NRA (No Rifles Automatic)

In response to "The NRA Takes its Safety Off" authored by Shannon, I have to disagree with most of the statements made therein. Although, I do agree with the Constitutional right to bear arms, i don't believe it should include assault rifles. There is no justifiable reason for Americans to own an SKS or an Uzi. These weapons are designed for war, not protection or hunting. By allowing these weapons to be bought and sold we are not only endangering American and Mexican civilians we are contributing to the companies who build and distribute these weapons and who benefit from war profiteering and gang violence. President Eisenhower, upon leaving office, warned against the dangers of the military-industrial complex. Americans have not heeded this warning. As a result gangs, feuding tribes, and warlords have run amok causing millions of deaths and immeasurable civil strife.  

The United States consumes most of the drugs made and transported by the Mexican drug cartels. Because we are the recipients of these drugs and the nation that has declared a war on drugs we bear a great responsibility for the curtailing of their manufacture and distribution. Mexico needs our help. They have been under much pressure by American agencies to deal with this problem. However, they have received little in the way of help. The drug-related violence along the U.S./Mexico border is a huge problem and cannot be corrected by building a wall or increasing border patrol. The systemic issues must be addressed, including the distribution of assault rifles. Also the virtues of drug awareness must be instilled in children and adults on both sides of the border. This can be done by utilizing the resources of schools, public offices, and the media. Education is the ticket to real success for potential drug abusers, gun runners, gang members, and anyone tempted to get involved with the illegal drug trade. The U.S. has the means to fix this problem and we should act in accord with Mexico to alleviate the epidemic of violence on the basis of our common principles.  

In conclusion, America has much to gain from gun control, including safer schools, public buildings, streets, and neighborhoods as well as safer borders. A safer society should be paramount to the U.S. citizenry and its' borders should be no exception. Besides, what's the benefit of having a citizenry armed to the teeth, especially when our children, brothers and sisters and our Mexican brethren are suffering the consequences?

U.S. Airstrikes Kill Afghani Citizens

As many as 147 Afghani villagers were killed in an aerial assault by American forces on Monday and Tuesday. The air strike was directed at Taliban militants who were previously fighting the Afghan Army at a police check-point near the villages of Granai and Shiwan in western Afghanistan. Many women and children were counted among the dead. The Taliban had already left the area when the bombs fell; no militants are known to have been killed by the air strike.
In Farah province protesters took to the streets and merchants closed their stores vowing not to reopen until the bombing had been investigated and the protesters demands were met. U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates suggested that the villagers may have been killed by Taliban grenades. However, this notion has been all but disproven. Obviously, U.S./Afghani relations are stressed. Afghani civilians are angry at the U.S. and many are demanding that foreign troops leave Afghanistan. Can you blame them?
This air strike was a heavy-handed misfire resulting in the deaths of innocent people. The U.S. military has made many of these mistakes using heavy artillery from Iraq to Vietnam. There is a pattern of indifference towards civilian casualties in foreign wars in the U.S.; they're regarded only as collateral damage. Why do innocent people have to die? One would think that with the advances in military technology and the billions of dollars spent on weaponry in the U.S. every year that these types of atrocities could be avoided. Maybe they can be. The U.S. military commanders are either apathetic or incompetent. Whatever the case may be, we need to change our policy on air strikes and realize the devastation that can occur as a result. A more conservative employment of bombers and a zero tolerance for civilian death would be a good start. The United States should be setting the standard for humanitarian principles on the battlefield, not disregarding them. Americans would not tolerate their fellow citizens being blown up, nor should they tolerate this treatment of Afghanis or any other civilian population.

Response to Stem Cell Battle

In her blog entry, "Stem Cell Battle", Shannon argues in favor of stem cell research. The author believes that the states should accept and distribute government funding and adjust their policies to allow research facilities to operate. She makes a logical argument when comparing stem cell research to organ donation. The author also makes a moral argument when asking the rhetorical question, "How is it humane to deny patients to have a better life and potentially keep others from developing life altering diseases?" Also, she disputes the position of the Christian Right on stem cell research when stating, "The embryo hasn't developed any particular organ yet, but they say it has a soul."
My views on this subject are concurrent with the author's. When people let their dogma inhibit the progress of science and medicine they are doing a disservice to their fellow man.
The author uses well formulated arguments supported by common facts and a well-informed opinion to convey her position in this opinion piece.

Lifting the Cuban Embargo is Good for Everyone

With the Summit of the Americas coming up next week, the U.S. government's trade embargo against Cuba is being widely discussed. As promised during his campaign, President Obama plans to allow Cuban-Americans to travel to Cuba more freely and frequently than during the Clinton and Bush years (the embargo was codified into law in 1992 during Clinton's first term). It seems that U.S./Cuban relations may be improving. Many people are calling for the embargo to be lifted. In fact, it looks like the Republicans and Democrats can finally agree on something; the Republicans can't wait to capitalize on trade with Cuba and the liberals believe trade will help the impoverished Cuban people. However, the second part of Obama's campaign promise was to keep the embargo intact until the end of the Castro regime and/or when Cuba is taking steps towards insuring human rights for their people. Given the political pressure and the state of the U.S. economy I think it will be difficult for Obama not to break this part of his promise.
Opening trade with Cuba could provide a much needed boost to the U.S. economy. Actually, we've already been trading with Cuba, utilizing loopholes in laws passed for humanitarian aid; 4% of Cuba's imports come from the U.S., including Coca-Cola. Canada and many European nations already trade with Cuba and have noticed economic growth in Cuba as a result.
The embargo was originally designed to put economic pressure on Cuba in order to force them to establish a democratic government. On this front, the fifty-year-old embargo has failed. In fact, it may have helped Castro stay in power by suppressing print media from the U.S. and limiting internet availability to Cubans. The Cuban upper class who are in positions of power have not been affected by these sanctions. It is the common people who have suffered as a result of the embargo.
One group of embargo supporters is the Cuban-American population living in Florida. The fact that these people had to deal with human rights violations first hand and flee to Florida as refugees makes one sympathize with their stance. Politicians in Florida tend to support this large group of voters on this topic. However, it may be time for them to set aside their grievances for the good of their relatives remaining in Cuba.
Some hardliners still think of Cuba as a national security threat to the U.S., even labeling Cuba as a terrorist nation. They also believe that the U.S. has taken a moral stance supporting human rights in Cuba. The U.S. military does not see Cuba as a threat. Also, an embargo could be argued to be immoral in nature and nullifies their position on the moral high ground. Human rights organizations would probably find it easier to affect change if U.S./Cuba tensions were not so high.
The U.S. needs a new policy that works. If we wait too long we may miss our opportunity to have a good diplomatic and commercial relationship with the future administration of Cuba, whatever incarnation it may take.

Will Someone Please Explain How Condoms Work to Pope Benedict

In the blog post "With 'no condoms' stance, Pope molests Africa," in The Smirking Chimp, Theo Talcott explains his opinion on the controversy of Pope Benedict's recent assertions that using condoms does not prevent and even worsens the spread of HIV. The author has a secular and liberal perspective on the subject. This is illustrated by the statement, "The Catholic Church is unhealthy about sexual issues and needs to stop screwing up public policy." His claim is that the Catholic Church is wrong and should adopt a more socially responsible stance on birth control.
The article does not provide hard facts or statistics to support his claim, but does provide empirical evidence on the benefits of using birth control. This is shown by the author's statement, "An unscientific willful ignorance is the enemy of a sustainable world civilization."
Mr. Talcott provides the Catholic Church's stance on birth control, then explains the underlying reason for this, and then states the risks associated with the Pope's actions. His logic is simple and to the point. He describes the dire consequences of the Catholic Church's position and goes on to explain the benefits of using condoms.
I agree with the author's sentiments. Birth control and AIDS awareness are a priority for the global community and should be adopted by the Catholic Church.
The target audience is the Catholic community. This becomes apparent when the author addresses them by writing, "Dear Catholic friends, I apologize for mocking things you hold sacred."
I believe the author's statements are dependable. He describes widely shared opinions. However, as a blogger his credibility is not rock solid. He is relegated to the status of a blogger without journalistic credentials. Therefore, the content of his posting, though intelligent and logical, cannot be considered fully reliable by mainstream media standards.

     In Peter Scoblic's editorial for NPR "Obama's Foreign Policy isn't Bush Part 2," he attempts to differentiate between Obama's and Bush's respective foreign policies.  Mr. Scoblic is defending Obama from critics who claim there is little difference between the two.  He draws comparisons between the ideologies of Bush and Obama; he believes that Bush had an us versus them attitude and Obama is taking a more diplomatic approach.  He illustrates this point by saying "Bush and the conservatives around him believed that the world was divided into good and evil," and also by quoting President Obama as saying "In words and deeds, we are showing the world that a new era of engagement has begun."  I agree with the author's arguments.  Aside from the evidence provided in the article, I believe it is common knowledge that Obama is interested in employing diplomacy instead of deploying troops.    

America Arms Drug Cartels

In the recent opinion piece, "The Drug Cartels' Right to Bear Arms," in the New York Times, the author discusses the hypocrisy of American gun dealers arming Mexican drug gangs with automatic weapons asserting that this is allowing drugs to continue to flow across the U.S borders. The author supports this claim by providing a quote from the U.S. Justice Department stating that the Mexican drug cartels are "a national security threat." The writer also describes the number of Mexicans who have died as a result of the this drug war last year (6,000), and the number of weapons seized by Mexican officials (20,000). I believe this article is intelligent and timely, and is requisite reading for Americans who are not aware of the violence taking place in Mexico. The author's target audience is most likely Americans who are pro gun control; I believe this article reinforces the opinions of liberal democrats who subscribe to the idea that guns beget violence. The credibility of the author is uncertain because he/she is not a staff writer for the New York Times, but merely a contributor. I have never read any other columns by Fifon57, and the lack of a real name causes me to question this persons authority on the subject. I am willing to believe the article's assertions because of many other news reports in the past describing the battles between rival drug cartels and against Mexican authorities, the ability for criminals to move contraband across the borders is common knowledge, and the relaxed U.S. gun laws make it easy for criminals to buy and possess weapons. Evidence given by the author is sometimes verifiable and sometimes not. The statistics given by Mexico are not quoted from a source and the source agency is not named. However, the quote from the U.S. Justice Department appears to be verifiable. I agree with this article's statements because the argument is reasonable, orderly, and well explained. The editorial seems to be free of fallacies, and few biased claims are apparent, and empirical evidence is used. The author's scope of knowledge concerning the subject is broad and well informed. I recommend this article as supplemental reading for those who are interested in the state of the drug war in Mexico and the current situation of gun sales and distribution in American southern border states.