As you all probably know the people who are "occupying" Wall Street are giving people mixed messages on what their true purpose of their protest is. They have no written demands of what they want to get out of the protests or what they want from corporations. One big idea they are advocating is that corporations, instead of claiming a profit, are saying they made no profit by giving huge bonuses to the CEO of the corporation so they don't have to pay any taxes.
Another purpose of their protests is to tell the government to make more jobs. One of their protest locations was to gather on many bridges across the country to send the message to remodel bridges to create more jobs. My opinion on this is that these jobs will be temporary and what will these people do after their job is gone and all the bridges have been remodeled? Plus our nation is already engulfed in massive amounts of debt, so in order to raise money for these projects to create jobs the government would be forced to raise taxes. This is a little counter intuitive because sure you'd have a job (temporarily) but then you'd also have to pay much more in taxes.
Another reason for the protest is to show that they are angry at banks who have money to give out loans but they don't want to take a risk on anyone right now in this time of financial crisis. This is further hindering our nation from recovering from our crisis.
In Constitutional Law we are learning about whether or not the Occupy Wallstreeters have a first amendment right to "occupy" parks with tents and sleeping bags. The first amendment "prohibits the making of any law... abriding the freedom of speech" or "... interfering with the right to peaceably assemble". The occupiers' message of this protest was to occupy where corruption and corporate greed was occuring at the source. Therefore they are not actually camping, they're occupying which is a form of expression and assembly.
Do you think they have a right or do you think the first amendment doesn't cover the right to occupy wallstreet? Is occupying the same thing as camping in this case or is occupying part of their message - therefore part of their constitutional right.
Saturday, November 26, 2011
Monday, November 7, 2011
Herman Cain?
In the news lately there has been a lot of accusations saying that Herman Cain, a Republican hopeful for the presidential nomination, has sexual harassed a few women. Just in one week, four women have come out in saying that Cain groped them harassed them even after they asked him to stop. In this BBC News article Sharon Bialek becomes the first accuser to speak publicly about Cain's inappropriate and un-presidential behavior.
Of the course Cain's campaigners deny everything about this accusations saying that Cain is certainly fit to be our nation's president and has never done such a thing to any women. But what is odd about this firm statement is that the National Restaurant Association (which has strong ties to Cain) made a $45,000 payout to one of the woman who made the accusation, who requested to remain anonymous.
This leads to an important question - Why would the National Restaurant Association make that payout even though Cain said firmly that he did not sexually harass anyone? Do they know something that the press hasn't been told about how honest Cain has been? Another question that arises because of this payout is - Are the other women just trying to get money by accusing Cain after they heard about the $45,000 payout or is there truth in what they're telling the press?
It's hard to tell where the truth lies in this situation, but my guess is that there must be some truth in what the accusers are saying. Bialek said in her statement to the press that Cain reached his hand up her skirt and pushed her head towards his crotch.
I'm sure that even everything these women are saying is false, this scandal has killed Cain's chances of ever becoming president (if he ever had a chance to begin with). Since he wasn't that strong of a candidate before with his under qualifications (in my eyes) I'm almost positive this sleaze bag will never become president due the severity of the accusations. What do you guys think? Do you think this scandal will kill his chances all together? Also do you think this will give Republicans as a whole a bad name and give Obama a better chance of winning his second term?
:-)
Of the course Cain's campaigners deny everything about this accusations saying that Cain is certainly fit to be our nation's president and has never done such a thing to any women. But what is odd about this firm statement is that the National Restaurant Association (which has strong ties to Cain) made a $45,000 payout to one of the woman who made the accusation, who requested to remain anonymous.
This leads to an important question - Why would the National Restaurant Association make that payout even though Cain said firmly that he did not sexually harass anyone? Do they know something that the press hasn't been told about how honest Cain has been? Another question that arises because of this payout is - Are the other women just trying to get money by accusing Cain after they heard about the $45,000 payout or is there truth in what they're telling the press?
It's hard to tell where the truth lies in this situation, but my guess is that there must be some truth in what the accusers are saying. Bialek said in her statement to the press that Cain reached his hand up her skirt and pushed her head towards his crotch.
I'm sure that even everything these women are saying is false, this scandal has killed Cain's chances of ever becoming president (if he ever had a chance to begin with). Since he wasn't that strong of a candidate before with his under qualifications (in my eyes) I'm almost positive this sleaze bag will never become president due the severity of the accusations. What do you guys think? Do you think this scandal will kill his chances all together? Also do you think this will give Republicans as a whole a bad name and give Obama a better chance of winning his second term?
:-)
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Iran's Plot to Bomb the Saudi Embassay
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15269348
On September 29th the U.S. arrested Manssor Arbabsiar in the JFK airport in New York under high suspicion of his plot to bomb the Saudi Embassay in Washington DC. For many months now law enforcement and intelligence communities have been working on figuring out what Arbabsiar and his collegue in Iran have been up to. They discovered that they were planning to kill the Saudian Ambassador in DC and quickly arrested Arbabsiar before he entered onto any airplane. Thanks to the efforts of law enforcement what could have been a disastorous event was avoided.
The United States isn't the only country worried and outraged about the threat of bombing from Iran; the UK has also stated that they will back up the US in punishing Iran for its actions 100%. The reason the Iran government, as a whole, is being blamed and not just the two specific bombers involved is because the two men were apart of the Iran's Quad Force and had been given direct orders. This plot, to many other countries, is being seen as "childish acts" on Iran's part.
After his arrest, Arbabsiar confessed his involvement with the plot, but his attorney claims he is planning to plead not guilty when he is officialy indicted. Arbabsiar and other men involved in this plot were said to have contacts with informants in the US Drug Enforcement Agency who lied about their involvement with Mexican Drug Cartels. The US also discovered that the Iranian government were paying the bombers 1.5 milion dollars for the assassination of Adel al-Jubeir (the Saudi ambassador).
Both Arbabsiar and Shakuri (the other bomber not arrested at JFK) have been charged with conspiracy to murder a foreign official, weapons conspiracy, and conspiracy to commit international terrorism charges.With all this evidence and information that intelligence agencies have collected I wonder why Arbabsiar would even bother pleading not guilty? Does the US government have any hard evidence (I couldn't find any information on this)?
After the alleged conspricacy to kill the Saudian Ambassador in Washington, DC was discovered Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton really cracked down on Iran, with the threat of new penalties. Iran already has a series of international sanctions. My question about this, to you, is what do you think an effective penalty could be for Iran and/or Arbabsiar? How can Hilary send out a strong enough message to make sure other countries realize not to mess with us?
:-)
On September 29th the U.S. arrested Manssor Arbabsiar in the JFK airport in New York under high suspicion of his plot to bomb the Saudi Embassay in Washington DC. For many months now law enforcement and intelligence communities have been working on figuring out what Arbabsiar and his collegue in Iran have been up to. They discovered that they were planning to kill the Saudian Ambassador in DC and quickly arrested Arbabsiar before he entered onto any airplane. Thanks to the efforts of law enforcement what could have been a disastorous event was avoided.
The United States isn't the only country worried and outraged about the threat of bombing from Iran; the UK has also stated that they will back up the US in punishing Iran for its actions 100%. The reason the Iran government, as a whole, is being blamed and not just the two specific bombers involved is because the two men were apart of the Iran's Quad Force and had been given direct orders. This plot, to many other countries, is being seen as "childish acts" on Iran's part.
After his arrest, Arbabsiar confessed his involvement with the plot, but his attorney claims he is planning to plead not guilty when he is officialy indicted. Arbabsiar and other men involved in this plot were said to have contacts with informants in the US Drug Enforcement Agency who lied about their involvement with Mexican Drug Cartels. The US also discovered that the Iranian government were paying the bombers 1.5 milion dollars for the assassination of Adel al-Jubeir (the Saudi ambassador).
Both Arbabsiar and Shakuri (the other bomber not arrested at JFK) have been charged with conspiracy to murder a foreign official, weapons conspiracy, and conspiracy to commit international terrorism charges.With all this evidence and information that intelligence agencies have collected I wonder why Arbabsiar would even bother pleading not guilty? Does the US government have any hard evidence (I couldn't find any information on this)?
After the alleged conspricacy to kill the Saudian Ambassador in Washington, DC was discovered Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton really cracked down on Iran, with the threat of new penalties. Iran already has a series of international sanctions. My question about this, to you, is what do you think an effective penalty could be for Iran and/or Arbabsiar? How can Hilary send out a strong enough message to make sure other countries realize not to mess with us?
:-)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)