Monthly Archives: May 2011
Finger pointing politics and the rhetoric in government has gotten completely out of control. Political debates and elections have become a disgusting display of rattling the skeleton bones in the opponent’s closet. Many politicians go as far as to hire an investigator to dig up tasty tidbits for the hungry vultures called the media. This type of campaigning has turned our politics into a circus that is causing consequences that will last a lifetime. Persons in a higher position in society and government have an obligation to set an example by adhering to a stricter set of standards. There was a time when holding a position in office was revered and only the righteous could serve – anything less was tyranny.
This behavior is unacceptable under any criteria. If indeed an opponent feels another candidate is behaving unethically or criminally they should privately go to a superior or legal professional instead of the media. The only rational reason a politician goes to the press is to hurt the reputation of the other candidate via the media. Furthermore, the only practical answer for such behavior is that the candidate wishes to divert attention from his own actions, thus making them seem like the better choice for power. Such candidates should be removed from the ticket and banned from running for office in the future.
Politicians have an obligation to act in a way that is flattering to America and its people, to set an example of excellence and patriotism, as well as, keep public order and respect. Unfortunately this is no longer the standard, instead – they lie, cheat, and spread rhetoric, and that is not for the greater good of all people. The people of America have an obligation to put an end to this behavior (peacefully) by refusing to take part in the political process until higher standards are met; we have failed our duty of obligation, moral ideals, and consequences. And, mark my words, if the people of America fail in their obligation in this area, the consequences will be devastating.
America is now reaping the consequences of past elections and choices in the political genre. The people’s voting obligations have been pushed aside to make room for the struggles of family, taxes, education, work, unemployment, and growing technology; we no longer research candidates running for office- it takes too much time. In addition, we count on the media to bring us fair and balanced coverage, basing our choices from the 60-second smear campaigns that flash in-between our favorite movie. The American People have an obligation to vote responsibly and mindful, with the greater good of all in mind.
If every person voted as if they would die at the exact moment they marked their ballot and the only people who the choice affected was those left behind (no personal gain), our choices might be different and more beneficial to everyone- not just ourselves. Until humankind stops voting selfishly, this kind of political behavior will continue. All American citizens have an obligation and duty to the greater good of all people, politicians, citizens, and government – no exceptions. It is more patriotic to not vote at all than to vote for someone whom does not have America’s best interest at heart; patriotic duty is more than the right to vote – it is making sure the candidate is worthy of office and power.
for Illegal Immigrants
men are created Equal” in its totality has never held true in any country or
culture. As human beings, our sense of arrogance seems to be inborn; believing
that class, color, looks, money, or status makes one better than the other
(low-class, middle-class, high-class, and back, white, Mexican). While creation
makes us each totally different in many ways, none of us are better than the
other; if we eliminate class, color, money, and status from the equation we
are all simply people. With this in mind, coupled with the criteria for
judgment, I do not believe that illegal immigrants have rights to the same
entitlements as legal citizens. If we are indeed, equal, than we all must
adhere to the same sense of principles; no exception, as no one person deserves
considerations another cannot get.
While I do believe passionately in education, the privilege to drive, some entitlements, and social security, giving these privileges to people whom are here illegally is unethical using any criteria. Obligation, morality, and more importantly consequences dictate a need for the current policies, which protect country borders, not just here in the United States, but around the world. World history has proven a need for a country’s stringent laws concerning entering another country for any reason; 9/11 is a perfect example of the need for such concern. Unfortunately, not every human being considers another’s life, virtue, or property, as being their right, furthermore, some extremists believe it is their ethical duty to kill other nationalities shall they be given citizens rights and entitlements?
Ideally, if every person on earth
respected the rights and feelings of others, the need for borders, policies,
and laws, would be unnecessary. The fact remains that there are indeed evil
people in existence, and these laws and policies are not only
necessary, but also critical for the security of every country around the
world. While I continually pray for peace on earth, and the ability for man to
roam free, I believe that this will only happen upon the coming of the Lord.
The reason that I chose this inquiry
is because not only do I truly believe in protecting a country and its people,
but not everyone is good, that is pure fact; I do not want to let any more evil
into this country. We need to know who is entering. Everyone who has good
intentions is welcome as far as I am concerned, however, those that are not
peaceful cannot. As I read this inquiry, I put myself in the shoes of the
illegal immigrant, to think their way; would I try to go to another country
illegally? No, I would not. The only practical reason that I could find for
someone entering illegally was, that they could not enter legally for criminal
issues. Therefore, I could not connect good reasoning with the action.
Normally I do not directly publish an “I” article
(college students’ have not learned that right); however, there will never come
a day that I do not speak out about the brutal murder of an animal. Yes, I said
brutal murder. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration gave Oregon
and Washington the permission to resume killing California Sea Lions at Bonneville
Dam on the Columbia River, all over eating Salmon- their God given right. The
battle over the precious fish began years ago when anglers believed the reason
for low Salmon populations were due in part to the Sea Lions. The Humane Society
of the United States is continuing to fight for the rights of these animals
that cannot fight for themselves.
“The Humane Society challenged the permit saying NOAA did
not show why it was targeting sea lions for removal while allowing sport,
commercial and tribal fisheries to take up to 17 percent of the Spring Chinook
run” (Smith, 2011). Similarly, this is my thinking; they will murder these sea
lions for eating the salmon, yet, catch them, and eat them their selves. This
is the ultimate selfishness on humankind’s part in my view. As the superior
animal, there are plenty of other food options for us, whereas, the sea lions
have only fish. The thought is, there
are a huge population of sea lions and fewer salmon, and so what is the harm. “The
California sea lion population is estimated at a healthy 238,000 while wild
Columbia and Chinook salmon are listed as endangered…[so the] NOAA and federal
agencies which operate Columbia and Snake river dams are under intense pressure
to protect and restore salmon and steelhead runs” (Smith, 2011).
Not only do Oregon and Washington have a permit to murder
these sea lions, it sounds as if they are excited to get started. “Everybody’s
been ready to go since mid-March,” says Robin Brown, ODFW’s marine mammal
program manager who has been trapping and branding sea lions at Bonneville all
spring…the traps are out there…the veterinarians are ready to go” (Smith,
2011). In addition, though she goes on to state that because of regulations and
negative publicity it is not “likely” any of the sea lions will actually be
killed. The truth of the matter is, “since 2008, 27 sea lions have been euthanized,
including the one killed on Thursday, and 10 others have been placed in zoos
and aquariums”…[furthermore] up to 85 California sea lions at Bonneville may be
killed annually” (Carson, 2011). In fact, last year 14 sea lions were murdered,
with none going to zoos or aquariums (Smith, 2011). This killing and imprisonment of the sea lions
is unconscionable and unethical; humankind is again trying to control that
which is not controllable and costing lives in the process.
William Stelle, NOAA regional director, believes that
this “act allows his agency to balance “the management of and conflict between
the two species” (Smith, 2011). In contrast to an earlier permit, this new
permit allows for the murder of sea lions above Bonneville as well. The sea
lions are migrating in fewer numbers, and eating fewer fish, yet this gets them
no pardon; Stelle says, “Although the numbers are down, there are still sea
lions around and they’re still killing fish” (Smith, 2011). Does this man wish
for these sea lions to disappear off the face of the earth? What right does the
fish have that the sea lions do not? Humankind has no right to dictate which
animal lives and which will die because we would rather eat one than the other.
This is a ridiculous logic, and selfish at best.
~Stephanie A. Kinzel~
Carson, Teresa. (2011, May 20). Humane Society sues to halt sea lion killings. Reuters.
Smith, Quinton. (2001, May 13). Ok given to resume killing or removing salmon-munching sea lions. Oregon.live.