Commenting...

Julie Warlick makes an agrument for the legalization of Marijuana. Based off of her article...
I would personally like to see more evidence supporting the claims made in this article before I would honestly be swayed one way or the other. While much of it seems plausible the way one would sway another's opinion about such an issue would be through solid evidence.

Well written and otherwise my opinion stays on the fence with this one. While Marijuana legalization could help if properly introduced there's a point where it's too much. I will however agree that I believe it's nowhere near as bad as alcohol has become in our country.

As stated previously though. For someone like me who is neither for or against the legalization of marijuana I need more evidence in the form of links, testimonials, and scientific/economic studies to make a decision. Other than that your points are strong and your logic is clear. Well written, and other than my complaint of support I can't say much else. People like seeing numbers to get a clear scope. Perhaps find some statistics to use.

Foreign U.S. Work in The Middle East

I've touched up a few times on America trying to introduce Democracy to foreign nations. While I can't say that all of these things I may disagree with like if you looked at my previous post I said we shouldn't shove our entire arm into foreign policy and we should let them figure a lot of things out on there own I guess this can't be entirely true if I said it again. According to this article one of these people were helped with for a lack of a better terms meddled. I don't use this word in any negative connotation.

Ms. Qadhi, the Yemeni youth activist, attended American training sessions in Yemen.
“It helped me very much because I used to think that change only takes place by force and by weapons,” she said.
But now, she said, it is clear that results can be achieved with peaceful protests and other nonviolent means.

I'm a huge supporter of diplomacy before war and it seems that these funded organizations, while teaching Democracy which is what I somewhat disagree with, still show these people how to solve things by a peaceful means. I guess even I can be somewhat black and white about these issues but I'd really have to say that a diplomacy group can be instated in a few countries. Not necessarily to teach people about democracy but to teach people that debating and diplomacy are much better alternatives than violence. When you think about what the woman above stated that she used to think that there were only violent means of going about bringing change then you have to worry somewhat that other countries might think the same way.

In the end I'd have to say teaching knowledge is a powerful tool to help people with, but manipulating them into following Democracy is still a bad thing. The whole process of inception and the placing of Democracy. Humans are intelligent creatures by nature and I'm sure that they can think up there own way of doing things, and there's no need to give them a foundation. Give them the knowledge to build their own foundation.

Libya, yeah?

Yesterday President Obama got around to addressing our Libya conundrum. While I would have loved to cover this yesterday when it happened I couldn't have gotten around to it. After looking at all of this and having thoroughly read and thought about what had gone on with Libya there are some finer points that I don't agree with, but other than that I believe most of the actions taken were taken with care and consideration.

Muammar Gaddafi was the biggest concern with this issue. The man ran around in luxury, and seemed fairly proud to have a plethora of virgin battlemaidens to protect him. Clearly insane, and even more so oppressive to his people living under his reign. Immediately following his come to power he essentially expelled all Italians from his country. Even stated by our own leader, Obama,

Libya sits directly between Tunisia and Egypt -– two nations that inspired the world when their people rose up to take control of their own destiny.  For more than four decades, the Libyan people have been ruled by a tyrant -– Muammar Qaddafi.  He has denied his people freedom, exploited their wealth, murdered opponents at home and abroad, and terrorized innocent people around the world –- including Americans who were killed by Libyan agents.

I honestly don't find that all hard to believe. Obama himself stated that if not our duty as a country to protect these citizens that it should be our duty as humans to protect each other from atrocities such as those caused by Gaddafi. In short, Gaddafi needed to be removed from power, and clearly negotiation was out of the question with this man. Which in my case always comes first; there seems to be no negotiation with someone such as Gaddafi though. If everyone just sits, watches, and waits for something to get done then there's no hope in the situation ever being taken care of. Helping also lends us more allies in the long run when it comes time that America needs a shoulder to lean on.

What I can't so much agree with though is the need for the US and other coalition powers to stay within the country to help build some sort of democracy within the country. Perhaps watch from afar and offer a helping hand, but I believe that instead of a hand we've shoved our entire arm into the process. If one builds off of a pre-existing technology or ideal then you're building along the path set for you by the creator. While we as humans should watch out for each other we should also come to full realization of our individualistic senses. I would say allow the Libyan people to decide their fate. We helped remove the thorn, and that's as much as I believe we should do. The mouse didn't stick around and tell the lion how to be a lion last I checked, but rather gained a friend. This is how I believe such a thing should work. We saw our kin in need, helped, and gained a friend in the future. There's no need to push for anything more than that, yeah?

The Tri-War Conundrum

Brad Reed's post concerning the recent war with Libya attacks fellow blogger William Kristol and President Obama. A reach out to those already against the constant warring with other nations is blatantly apparent, but he also manages to touch up on subjects that most don't see. Such as the costing cuts affecting simple things we tend not to take note of.

"In case Bill hasn't noticed, we're facing massive cuts to public education, to social safety net programs and even to services as basic as public street lights."

 In an authoritative sense I can't really see Reed as making an argument using his own experience in the subject or using any other information to strengthen his own argument in any kind of ethos manner. Weak credibility, but there's not much you can say for the credibility of those who argue against or for war. The men and women who serve in these wars could add light to the situation, but as it stands I don't believe Reed is a war veteran. We'll just leave it at that and move on to his pathos. The article is absolutely riddled with snippets of sarcasm and humor intended to keep the readers attention, but at the same time it addresses the issues he has with having started this war with Libya

"It's hard for most of us to comprehend the sort of vile vampiric scumbag who relishes the thought of having his country go to war in three different countries at the same time, but that's pretty much how Bill Kristol rolls. I wonder what would happen if America successfully invaded the entire world -- whatever would Kristol do to pleasure himself? Perhaps he'd recommend sending our entire army into the depths of the Pacific Ocean to launch a long-overdue war against the lost city of Atlantis."

Strong and harsh words draw the readers attention, bring forward the main idea (the three wars we're in simultaneously), and then in a pallet cleanser sort of way throws in a taste of snark to keep the reader's attention held longer. The logos was pointed out earlier as he argues that we're losing simple things like our public street lights.

I personally find that the two extremes that exist, those who oppose, and those who embrace war will not change their opinions because of this blog. Those less extreme who see war as a necessary evil may be swayed. A preference for diplomacy and trade is my outlook, and while the article is strongly written with many emotional touch ups that may seem a bit extreme at times. I wholeheartedly agree with Brad Reed on this one. War should be the alternative, and never the solution. What happened to the pen being mightier than the sword?

Proposition 8 (Critique)

Too Long to Wait is written to bring to light the current issues faced by same-sex couples and the hardships that they're currently facing in California due to proposition 8 which would make only marriages between a man and a woman recognizable in the state of California. The author intends to reach out to those with a strong sense of family (who see the familial bond as something less governed by traditional views), and those who can understand what kind of oppressions one might face under governmental decisions. The authors him or herself is somewhat lacking but he gives the article some face value by quoting one of the lawyers working on the case who had stated the difficulties faced within the families of same-sex couples. The author backs his claims with as previously stated, the lawyers in opposition to proposition 8, stating that the fight for such a thing has gone on for far too long, that there would be no real damage if these couples were allowed to wed, and that the proposition is an 'injustice' to those couples who wish to wed, or are currently wed and are having their recognition taken away by the state. The author makes many Pathos arguments, and they're strong; full of emotion. Logos is somewhat weak and could be strengthened, and his Ethos is almost non-existant in the text and could be improved if he had more credibility to what he was saying.

I myself disagree (agree with the author) with the passing of proposition 8 and while the focus may only be on California. The issue of same-sex marriage is a national issue and makes a huge step forward or back depending on the ruling for those wishing to wed under the conditions that they are both of the same gender. While the editorial would not have me change my opinion if I were for the proposition. I believe that marriage is based on a lifelong bond between two people, and that denying people the right to marry is generally based on religious views that the bond in marriage is sacred and should only be between a man and woman. This I believe violates the separation between church and state, and seeing that we still are unable to get ourselves through this is roadblock I believe state is still fairly influenced by church matters.

Cultural Hauntings & Abuse

Life doesn't seem to get any easier for those who move here into America to start new lives and live the American dream. Nadia K. seems to have gotten the short end of the stick along with several dozen other women who had moved out of one breeding pool of domestic violence into another. I find it somewhat sad that these people move from one area of the world into another hoping for something better and get off worse. The view on America from foreign countries doesn't seem to improve when news like this goes around either. Not that I'm saying we should censor our news because transparency and the press posting things like this is another outlet to help stop things like this. Domestic abuse is no laughing matter and I think some should consider what a lot of people have to put up with when they move into America with predispositions to be stereotyped and singled-out. I would like people to come to America and find it somewhat of a safe-haven from persecution, and this just isn't cutting it.