Are your phonelines safe?

Paranoid people had a field day when congress legalized warrant less phone tapping of suspected terrorists to the National Security Agency. An agency made for cryptology, the NSA was secretly authorized to phone tap by the president after 9/11. Many people are wondering "how much should the government know?"

Bush has once again run into the alley on the bad side of the town as many clamor angrily against him for his authorization without the project's legalization. Unfortunately, most have already been subdued by the seemingly omnipotent question "What can we do?". This is truly a tragedy where the man on top remains unscathed for his wrong actions, such as Clinton's last day pardons. We need laws against such actions, but I cannot stray from the subject.

While its authorization was wrong, the warrant less wiretapping of the NSA has made substantial findings. In 2003, using satellites to identify his position, the NSA nabbed Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the 9/11 mastermind*. Utilizing a huge computer system called Echelon, they look for "phrases, names, phone numbers, and addresses"* trying to draw connections between them. In addition, this surveillance is a two-sided economic issue as well. Since 9/11 the estimated budget of the NSA has doubled to $9 billion, yet people doubt the proper management of the money as the NSA struggles keeping up with today's technologically advanced world*. On the other hand, it employs 30,000 to 40,000 people, pumping money back into the tax-payers*.

All in all, it comes down to how much we wants the government to know. I feel that there is no problem with the wiretapping. They wiretap only suspected terrorists and I myself have nothing to hide. As long as we treat these suspected terrorists innocent until proven guilty as well as with dignity and respect, and if the NSA program uses its budget effectively, no one should have a complaint. Hopefully, America can someday be a beacon of peace in foreign relations and the NSA will no longer be necessary, but until we resolve our conflicts this program only adds to our security.



* "America's most secret agency"; The Week; August 31, 2007; http://www.theweekmagazine.com/

Abortion in America

Every year America votes for politicians who claim to be anti-abortion, yet very few ever act on these stances and many do not grasp this problem in its entirety. Abortion is the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus to end a pregnancy*. The reason for abortion varies among the medical implications put on the mother, the trouble and inconveniences that bearing a child brings, and more. In the year 2003 alone, the Guttmacher Institute estimates there were 1,287,000 abortions performed and 23.8% of pregnancies ended in abortions**. However, the debate whether the fetus constitutes a person rages on. Instead of arguing about the time of a fetus becomes a human, I believe we should look into the potential for life. While a married man and woman are a possible source of new life, the fetus already passes the stage of possible into likely. While occurring less often in a more medically knowledgeable world, women who are in danger during pregnancy should not be forced to continue with the birth. Regardless, the sanctity of life should be protected and can be if the proper steps are taken. However, while many people argue about the safe birth of the child, its safe survival must also be taken into account. In a situation where the couple is not married and does not marry, the mother commonly takes custody of the child instead of the father. The mom, who already had to endure the strenuous task of childbirth, the time leading up to, and the work she missed, deserves compensation from the father. In addition, receiving a good education and earning good wages is a challenging pursuit for a young single parent. The mother must receive support from the father for bearing the child and the parent who does not take custody of the child must provide sufficient yet fair funds in accordance with his/her abilities and the child and other parent's needs until the end of the child's education whether it lasts through college or junior high.Thus, while the responsibility of the child lies in the hands of the couple, the most harm comes to the child who must now live in possibly an emotionally incomplete and financially unstable home. Rashly banning abortion without taking proper steps will create more problems and leave those deserving of justice, without it. Politicians need a plan to make any advance toward the end of abortion. But where do 1,287,000 babies go? In 2000 and 2001, 127,000 children were adopted annually and 15% of adoptions were out of the country adoptions (19,050 a year) ***. These adoptions could be replaced by adoptions within the country to help alleviate a surge of children in orphanages caused by a ban. However 1,267,950 babies still remain. Hence, the US could work with orphanages, whether Church or independent to help support unwanted children. Next, some children will remain with their parent/s. In order to help the example family above, children born out of wedlock to young parents could receive financial help from the government for college tuition bills as an incentive to succeed in life. This also depends on whether the couple remains together, the income of the parent, and other variables. In addition, public awareness needs to be raised at least 3 years in advance. In sex-ed and morality classrooms in high schools, teenagers need to realize that abortion will not be an option. Finally, law enforcement on illegal abortions would be required. For these precautions to occur though, the government needs funds which might force a tax increase. Hopefully, through these actions the implications of rash ban, such as a flood of children in orphanages, children growing up in financially and emotionally troubled homes, and other trickle-down effects, can be averted. Nevertheless, the first year of the ban will 'break the ice' and not long after people will understand that a child is their responsibility and births out-of-wedlock and among young couples (15-20) will decrease. In conclusion, abortion stops life in a very probable stage, but a quick ban cannot fix this enormous problem. Nonetheless, with proper procedures, it can be reduced and halted with minimal backlash.
Works Cited*American Psychological Association (APA):abortion. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved August 19, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abortion** "Estimates of US abortion incidents, 2001-2003"; Lawrence B. Finer, Staney K. Henshaw; Guttmacher institute; 3 August 2006; http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/08/03/ab_incidence.pdf***"How many children were adopted in 2000-2001?"; Child Welfare information gateway; August 2004; http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/s_adopted/s_adopted.pdf

Homosexuality in America (Continued)

Shortly after publishing Homosexuality in America, I realized that I had taken a simple argument of a Man's right to his own life and turned it into a zealous front on sex. While the aforementioned article may be jumbled I would like to correct it. This article is really not much on Homosexuality, but sex itself.
This second article came into mind when a friend of mine mentioned that she felt sex was also an expression of one's deep love for another(hopefully after marriage) and thus found gay sex acceptable. Overlooking this expression of love in my article, I stated sex should be for reproduction and consequently I thought gay sex was not pious. Comparing and contrasting these opposing ideas, I progress onward to an answer. Both of these arguments promote that the act of intercourse mentioned is not just sex for fun, but rather sex out of love or sex for children.
Subsequently, modern culture, advertisers, network producers, and the people who endorse them(you and me) blur the line of sex's acceptance in culture. 'Sex sells' is now advertising slang. The immense pressure of sex trickles down. While being not nearly as serious or harmful, it is portrayed in other places, such as scantily clad dolls to MTV reality shows. With girls overly conscious about their weight and boys doubting their masculinity, the public view of what is right and what is wrong is questioned daily.
Americans need to remember the two points I mentioned earlier and set their own guidelines for life. However, the moral dilemma is not the only problem at hand. Children out of wedlock, STD's, and eating disorders are effects of our perception on what's appropriate.
--- As for gay sex - despite my friend's point, I still feel that homosexuals should remain celibate because gay sex doesn't carry the same responsibility of children that a man and woman having sex does. While in our world most couples overlook this, the two points I mentioned coincide. Hopefully the couple that believes they are strong enough in their bond to have sex also gladly acknowledge the responsibility.

My Sources

I just wanted to credit my sources here because I realized if I wanted to be taken seriously as a website, I can't just pull stastics and dates out of the air.
For Scooter Libby article-

• msn news keyword scooter Libby
• Wikipedia keyword presidential pardon

For hot-botton issue article

• Guttmacher Institue (I got through wikipedia)
• Wikipedia keyword Abortion

I mainly use general knowledge and I do not use statitics or dates or anything factual that I don't fully believe is true. If you can find evidence I am wrong please write for I don't want to be posting lies.

The Simpson's Movie

My Critique has waited for nearly a week and a half now. I have avoided contact or even being near my computer in attempts to not write this lump-in-my-throat review. Well, I can't hide from my computer. If you haven't guessed yet, I am a huge Simpson's fan. I have the first five seasons of the Simpson, I watch the show whenever I can, I own Homer Simpson Slippers. I'm even wearing a Simpson's T-shirt as I write this.
3 out of 5 stars - I could stop right there. I probably should, seeing that every heart wrenching, mentally conflicting, truly confusing, life shortening word I write for this unsure review well as may be for my obituary. For being a huge Simpson's fan, this life defining event either justifies my hours spent pouring over this show, or rips my beliefs to shreds. However it did neither of these.
I was prepared. While it would seem I still ride the nearly impossible crest of the wave of obsession and phenomena with the show, as the show did with general public shortly after it's creation, I had passed that stage of love a long time ago. Yet I have been revitalized by the thunderous fall of this wave on the beach. At this current point in my affair with the Simpson's, I am floating back to open ocean on the receding water. It sounds depressing, but everyone knows the water will come back.
These past seasons have warned me. They have been markers for the evolving show. Competing with more low-brow cartoons like Family Guy, The Simpson's were not "simpson-esque". It was the first prime time cartoon satire to add humor to plots and stories that would coincide with and remind viewers of their family. While the movie contained an epic journey of Homer discovering true happiness through others enjoyment as well as his, many scenes cheapened the overall story, like Bart's genitals and the numerous times the writer's chose a sophomoric laugh over truly genuine moment. I am not saying the movie shouldn't have been funny, but it should have been the culmination of everything the Simpson's stand for and represent.
All in all, a great movie, but a bad Simpson's installment.