Critique: A person, or not a person: that is the question

My critique is on Mollie Hammer’s editorial A person, or not a person: that is the question. I agree with Mollie that stem cell research is important. Not only is it important, but it should have the full support of the government at all times, not jumping back and forth every time we get a new President. The possibilities of what stem cell research could provide to the advancement of treatments and cures are limitless. I think it is more humane to think about actual people that are suffering, than to be worried about using the stem cells of frozen embryos. To me it is more inhumane to continue to do nothing, while people have to suffer through debilitating disease like Parkinson, Alzheimer’s and other crippling diseases that slowly decays a living soul.

I think that if these so called activists who are against stem cell research had family members that could be helped by stem cell research, they would quickly change their minds. There are other ways to get stem cells other than an embryo. The umbilical cord can be used to obtain stem cells. This should not be an issue for those people against stem cell research, as babies are born every day and the umbilical cord is usually just thrown away. Also, how many abortions are performed each day? The possibility for stem cells research on these aborted embryos is also a possibility. Although this would probably be dangerous if companies start providing abortions just for stem cells.

This is a difficult issue, but one that should not be so hard because something that fits into a petri dish or a test tube is not more important to me than a person that is suffering, while their loved ones can do nothing but watch as the person they love slowly deteriorates right before their eyes.

Mollie wrote an excellent editorial and I enjoyed reading her article.

by: Genoveva Nannapaneni

President Obama Has His Work Cut Out For Him

As I was writing this editorial, I started writing about Immigration Reform and was really getting into the point of view of the “poor illegal immigrant” who, if we are honest with ourselves, gets the short end of the stick, on a pure humanistic point of view. Of course they shouldn’t come into the country illegally, but does the U.S. on purposely make it harder for Hispanics to be able to come to America legally? That was one question I had. Another was does America benefit from having so many illegal immigrants here? One site stated that illegal immigrants social security contributions is in the billions and will continue to grow, because they have no legal rights to this money. Then I started reading about the cost associated with having illegal immigrants in the country and I thought this is too much information for me to process in such a short time.

I dropped that topic and decided to write about something I’m passionate about, which is tougher laws on sex offenders especially crimes against children. I’ve raved many times to my husband how I feel that crimes against children need tougher punishments. I believe anyone that rapes a child should be put to death, because they are worthless human beings and should not be allowed to exist. Then I thought, molesters should be put to death too. I started thinking, what will be the “beyond a reasonable doubt” that would determine if they get put to death. Would there have to be DNA evidence? Well as you can imagine, I started getting very frustrated, because I’m not a lawyer. I’m a mother and I love my children and I believe all children are God’s gift and should be safe in this world. So, I gave up on this pursuit and moved on to the next subject.

Education is another of my passions. I believe that we need to do something in this country to enable all Americans to be able to afford a college education. We need to insure that all children are getting the best education that America can give and if we need to improve our standards, then we need to get moving. America is falling behind countries like India and China. If we want to remain the best nation in the world, then we need to get off our rears and make sure that our children are in the same league in math and science as other countries.

After going through just these three topics, I have to say that I realize that President Obama has his work cut out for him. That he will need to surround himself with experts and passionate intelligent people to be able to accomplish anything in his term in office. That we as American need to be more informed in all aspects of whatever subject we are passionate about to be able to make a difference in the laws and the changes needed to keep America the greatest nation in the world.

by Genoveva Nannapaneni

Critique on: Ms. Zeiss' Editorial

Obama Passes New Hate Crimes Law

I found this editorial quit interesting in so much that it touches on a subject matter that affects millions of Americans nationwide. This editorial has enough information to help identify why the law that was passed was named Mathew Shepard & James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. It also explained that this law was expanding on the 1969 United States Federal Hate Crimes Law to include crimes committed by a victims actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.

I agree with Ms. Zeiss on the importance of this law being passed. It is time that we as nation stood up and protected all our citizens, no matter what religion, race, creed, gender, disability or any other difference that we may have. Every individual deserves to be treated with respect and have equal protection under the law.

Like Ms. Zeiss, I can only hope that this is the beginning of our nation taking the firm and decisive steps to insure that all its people can live and feel that they too matter. We as a nation must protect all our citizens. We cannot be a country where a person is afraid to be who they are because they do not fit into someone else’s views on how a person should live their lives. We are all different individuals and as such we have the unalienable rights given to us by God and our founding fathers to the pursue of happiness.

The only thing that would have made reading this editorial more helpful would have been if Ms. Zeiss had actually typed out what the abbreviations LGBT, DOMA, DADT and ENDA stand for and embed a link to these groups.

Up until the last paragraph I was following along, but I got lost in all the abbreviations that were unknown to me. Other than that I found Ms. Zeiss editorial interesting and I enjoyed reading it.

by: Genoveva Nannapaneni

Why Is The United States Expected To Sacrifice Our Young Men And Women For Countries Who Do Not Take Care Of Their Own Problems?

As a mother of two young boys, I can’t help but ask this question every time I read an article of more Americans killed on foreign land. Do not misunderstand me, I love my country and would die to defend it, but I have to ask myself, “How are we defending America in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and other countries?”

I personally believe that we should not be taking care of other countries' problems when we have so many of our own. Imagine the possibilities if all the men and women that are deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq were used to benefit our country, here on our homeland. Imagine what we could have accomplished in our Nation with all the money we’ve spent and are continuing to spend on wars on foreign lands.

We could have more man power to help fight the war on drugs that is invading the United States and attacking children as young as kindergarten right in our own backyard. To believe that we can reduce the drug production in other countries is ludicrous. We do not have control, nor will we ever have control, of what others are doing in their country. We can make a difference in America if we quit wasting our efforts on unattainable causes. Most important we need to quit sending our children to die for causes that the people of those country are not willing to fight themselves.

We have more than enough issues to keep our military busy here in our own land. Our military could be used to make America a safer place in our own homeland, than to be used for countries that have no intention of changing their way of thinking and who do not appreciate nor feel the pain of the sacrifices that thousands of American mothers and fathers have made, when their child comes back in a body bag.

We need to realize that change comes from within. If the citizens of Iraq, Afghanistan and other nations are not willing to stand-up for their own Nation and fight for change themselves, then change will never happen. No amount of force will change the mind of one single person, let alone millions. Change has to come from inside and only then can a country in turmoil flourish to become a great nation, like America.

I think it is time that we leave these countries to take ownership of their own problems and find their own resolutions that will benefit their countries as a whole.

by: Geneva Nannapaneni

On Obama's Nobel Peace Prize

National Review Online’s
The Agenda Blog

Published: Friday October 9, 2009
by: Reihan Salam

http://agenda.nationalreview.com/

The Agenda, which focuses on debates by the Obama White House and conservatives, is written by Reihan Salam. Mr. Salam, who works at the New America Foundation, writes on politics, culture, and technology. A few of Salam’s creditials include previous associate editor at The Atlantic, a producer for NBC News, worked for the New York Times, a research associate at the Council of Foreign Relations and a reporter-researcher at The New Republic. He also writes regularly for Forbes.com, The Daily Beast, Slate, and Foreign Policy, and is the editor of The American Scene.

Mr. Salam is criticizing the Nobel Peace Prize committee for choosing President Barack Obama for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. I think Mr. Salam’s intended audiences are conservatives.

Mr. Salam is amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize Committee chose President Obama. He even goes on say that he agreed with the Committee’s 2003 Nobel Peace Prize winner, Shirin Ebadi, the Iranian human rights activist, but does not know “why” President Obama won, when there are so many human rights activists out there who deserve to win.

I have to admit that when my husband first told me on Friday morning that President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, I too was surprised, as was my husband. We both asked ourselves, “What did he do?” I did not know much about the kind of things President Obama, might have been involved with, which would have caught the attention of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee.

Apparently, Mr. Salam and I are both ignorant on “why” the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded. The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded annually according to Alfred Nobel’s will, "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

Nobel officials said their stunning pick was meant to build momentum behind President Obama's initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism.

President Obama is not being recognized for any life long break through, but rather for his courageous efforts toward the peaceful cooperation between all nations. That is “why” President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize and that is “why” he deserves it.

Tuning In Too Late

by Clark Hoyt
Published: September 26, 2009

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/opinion/27pubed.html?_r=1

The article that I am critiquing is, “Tuning in Too Late” by Clark Hoyt from The New York Times. Mr. Hoyt is the readers’ representative, he responds to complaints and comments from the public and monitors the paper’s journalistic practices. Since staring his journalistic carrier in 1966, Mr. Hoyt has worked for several newspapers and even shared the Pulitzer Prize for national reporting in 1973.

This article is concerning a video sting conducted on Acorn, in which a bogus pimp and prostitute who (were actually undercover conservative activists) went into one of the Acorn office and received counseling on how to set-up a brothel staffed by under-age girls, avoid detection and cheat on taxes. Apparently, the story ran for days on Fox News, YouTube and a new conservative website called BigGovernement.com yet The New York Times ran nothing on the story.

Mr. Hoyt says that some editors of The Times, told him that they were not immediately aware of the Acorn videos. Even after the Senate voted to cut off all federal funds to Acorn and the New York City Council froze all funding for Acorn and the Brooklyn district attorney opened a criminal investigation, there was still nothing from The New York Times. That to me is disturbing, as apparently it was to many readers.

I think that Mr. Hoyt agrees with the criticism, that The New York Times did not act fast enough to report the Acorn sting and when they did, it was a bias report. As is evident in his article when he states that finally, nearly a week after the first video was posted, The Times addressed the Acorn issue with its article under the headline, “Conservatives Draw Blood from Acorn, Favored Foe.” He clearly states that instead of addressing the issue of an organization with questionable ethics, that he thought politics was emphasized too much. He even quotes Albert Smith of Chatham, N.J. as saying, “A suspicious person might see an attempt to deflect criticism of Acorn by highlighting how those pesky conservatives are at it again.” Also the title of his article, “Tuning in Too Late,” is a clear indication that he also thought there was a slow response time from The Times.

I think that Mr. Hoyt's intended audience were conservatives, but I also think that any reasonable person would think it extremely odd that a story such as this was not immediately picked up by a national newspaper like The New York Times. I find it unbelievable that a national newspaper like The New York Times did not know about the Acorn sting. I agree with Mr. Hoyt, that there is a problem with The New York Times stressing politics instead of addressing the ethical issues concerning Acorn.

Last Year's Poverty Rate Was Highest in 12 Years

New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/us/11poverty.html

According to the annual report released on Thursday, September 10, 2009 by the Census Bureau, poverty rate increased from12.5 percent in 2007 to 13.2 percent in 2008. Unfortunately, these numbers are expected to increase dramatically in 2009. The report stated that in 2008, 39.8 million residents lived below the defined poverty line of $22,025 for a family of four.

Also, once inflation is factored, the median family income was lower than it had been a decade earlier. What does this mean for the typical American? It means that we’ve lost a decade of income growth.

Of course with the poverty rates being at it’s all time high and growing, this also means that there are more people without health insurance. According to the article 46.3 million residents are uninsured. While more children received health insurance, in 2008, thanks to the federal government’s efforts to insure low-income children, there was an increase in the number of adults aged 18-64 who did not have health insurance.

President Obama referred to the census survey, in his speech on Thursday, in an effort to try to promote his health care reform.

I happen to be one of those lucky enough to have health insurance, but I do have relatives who cannot afford health care insurance. In my opinion, affordable health care should not be a privilege, but a right.

I think this article is important because whatever views we have about politics we need to take a good look at our health care system and find a solution that will benefit all Americans.

by: Geneva Nannapaneni
September 12, 2009