Progress in the Phillipines

As more and more help is sent to the Philippines, progress is increasing. Trees are sprouting with new leaves and the government seems to be back on track. The sounds of a city getting back on its feet fill the air: the roar of trucks hauling debris, the scrape of shovel along pavement, the ping of hammer on nails. However,  one month of progress signs are still present of the disaster that took place; Bodies are still being uncovered from beneath the debris. Tens of thousands are living amid the ruins of their former lives, underneath shelters made from scavenged materials and handouts. Rebuilding will take at least three years, and success will depend on good governance and access to funds. The Philippines is currently experiencing a great economic growth, but corruption is present and the city still remains desperately poor.

The Philippines had received warning of the storm and time to prepare before it had actually hit. Such warnings, however, were ignored due to the countries normalcy of typhoons. I believe that this serves as a warning that if a situation like this should occur again, action needs to be taken in order to prevent such a destruction. The United States, as well, needs to keep sending help and working to bring the country back to what it once was (maybe even better than it once was). For if we keep this progress going the city should be restored in no time. 

Death Sentence Debate

 The death penalty (also known as capital punishment) is a legal process whereby a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for a crime. The judicial decree that someone be punished in this manner is a death sentence, while the actual process of killing the person is an execution.The Death Sentence has been a controversial issue since the beginning, and continues to grow as new arguments for and against it arise. Arguments made for the Death Penalty often have to do to do with giving closure to the victims of which the murderer or criminal at hand has caused harmed to. Arguments made against many times have to deal with one particular question: is it right to punish a criminal who has killed someone by killing them?

Personally, I believe that the Death Penalty is necessary to a certain extent. I believe that it will closure to those who have been affected, but also show the punishment that could placed on someone who thinks thinks about doing the same as the person executed. I don't believe, however, that it is right to just sentence someone to the death penalty because they committed a crime. I think it should only be issued as a punishment if someone. It's a hard debate because no matter the pros or cons the question still remains on whether it is right to solve a problem of killing by killing? Does it teach a lesson or is it just simply hypocritical?

Misery in the Philippines

Recently this past week terror struck the Philippines, a great typhoon. This deadly typhoon that swept through the Philippines was one of the strongest ever recorded. But storms nearly this powerful are actually common in the eastern Pacific. 2,357 people have already been confirmed to have been killed after the storm's 195-mph-winds and wall of water slammed into the country, but aid officials say the death toll could be higher. The risk of DISEAS increases as days go, and many bodies are still left to be found. Rescuers have faced blocked roads and damaged airports on Monday as they raced to deliver desperately needed tents, food and medicines to the typhoon-devastated eastern Philippine.

In recent report said has been said to be getting to the Philippines too slowly, and many cities/ towns are still going I reached and in desperate need. I think we, as Americans, need to step up our game and do all we can to help those who need it. Although we will not be able to get to everyone, we need to  at least attempt to try and reach as many as we can; and do as much as we can. This is one of those times where we should push aside our minor problems and look at the bigger picture.

Talk Continues, but No Deal to End Shutdown

President Barack Obama and congressional Republican leaders worked toward resolving their  impasse on Friday, but they struggled to agree on the length and terms of a short-term deal to increase the U.S. debt limit and reopen the government. Obama wishes to raise the debt-ceiling for longer than the six weeks first proposed by Republicans, whereas Republicans want a commitment to broader deficit-reduction talks from the White House. A poll on Friday showed more Americans blamed Republicans for the shutdown, which also appears to be damaging the party's reputation on issues such as healthcare and the economy. Nearly 1/3 of  Americans (32%) believe the shutdown was due to the republicans, whereas only 4% blame Democrats. A slim 14% also blame Obama. 

I believe, personally, that both parties should take responsibility for the shutdown of the government. Since neither party would come to an agreement on what to do about the issues at hand, they shut it down altogether. This is a prime example of politicians looking out for their own interest rather than  the people's: "playing politics". The Republicans want to "win" and the Democrats want to "win", but neither party was thinking about what the people need or want. It was only a matter of which party will have more power in the government.

Shift in Relations?

On Friday, President Barack Obama spoke on the phone with with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani; the first direct conversation between leaders in Washington and Tehran since 1979 -- raising the possibility a deal can be reached over Iran's controversial nuclear program. When Obama described the conversation he said he believes an agreement is possible regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions that could lead to better relations. The last time a U.S. president spoke with an Iranian leader was in 1979, when Jimmy Carter talked by telephone with Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi before Pahlavi was overthrown.
I think it's good that we are making progress in this issue. I think discussing such things is important to finding a solution. If we can come to an agreement then this whole issue can be solved in a somewhat peaceful manner. I believe it's good the United States is taking action on this and in a way that does not cause controversy or impose further problems. I do think we need to not jump to conclusions just yet and think things through thoroughly before taking any further action. Overall, I think this is a big step in finding a probably solution. 

Israel To Strike Back if Syria attacks

The Israeli Prime Minister issued a warning on Tuesday in response to recent saber-rattling by The Syrian President. It was the starkest warning known to date as said by the Los Angeles Times. The comments made by both leaders followed statements this week by Syrian officials that they would be held responsible for any U.S strike carried out in response to the Syrian military's alleged use of chemical weapons. On Monday a senior Beath Party official, Khalaf Muftah accused Israel of being "behind the Western aggression" and then warned that Israel will come under fire as a result. The Los Angeles Times states that "Syrian officials often seek to focus blame on Israel as a way of rallying support among Syria people.

In my opinion I think Israel should be prepared to fight if they should undergo an attack by Syrian forces. With that being said, however, I don't think Israel should be blamed or held responsible for any U.S strike against Syria. This leaves the United States in a position of whether or not we should strike. Is it really our battle? But is it right to just stand a watch it unfold? It's hard to just watch bad things happen and not do anything about it. I think that is the difficult decision that the U.S. Faces.

Gay Marriage: Pros and Cons

As of July 17, 2013, gay marriage has been legalized in the following 13 states: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, Washington, Maine, Maryland, California, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Minnesota. 35 states have gay marriage bans through either laws or constitutional amendments or both. The District of Columbia legalized same-sex marriage on Mar. 3, 2010. The issue however still remains highly controversial. Many people still disagree with the idea of same-sex marriage, but progressively more and more people are beginning to accept the idea. Opponents if same-sex marriage argue that altering the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman will eventually lead to new ideas of marriage such as polygamous and interspecies marriages. Another argument is that it is religiously and morally wrong, however many people disagree. 

I believe that when people are born they don't choose their sexuality, if you are gay you were born that way. I don't believe that you just choose to like the same gender later on in your life, you were born the way you were born and that's who you are. With that being said, the belief that this is an abnormal condition and they can just change who they love doesn't make sense to me. Secondly, I don't believe it's fair to not allow two people who love each other legal recognition of their relationship. Many people argue that in religion, especially Christianity the bible states that it should be a mother and father; believing what I believe would be going against what the bible says. In reality however the bible also states that slavery is a natural condition. St. Paul said in the New Testament that "slaves be obedient to your masters" which is technically going against what we fought for in the civil war. Do we really want our future generations to believe that it is wrong to love who you love? It's unfair to deny something that can't be helped, we are America home of the brave and land of the free. So why can't we live up to our name?