This is a link to the blog I am commenting on.
http://aliengov715.blogspot.com/2007/11/continue.html
You make a valid statement, however while your intentions are well reserved, your firing in the wrong directions if any at all. Politicians despite what we ALL may think (myself included) do not have as much power as expected. In fact you did mention the “drug companies” and the possibility of wrong motives and corruption among them. I noticed you did not choose a side. Where one side being the evil politicians, the other being the powerful companies. Had you picked a side the correct choice would have been the drug companies themselves.
http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=8153
Above is a link I posted to an article on a site called newscientist.com. The Article explains the function of a drug known as dichloroacetate (DCA). DCA has the power to kill off mostly all cancer cells, by “switching off” what makes them immortally unstoppable. However, as DCA is not patented, it may be difficult to find funding from private investors to test DCA in clinical trials. That’s right, this drug may end cancer as we know it, yet the drug companies won’t do it because of financial issues.The following quote is from my girlfriend.
“I bet you this drug could have saved my brothers life but instead the medical community and drug companies were out trying to get all our money because the sicker my brother got, the more money they made off of us. In the end, he lost his life.”
That’s sad isn’t it? There are many different stories from a lot more people, much like this one. Drug companies have all the power, funding, and time they need, yet because of some extra money they just throw it all away, and only give us what we are willing to pay “top dollar” for. Notice though that the people who have found this cure are Canadians. (don’t worry I am not about to go against Canada). However it does make one wonder, had the cure been discovered here, in American, would this situation be any different. I for one say not yes but hell yes! Protestors would go wild, and the President would drop whatever he was doing to go sign some document to make things start happening, before the public went into riot mode.
These drug companies in Canada could learn a lot by observing the outcry for a cure here in America. Foundations like “The Magic Johnson Foundation” are led by rich and powerful people who’s desire is to put there time and money to good use. Look at Magic Johnson, he has AIDS, I am willing to wager that if he was on charge of a drug company and they found a cure for AIDS, he would be all over that.
Do you see the point I am making? These drug companies do not hear the outcry of the needy, and do not understand the pain that the patients, doctors, families, and friends are undergoing. So if one of their family members came down with cancer, would they break into their workplace to get that cure? If they did not have a wallet where their heart should be, then yes they would do whatever necessary to save their family members life.
In conclusion, I would like to go back to the last few words of your blog. When you said “Either way it’s a fight between money and health. But who’s the real bad guy I wonder? Who’s really trying to help America’s Health? Is it the politician’s who care, or is it the powerful drug companies? Does it even matter as long as we get better?” The answer is the politicians would help, but in this case the cure is in Canada, and on top of that the rich and powerful leaders of drug companies don’t necessarily not care about us, they just REALLY like money more.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Thursday, November 29, 2007
The Capitals punishment.
One of the larger issues facing cantidates is their stand on the death penalty. While states such as California are preparing to abolish it, other states such as Texas are upgrading it. Yet we feel uneasy about the death penalty because we dont like the thought of someone suffering. Which brings up the question, is capital punishment cruel and unusual?
The death penalty should not be considered as cruel and unusual punishment. The death penalty has been around just as long as the criminal justice system itself. Many people believe that by killing someone as punishment will only make the criminal justice system just as bad as the murderer. This idea process originates from the quote “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind”.
If I had to rule out the biggest factor that dictates the justification of an execution, is not the act of executing in itself, but rather the method in which it is carried out, as well as the reason for executing a criminal. The method by which people have used execution in the criminal justice system has improved through leaps and bounds throughout the centuries. It has improved both in its efficiency as well as its leniency towards criminals. For instance people used to be pulled out of their homes, and tied to four horses, then drawn and quartered, all because they may have stolen some bread to feed their family. However in this present day and age, people may go on a rampant non stop killing spree, then be sentenced to execution by a quiet poison delivered by a tiny needle that causes them to go to sleep, and never wake up again.
This brings me to my next point. Now as we all know, the prison system here in the United States of America is for the most part overpopulated. With that being said I would like to elaborate on the importance of a speedier trial and execution. Every trial that involves either a celebrity or a serial killer usually lasts a very long time. The longer the case lasts the more money it costs to maintain, and it is harder on the judge, attorneys, and courtroom staff. Also the more people that are in jail, the more money it costs, and it is harder it is on the corrections officers and staff of the prison.
Executions bring closure to families. Say for instance that a little girl’s father is killed by a crazed mailman wielding a gun. The mailman is sentenced to a long prison term, but has the possibility of parole since it is not capitol murder. That little girl is going to grow up knowing that the man who killed her father is still out there, and may one do be free out killing again. This can emotional devastate individuals who have experienced traumatic situations. It is in our human nature that it is always easier to use negative reinforcement, than coming up with, and carrying out a means for positive reinforcement.
Thirteen states do not have the death penalty: Alaska, District of Colombia, Hawaii, Iowa, Main, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Right now there is a massive uprising of anti- capital punishment activists. These people base their argument that jail is more than enough of a deterrent to stop murderers from killing again. This is false, what they do not understand is that these killings usually take place in the heat of the moment; the killer does not think about it, they just do it. Had they thought about it, they may have not even been caught in the first place.
Jail is not nearly enough of a deterrent to make people stop from killing. They may even so bold to still say that they had the last laugh and got away with it. However with the ever present threat of the death penalty looming over the heads of criminals, they will then have something to truly fear in the criminal justice system. Although some of the studies suggest that the death penalty may not function as a significantly greater deterrent than lesser penalties, there is no convincing empirical evidence supporting or refuting this view. More often most people have a natural fear of death from the time they are born, its a trait man have to think about what will happen before we act. If we don’t think about it consciously, we will think about it unconsciously. Think about it if every murderer who killed someone died instantly, the homicide rate would be very low because no one likes to die.
The death penalty should not be considered as cruel and unusual punishment. The death penalty has been around just as long as the criminal justice system itself. Many people believe that by killing someone as punishment will only make the criminal justice system just as bad as the murderer. This idea process originates from the quote “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind”.
If I had to rule out the biggest factor that dictates the justification of an execution, is not the act of executing in itself, but rather the method in which it is carried out, as well as the reason for executing a criminal. The method by which people have used execution in the criminal justice system has improved through leaps and bounds throughout the centuries. It has improved both in its efficiency as well as its leniency towards criminals. For instance people used to be pulled out of their homes, and tied to four horses, then drawn and quartered, all because they may have stolen some bread to feed their family. However in this present day and age, people may go on a rampant non stop killing spree, then be sentenced to execution by a quiet poison delivered by a tiny needle that causes them to go to sleep, and never wake up again.
This brings me to my next point. Now as we all know, the prison system here in the United States of America is for the most part overpopulated. With that being said I would like to elaborate on the importance of a speedier trial and execution. Every trial that involves either a celebrity or a serial killer usually lasts a very long time. The longer the case lasts the more money it costs to maintain, and it is harder on the judge, attorneys, and courtroom staff. Also the more people that are in jail, the more money it costs, and it is harder it is on the corrections officers and staff of the prison.
Executions bring closure to families. Say for instance that a little girl’s father is killed by a crazed mailman wielding a gun. The mailman is sentenced to a long prison term, but has the possibility of parole since it is not capitol murder. That little girl is going to grow up knowing that the man who killed her father is still out there, and may one do be free out killing again. This can emotional devastate individuals who have experienced traumatic situations. It is in our human nature that it is always easier to use negative reinforcement, than coming up with, and carrying out a means for positive reinforcement.
Thirteen states do not have the death penalty: Alaska, District of Colombia, Hawaii, Iowa, Main, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Right now there is a massive uprising of anti- capital punishment activists. These people base their argument that jail is more than enough of a deterrent to stop murderers from killing again. This is false, what they do not understand is that these killings usually take place in the heat of the moment; the killer does not think about it, they just do it. Had they thought about it, they may have not even been caught in the first place.
Jail is not nearly enough of a deterrent to make people stop from killing. They may even so bold to still say that they had the last laugh and got away with it. However with the ever present threat of the death penalty looming over the heads of criminals, they will then have something to truly fear in the criminal justice system. Although some of the studies suggest that the death penalty may not function as a significantly greater deterrent than lesser penalties, there is no convincing empirical evidence supporting or refuting this view. More often most people have a natural fear of death from the time they are born, its a trait man have to think about what will happen before we act. If we don’t think about it consciously, we will think about it unconsciously. Think about it if every murderer who killed someone died instantly, the homicide rate would be very low because no one likes to die.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Response to a comment
http://publicvoicewithin.blogspot.com/
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4761085440665171071&postID=2455335288154154409
No no no you missed my point. I am FOR videogames, whether they be violent or just childish. I think you interpreted my blog as an attack on videogames. Its not I promsie. My point was simply that parents, and Presidents alike should not point the finger a their childs source of entertainment, whenever their kid makes a mess.
My answer to your question, is the buzz going around every gamers chatroom, that Senator Clinton is looking to make it illegal to sell mature rated videogames to those under 18.Right now the only penalty for selling a graphic videogame to a minor is a minor slap on the wrist by a police officer at most. What Hillary is looking to do is make it a slap in the face, and a long jail sentence.THAT is what has got me all riled up.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4761085440665171071&postID=2455335288154154409
No no no you missed my point. I am FOR videogames, whether they be violent or just childish. I think you interpreted my blog as an attack on videogames. Its not I promsie. My point was simply that parents, and Presidents alike should not point the finger a their childs source of entertainment, whenever their kid makes a mess.
My answer to your question, is the buzz going around every gamers chatroom, that Senator Clinton is looking to make it illegal to sell mature rated videogames to those under 18.Right now the only penalty for selling a graphic videogame to a minor is a minor slap on the wrist by a police officer at most. What Hillary is looking to do is make it a slap in the face, and a long jail sentence.THAT is what has got me all riled up.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Monkey see, monkey do.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/31/AR2007103100409.html
http://wii.ign.com/articles/831/831257c.html
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=051129223726.dqn74ka0&show_article=1
What if I were to say to you that there is a program designed to turn someone into an aggressive, and brutish, yet intelligent, and flawless killer? Should such a thing that could cause someone to turn to a life of violence, be destroyed? And what if I were to tell you that this new breed of killers, were children? Would you blame the children, for making such bad decisions, or would the blame be cast on the parents, for not paying better attention to their child’s issues?
Movies, television, and last but not least video games have all attributed “supposedly” to causing violence in people younger than the age of 18. Everyday there is a new report of some crazy kid who played a mission on grand theft auto, then went outside and started shooting at cars with his dad’s hunting rifle. School shootings are usually thought of to be brought on by the child not fitting in at school, then going home and popping some Marylyn Manson into their ipod. However what if the destruction was so bad, that it could even be considered an act of terrorism?
Something that bad did in fact occur, in California when 21 homes, spread out across 38,000 acres were consumed by fire. As of recent a young boy under the age of 13, stepped forward to the L.A. County Sheriffs Department and admitted to using some matches to start the fire. I personally find it funny that it was only a child, since Governor Schwarzenegger had just said in a press conference “We are going to hunt down whoever did this, and make them pay.” If I were that little boy I would have been scarred to death knowing the terminator was out to get me, in fact I find it admirable for him to come forward and have the bravery to take blame for it. Yet who should we be mad at, the boy, his parents, or some videogame he picked up?
Hillary Clinton has put out a new legislation that would make it illegal and punishable as a crime, for anyone to sell, or rent an M rated game to someone under the age of 18. Everyone knows the typical gaming type, titles such as Grand Theft Auto which are renowned for their language, sex, and violence, are probably not going to change. However the ESRB (Entertainment Software Rating Board) has gone after any other games they see as to adult oriented.
The latest game is called Manhunt 2. I myself have played through Manhunt 1, and I can tell you that the reason why this game would frighten parents is because of the gruesome ways you are allowed to kill you’re enemies with. Things like putting a plastic bag over their face and suffocating them, or putting a syringe through their eye were all possible and easy to do in Manhunt 1. For Manhunt 2 however, there are still the same options of execution, however during the actual killing process the ESRB took the game down from an AO (Adult Only game) to an M (Mature) by adding a blur effect during the game killings scenes. You still hear the bone crunching noises, and you can possibly make out shapes, but it is now difficult to make out what is actually going on.
This of course has infuriated the videogame audience who are now boycotting the game buy not purchasing it. I for one think their intentions are good, as if they just let this slide the ESRB would just tally this as another victory against the war on videogames. However by not purchasing the game, you are hurting the wrong people, you are hurting the makers of the game, who never wanted the ESRB to add the damn blur effects to the O so satisfying kill scenes.
I for one would enjoy coming home at the end of a hard day, and being able to simulate through a videogame beating up the guy who cut me off on the way home. Yet that is OK for me because I am 19 years old! These little kids nowadays should not be doing such kind of things because their minds will register it improperly and they may go out and do it. So to end my commentary, my point is this. The parents instead of wanting to just get rid of violent videogames all together should just have the courage to tell their children, “NO you cannot have this because you are not ready for it”. When the kid reaches 18, let them play whatever they want, but until then use the best judgment possible in what they can have as entertainment. All because they are still young and new to the world and may like SO many other children copy what they have seen in a movie, or game. Monkey see, monkey do.
http://wii.ign.com/articles/831/831257c.html
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=051129223726.dqn74ka0&show_article=1
What if I were to say to you that there is a program designed to turn someone into an aggressive, and brutish, yet intelligent, and flawless killer? Should such a thing that could cause someone to turn to a life of violence, be destroyed? And what if I were to tell you that this new breed of killers, were children? Would you blame the children, for making such bad decisions, or would the blame be cast on the parents, for not paying better attention to their child’s issues?
Movies, television, and last but not least video games have all attributed “supposedly” to causing violence in people younger than the age of 18. Everyday there is a new report of some crazy kid who played a mission on grand theft auto, then went outside and started shooting at cars with his dad’s hunting rifle. School shootings are usually thought of to be brought on by the child not fitting in at school, then going home and popping some Marylyn Manson into their ipod. However what if the destruction was so bad, that it could even be considered an act of terrorism?
Something that bad did in fact occur, in California when 21 homes, spread out across 38,000 acres were consumed by fire. As of recent a young boy under the age of 13, stepped forward to the L.A. County Sheriffs Department and admitted to using some matches to start the fire. I personally find it funny that it was only a child, since Governor Schwarzenegger had just said in a press conference “We are going to hunt down whoever did this, and make them pay.” If I were that little boy I would have been scarred to death knowing the terminator was out to get me, in fact I find it admirable for him to come forward and have the bravery to take blame for it. Yet who should we be mad at, the boy, his parents, or some videogame he picked up?
Hillary Clinton has put out a new legislation that would make it illegal and punishable as a crime, for anyone to sell, or rent an M rated game to someone under the age of 18. Everyone knows the typical gaming type, titles such as Grand Theft Auto which are renowned for their language, sex, and violence, are probably not going to change. However the ESRB (Entertainment Software Rating Board) has gone after any other games they see as to adult oriented.
The latest game is called Manhunt 2. I myself have played through Manhunt 1, and I can tell you that the reason why this game would frighten parents is because of the gruesome ways you are allowed to kill you’re enemies with. Things like putting a plastic bag over their face and suffocating them, or putting a syringe through their eye were all possible and easy to do in Manhunt 1. For Manhunt 2 however, there are still the same options of execution, however during the actual killing process the ESRB took the game down from an AO (Adult Only game) to an M (Mature) by adding a blur effect during the game killings scenes. You still hear the bone crunching noises, and you can possibly make out shapes, but it is now difficult to make out what is actually going on.
This of course has infuriated the videogame audience who are now boycotting the game buy not purchasing it. I for one think their intentions are good, as if they just let this slide the ESRB would just tally this as another victory against the war on videogames. However by not purchasing the game, you are hurting the wrong people, you are hurting the makers of the game, who never wanted the ESRB to add the damn blur effects to the O so satisfying kill scenes.
I for one would enjoy coming home at the end of a hard day, and being able to simulate through a videogame beating up the guy who cut me off on the way home. Yet that is OK for me because I am 19 years old! These little kids nowadays should not be doing such kind of things because their minds will register it improperly and they may go out and do it. So to end my commentary, my point is this. The parents instead of wanting to just get rid of violent videogames all together should just have the courage to tell their children, “NO you cannot have this because you are not ready for it”. When the kid reaches 18, let them play whatever they want, but until then use the best judgment possible in what they can have as entertainment. All because they are still young and new to the world and may like SO many other children copy what they have seen in a movie, or game. Monkey see, monkey do.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Peace on Earth
http://http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/12/AR2007101200364.html?hpid=topnews
http://http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/13/world/13nobel.html?ex=1207800000&en=a09d6d4a2d4bb2ed&ei=5087&excamp=GGGNalgorepeaceprize&WT.srch=1&WT.mc_id=GN-S-E-GG-SEM-KP-1055490488-S-NA-al_gore_peace_prize
http://http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/
The Nobel Peace Prize was recently awarded to former Vice President Al Gore. Al Gore was given the Nobel Peace Prize, for his strong work on ending the plight of global warming. Al Gore’s work can be noted in his recent documentary movie titled “An Inconvenient Truth”. This movie although I myself have not had time to personally view it, has been noted by critics to be a massive eye opener on the past, present, and most importantly future conditions of the earths atmospheric issues. However despite its success, conservatives here in the United States have dismissed this film, and labeled at as exaggerated and alarmist.
From the information I have gathered from Al Gore’s website the current facts are that of statistical value. These facts include the number of hurricanes doubling recently, animals migrating closer to the polar caps, and the disease Malaria beginning to reach out to epidemic further cities. Also there are things such as the possibility of the Artic Ocean having no ice in it by the year 2050. Along with this for the year 2050, would come the extinction of many animals. From this statistical basis it is quite apparent as to why the conservative (namely Republican) Party would label a movie such s this to be alarmist. However I see no reason for Al Gore’s cause to be dismissed completely. His cause is obviously Noble, since he did win the NOBEL Peace Prize (lol), but his problem is, well, he came on a little too strong.
My opinions on the subject vary from detail, to detail. Do I think that Global Warming is a serious problem? Yes I do. Also I believe that when you are faced with a problem you should do something about it. Yet one way to go about it should NOT be to scare the crap out of people. Then on the other hand sometimes when something is very wrong, we tend to dismiss it and say to ourselves “Well its not a problem right now, so I will just wait until it gets bad, then I will deal with it.” In this case, the strongest recommendation is a good scare, just to give our system a swift kick to our rear, so that way we will realize how dire the situation is, and do something to fix it.
Al Gore does indeed deserve the Nobel peace Prize. For the longest time I have considered him as a good candidate. Also I hope that now that he has this honor, people will finally start paying a little bit closer attention to his film. We not as Americans, but as human beings should do something to take care of our Earth. I have heard numerous excuses for people not caring about the environment. Things like “Well the Earth wont end for like a billion years so who cares about what we do now.” Or “Well we could always abandon Earth and live on Mars. It is time for someone to do something about the problem, Al Gore is that someone, and I support him.
http://http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/13/world/13nobel.html?ex=1207800000&en=a09d6d4a2d4bb2ed&ei=5087&excamp=GGGNalgorepeaceprize&WT.srch=1&WT.mc_id=GN-S-E-GG-SEM-KP-1055490488-S-NA-al_gore_peace_prize
http://http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/
The Nobel Peace Prize was recently awarded to former Vice President Al Gore. Al Gore was given the Nobel Peace Prize, for his strong work on ending the plight of global warming. Al Gore’s work can be noted in his recent documentary movie titled “An Inconvenient Truth”. This movie although I myself have not had time to personally view it, has been noted by critics to be a massive eye opener on the past, present, and most importantly future conditions of the earths atmospheric issues. However despite its success, conservatives here in the United States have dismissed this film, and labeled at as exaggerated and alarmist.
From the information I have gathered from Al Gore’s website the current facts are that of statistical value. These facts include the number of hurricanes doubling recently, animals migrating closer to the polar caps, and the disease Malaria beginning to reach out to epidemic further cities. Also there are things such as the possibility of the Artic Ocean having no ice in it by the year 2050. Along with this for the year 2050, would come the extinction of many animals. From this statistical basis it is quite apparent as to why the conservative (namely Republican) Party would label a movie such s this to be alarmist. However I see no reason for Al Gore’s cause to be dismissed completely. His cause is obviously Noble, since he did win the NOBEL Peace Prize (lol), but his problem is, well, he came on a little too strong.
My opinions on the subject vary from detail, to detail. Do I think that Global Warming is a serious problem? Yes I do. Also I believe that when you are faced with a problem you should do something about it. Yet one way to go about it should NOT be to scare the crap out of people. Then on the other hand sometimes when something is very wrong, we tend to dismiss it and say to ourselves “Well its not a problem right now, so I will just wait until it gets bad, then I will deal with it.” In this case, the strongest recommendation is a good scare, just to give our system a swift kick to our rear, so that way we will realize how dire the situation is, and do something to fix it.
Al Gore does indeed deserve the Nobel peace Prize. For the longest time I have considered him as a good candidate. Also I hope that now that he has this honor, people will finally start paying a little bit closer attention to his film. We not as Americans, but as human beings should do something to take care of our Earth. I have heard numerous excuses for people not caring about the environment. Things like “Well the Earth wont end for like a billion years so who cares about what we do now.” Or “Well we could always abandon Earth and live on Mars. It is time for someone to do something about the problem, Al Gore is that someone, and I support him.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
C.I.A. Interrogation Endorsement
C.I.A. Interrogation Endorsement
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/washington/04interrogate.html?hp
In December 2004 it looked like the bush administration abandoned its usage of brutal interrogations in the central intelligence agency. However when Alberto Gonzalez became the attorney general in 2005, he gave out his own opinion, except that this was kept secret from the public. His opinion was that it was entirely necessary to use vicious methods of extracting information, such as placing their head underwater , and removing it before they drown, or hitting the terrorist suspect repeatedly in the face until the desired informationFor the last two years, Congress and the Supreme Court have intervened constantly to ban the use of violent means of interrogation. However the opinions issued by the Justice Department are still going strong. This was until the head of the office of legal counsel Jack Goldsmith withdrew the memorandum set to give the Central Intelligence Agency the right to use harsh torture methods. After he withdrew the memorandum, Mr. Goldsmith gave his real opinions against torture techniques. Six months after he gave his statements, the Justice Department came out with a new opinion, this time stating “Torture is abhorrent both to American law and values and to international norms.”
However, as of today October 4th, 2007, The White House denied reports that a secretly issued Justice Department opinion in early 2005 cleared the way for the return of painful interrogation tactics that the Bush administration had earlier seemed to renounce. In a nutshell, Bush basically said it never happened. As stated by White House Secretary Dana Perino that it is a policy of the United States that we don’t torture people. Then when Dana Perino was asked about the opinion issued by the Justice Department regarding harsh torture methods he would not comment.
Honestly in my own opinion I could see why the Central Intelligence Agency might be gun ho on using torture methods. It’s because maybe, just maybe, one of these so called terrorists, may actually be capable of providing us with crucial information that may win us the war. Also I can plainly see why the White House administration would want to cover up anything remotely having to do anything with torture. That is because they are trying to improve the public approval rating (which is already bad), and they would be considered hypocrites if they came out and said they sued torture methods, when they said they wouldn’t.
HOWEVER, although I am all for the use of information extraction techniques to extract vital information, I do not see the need to use overly violent means of torture. Some people may criticize this and say that “torture is torture” there is no good torture, and bad torture. Well these people need look no farther then Senator John McCain, who was a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War. He is not even able to raise his arms above his head because he was struck with the butt of a rifle in his shoulder, while a POW. It’s sad to say that we are not to far from this same thing in terms of torture. The virtues of our methods can present long term physical problems; It's things like this which consist if torture can me considered morally reprehensible.Instead I think we should use purely psychological based methods of extracting the information we desire. There are many more subtle ways of extracting information psychologically such as the placement of guilt into the interrogation subjects mind, or instilling fear into their mind so that the mere thought of pain will cause them to break down into a confession. Even the mere child’s play of trick questions can be used as an effective tool for extracting information. This by no means would I ever consider a method of torture. Even if it was, it would not be nearly as bad, as just taking someone into a room and beating them into a sense of honesty.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Now its Canada's Problem
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/21/us/21refugees.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1
Up until now, Mexican Immigrants have immediantly fled to the United States to seek refuge from poverty in Mexico. However as of September 20th, at least 200 people had turned up, across the border from Detroit. With an expected 7,000 more to arrive in the coming weeks. Last year there was a percentage of 28% of 47% of immigration came from Mexico. What is Canada to do about this?
Officials in Windsor had a brief meeting on Thursday to discuss the matter at hand. Only to find out that their Salvation Army, workers were being overrun. With a shelter filled with 30 single men, and four motels haivng been rented for the immigrants. With meals being run to them via taxi cab. The Salvation Army was overwhelmed by the huge numbers when the immigrants arrived at a community center in Windsor, to apply for Social Services.
This trend recently began its uprising when the The Collier County Sheriff’s Office recently became the first local law enforcement agency in Florida to send its deputies for Immigrations and Custom Enforcement training, posted on its website, information required for Canadian Refugee Status Application. The website also posted that it would have $400 for adults and $100 for children and assured them that there would be jobs and shelter.
The Collier County Sheriff’s Office recently became the first local law enforcement agency in Florida to send its deputies for Immigrations and Custom Enforcement training, which ahs now set off numerous stories, which is currently causing widespread fear and panic for the immigrants in Canada's society. This happens when an employer warns its hirer's to not hire immigrants. Then when an immigrant applies, they are caught.
However it has been recently discovered that the The Collier County Sheriff’s Office recently became the first local law enforcement agency in Florida to send its deputies for Immigrations and Custom Enforcement training website has been charging $400 per person to seek Asylum in Canada. On their site the charge is descirbed as a "fee", when in reality it is actually more of a donation. And although Mexicans who have lived in the United States are permitted to seek asylum in Canada, they will be deported to Mexico if they are turned down.
Up until now, Mexican Immigrants have immediantly fled to the United States to seek refuge from poverty in Mexico. However as of September 20th, at least 200 people had turned up, across the border from Detroit. With an expected 7,000 more to arrive in the coming weeks. Last year there was a percentage of 28% of 47% of immigration came from Mexico. What is Canada to do about this?
Officials in Windsor had a brief meeting on Thursday to discuss the matter at hand. Only to find out that their Salvation Army, workers were being overrun. With a shelter filled with 30 single men, and four motels haivng been rented for the immigrants. With meals being run to them via taxi cab. The Salvation Army was overwhelmed by the huge numbers when the immigrants arrived at a community center in Windsor, to apply for Social Services.
This trend recently began its uprising when the The Collier County Sheriff’s Office recently became the first local law enforcement agency in Florida to send its deputies for Immigrations and Custom Enforcement training, posted on its website, information required for Canadian Refugee Status Application. The website also posted that it would have $400 for adults and $100 for children and assured them that there would be jobs and shelter.
The Collier County Sheriff’s Office recently became the first local law enforcement agency in Florida to send its deputies for Immigrations and Custom Enforcement training, which ahs now set off numerous stories, which is currently causing widespread fear and panic for the immigrants in Canada's society. This happens when an employer warns its hirer's to not hire immigrants. Then when an immigrant applies, they are caught.
However it has been recently discovered that the The Collier County Sheriff’s Office recently became the first local law enforcement agency in Florida to send its deputies for Immigrations and Custom Enforcement training website has been charging $400 per person to seek Asylum in Canada. On their site the charge is descirbed as a "fee", when in reality it is actually more of a donation. And although Mexicans who have lived in the United States are permitted to seek asylum in Canada, they will be deported to Mexico if they are turned down.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)