Meaning, that the system was originally put in place to keep those in need out of poverty, but has now evolved into a national retirement program. Other people feel that the social security system is strong as it is and that its people who depend on it such as many retirees, should not be cut of their benefits. They believe that the system is a good one in that you get out of it what you put into it.

I believe that the social security system is a good idea in that you get out of it what you put in to it, supposedly. But what I see happening to our generation is that we put in to it for our grandparents, but that the system won't be there for us once we hit the age of retirement. So, I have mixed feelings about dropping my chunk of change into the fund because I may never see it again. It may never come back to me like it is now coming back to all the baby boomers of our country. And because of that reason I support the plan that former President Bush proposed. I think it would be a good plan to have private investment accounts for social security. That way you are getting out of it what you put into it for sure. There's no question as to whether or not you are going to be left with nothing, you will have something. But then it leads me to think that if we are going to make social security a private investment, then it should the peoples' choice as to whether or not they want that money taken out of their check each week for their own personal social security, or if they would rather just not set up an account like that. So I think if they are going to continue to hit our paychecks weekly for social security, we should have some sort of gaurantee that it will be there for us in our old age. And even though the system was not originally intended to become a national retirement program, it works well to serve as one. But I will not be one to support the social security system unless I am gauranteed the fact that there will be a decent chunk of what I put into it for me in return later in life. I believe that it is only fair that way.

Former President Bush's thoughts and ideas on social security when he was in office.

Issue #1: War Dollars http://backstroker321.blogspot.com/

Issue #2: Spending What We Can Afford http://heathersanchez.blogspot.com/

Gates: Closing Guantanamo prison 'more complicated'

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/09/27/cuba.guantanamo.closure/index.html?eref=rss_politics

The planned closing of the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba is going to take longer than originally planned. Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, isn't against closing the facility after the proposed deadline, but says that if that is what is going to happen there needs to be a strong plan in place that will show progress towards closing the facility. Senator John McCain also said that he didn't think it was likely that the facility was going to close on time. McCain does support the closure of the facility though because the image that it portrays of brutality is directly linked to the United States. The original deadline was set by President Obama and was supposed to be January 2010. Many republicans would rather have the facility keep operating instead of having to bring terrorism detainees into the United States. Democratic Senator, Dianne Feinstein, said that the terrorism suspects could be held in maximum security prisons, and that no one was going to be putting these people in anyone's neighborhood. Administrative officials in the White House have been working with many third-party countries in hopes that they will accept some of the detainees.

I think even though the Guantanamo prison is a downfall for the United States to be linked to, I would rather keep it open. I feel that way because I think it would be safer for the citizens of the United States to keep the terrorist suspects out of our country. I also think that if we are going to close it, it should be a planned closing. It should be a closing that is followed step by step and is planned all the way up until the last detail. If we are going to transfer the detainees from Guantanamo to the United States into maximum security prisons it should be done with great care. But more than anything if it is going to close I believe that the detainees should be transfered to other countries outside of the United States. I don't think it would be a good thing for any of the detainees to be transfered to the United States because what if some of them were able to escape. Even maximum security prisons have prisoners that escape. And terrorism suspects are not ones that should be fooled around with. Just think if some of them were able to escape and group together, the damage that they could do to the United States would be incredible. I think it would be in the United States best interest to extend the deadline, and plan the closing of the prison very carefully, and take the time to talk with other countries that would be willing to take some of the detainees. But by transfering any of the detainees to other countries, it would require the United States to trust that country that they would not use the terrorist suspects against us. So I think more than anything that time just needs to be put in to the closing of the prison, and that once the time is put in, our goal of closing the prison will be reached.

Michelle Obama could be a secret weapon in health care reform

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/18/michelle.obama.health.reform/index.html?eref=rss_politics

Last Friday Michelle Obama spoke to a crowd at the White House about health care reform. She talked about her own experiences with her father and daughter. She says how she doesn't know how they would have gotten by without having health insurance in either case. Some critics say that by her playing both the daughter role and mother role, it humanizes the issue. They also say that with her personal stories it personalizes the issue, and fills the spaces that Obama missed. Because Obama's perspective is mostly focused on the financial end of things, Michelle's focused on the personal end of it. It was also said that when Clinton was in office that health care was a common topic and that Hilary became involved in it, so the involvement of the first lady in such an issue is nothing new. But it was found that Hilary and Michelle's debates came from different directions.

In my opinion I think it is a smart move on Michelle's part to take a stand on the issue. I believe that it is the first lady's job to support her husband, but also to support her own thoughts. And I think that Michelle did a very good job of this. I think they are a good balance for each other in that Obama talks about the funding end of it, and she talks about the motherly end of it. I think that by her sharing her personal experiences it makes the American people realize that she's really just another person. And in the end, convinces them that a health care reform would be a benefit to everyone. But also by sharing her personal experiences she instantly becomes easy to relate to for the American people. I think by Michelle sharing her perspective on the issue it changed a lot of people's minds, republican women in particular, on the issue of national healthcare. And I think if she continues to share her perspective more people will be more likely to jump aboard with Obama on the national healthcare. I think if she is able to get her message across strong enough on the personal level Americans will be able to set aside the financial burden of it and support the health care reform.

Well...a healthcare bill is going to pass, the question is when

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32825593/ns/politics-health_care_reform/

Congress has been busy in Washington trying to come up with a good healthcare bill. Some members have been playing down the immediate government insurance option. Others have been trying to set up a complete road block to national healthcare all together. But President Obama believes that there will be enough votes in Congress to not only set up a healthcare bill, but a good one as well. He spoke to both houses of congress last week in hopes of calming the waters and keeping everyone's minds open. Obama is more for a national healthcare plan than a non-profit organization system because sucess of those has been inconsistant and Obama wants a plan that is going to work and benefit the people for sure.

Personally, I do not want a national health care system. My mom gets health insurance through her work and given that if she were to lose her job my family would lose its healthcare coverage, but I think it's a risk worth taking. I think it's a risk worth taking because if we had a national healthcare system my paycheck along with every other working American's paycheck would get nailed even more than it already does. In the end everyone would benefit, but why should we all have to pay for our healthcare individually when it can be done souly through my mom. Also, what about those that aren't working and don't have a job? Would they still get healthcare benefits then? Or would the working class still be paying for their healthcare just like we are now for the ones that don't have health insurance? I think these are all very good questions that deserve an answer, and depending on how they are answered will decide if the bill receives my support or not. But as of right now I feel as if I do not know enough of the details to fully make a decision other than that I am against it, because as of right now it just seems that it wouldn't be a bill that would benefit me directly. I think if I am already covered under my mom, and will be for the next few years of my life until I am on my own, that paying for healthcare out of my own paycheck is one less thing I should have to worry about. Plus when I am older I'm pretty sure that I will have a job that will provide health care for my family and I. So maybe national healthcare could become a choice thing, if that would be possible?