A New Way to Vote

I read this editorial that asked the question: What really is the best way to count the votes? Is it electronic voting? Is it a paper-ballot? This editorial claims that neither is what America needs. Recently there has been a lot of paranoia about electronic voting, but thanks to Florida’s paper-ballot controversy in 2000, electronic voting is not going anywhere. The author instead calls for a solution that would use modern technology but also calm fears about electronic voting. The method would combine paper ballots and a Web site to achieve greater ballot security. Each voter would take home a photocopy of a randomly selected ballot that is not their own. Paper ballots would be counted by optical scanners or even by hand. The results would be then posted on a Web site. A serial number would be assigned to each ballot and voters could check the site to make sure that their random ballots were posted correctly. If voters were given paper records of their own ballots, they would most likely throw it out in the first trash they see where election workers could retrieve them and change the corresponding electronic votes. The Web site would publish the names of everyone who voted to prevent someone from adding fake votes. I think this is a step in the right direction. I think the computer is the way to go. As Gwaltney says, if I am supposed to put faith in the computer to handle my banking, my lifesavings, then I should be able to have faith that it can handle this task.

New Jersey Offers a Lesson about Racial Profiling

I read this editorial, in which the author discussed the racial profiling that has existed in New Jersey. For years, African Americans and Latinos who reside in New Jersey have been aware that they are more likely to be pulled over by the police on a highway than a Caucasian individual. In 1998, the racial profiling was called to the attention of the state when state troopers fired 11 shots into a van carrying black and Latino men. New Jersey’s state police were placed under federal oversight. Now, a special advisory committee to Governor. Jon Corzine has concluded that the State Police have changed their ways and the governor has asked for an end to this kind of federal monitoring. I think that New Jersey’s experience is an important lesson for police departments across the United States. The committee that worked on the New Jersey case found conclusions that demonstrate that “vigilance and resources” in our system is responsible for racism in law enforcement. This conclusion was partly based on testimony gathered during 18 public hearings over the last year and a half. Since the incident, the State Police have improved training and revised their procedures. They have tightened the supervision of troopers video cameras have been installed in patrol cars that record highway stops. In my opinion, continued investment of time and resources will be needed to ensure that these reforms become a part of law enforcement around the United States. Proper protocol for traffic stops should be highly valued.

Republican Debate Sponsored by Univision

Last Sunday, the Republican candidates were involved in a debate held at the University of Miami, in front of a very pro-immigration audience. This was always going to be a difficult debate for these candidates because it is being broadcast on Univision. Their goal then had to be not to offend the Hispanic audience, but also not offend the Republicans whose support they have been trying to get by taking this hard line on this issue. For the most part, the seven candidates toned it down a little, even though they certainly talked about working to close the borders to illegal immigrants. Some spoke of trying to send some of the 12 million people who are thought to be here illegally back to their native countries. Their strategy seemed to be to sneakily weave comments about the value of immigrants and legal immigration into the debate amid the “send them home” talk. The debate comes less than a month before Iowa and New Hampshire cast the first ballots. The Republican presidential candidate drama is getting more intense due to the surge of support for Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas. Candidates’ records were being attacked and they were forced to defend themselves. I believe that this debate is very indicative of what the candidates are willing to do to gain support. This debate in particular is really a great concept because the idea is that questions of Spanish-speaking viewers can have their questions translated to the candidates. But it is obvious that the candidates were trying to “tweak” their stance on this particular issue because they recognized the audience. This worries me. Language is already a barrier, but when it becomes a way for the candidates to alter their views I believe it becomes dangerous.

Oprah and Obama

It has become common for the famous to get involved in politics (remember that Dixie Chick who really did not like Bush). The most recent endorsement has been Oprah Winfrey's involvement in the Obama campaign. In fact, on Sunday, Oprah winfrey will appear in South Carolina in the Colonial Center with Barack Obama. The Colonial Center is the biggest arena in the state, seating 18,000 people. As of now, all the seats are filled and the lines were so busy that they had to shut down ticket distribution and start a waiting list. This demand for tickets must be a good sign for the Obama campaign. We must realize that here we have Oprah, surely a well-known individual, really impacting the political future of this country. She is using her name to bring new volunteers to Obama's campaign. Her mere presence is exciting thousands of voters and thus giving them the opportunity to learn about this candidate and what he represents. On the ticket for the event, the bottom reads, "With your signature, you pledge to vote for Mr. Obama in the South Carolina primary". This is surely no random "star-citing" anymore; this is an event that is being taken very seriously. Is this a positive aspect of this year's campaign? Is it wise to give so much power to the famous, to allow them to be a reason why the average American citizen is voting for a particular candidate? Whether or not you think so, it is certainly an issue at present and I think it will play a key role in the 2008 election.

Mingling in the MIddle East

One of the currently most-talked-about stories in the Middle East comes from Saudi Arabia. Recently, their government supported the sentence of 200 lashes for a 19 year old Shiite girl. She had been sitting in a car with a male friend last year when they were gang-raped by seven men. The Saudi Justice Ministry says that this girl deserved the 200 lashes and six months in prison because she was guilty of “illegal mingling”. In other words, she was being punished for sitting in a car with a man who was not part of her family. Something seems wrong here to me: the government is punishing this girl…when she was raped. How could sitting in a car with a guy be of any concern when you have a situation as terrible as this? I do not understand this phrase “illegal mingling”. It seems to him that if the Middle East had a bit more mingling in their country, between the sexes and the sects, they would be a much more peaceful area. All over this area, there is a current struggle between the Muslim sects and it centers on who can mingle with whom. In Iraq, the question is can the Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis mingle anymore, after all the blood that has been shed? If so, can this country be stable enough that we can get our troops out of there? In my opinion, this is really an issue that affects our country directly. “Mingling” seems like kind of a trivial verb, but on the contrary it is everything; it is the basis of all citizen relations in the Middle East. It never occurred to me that some more interaction could mean the end of war. One of the currently most-talked-about stories in the Middle East comes from Saudi Arabia. Recently, their government affirmed the sentence of 200 lashes for a 19 year old Shiite girl. She had been sitting in a car with a male friend last year when they were gang-raped by seven men. The Saudi Justice Ministry says that this girl deserved the 200 lashes and six months in prison because she was guilty of “illegal mingling”. In other words, she was being punished for sitting in a car with a man who was not part of her family. Something seems wrong here to me: the government is punishing this girl…when she was raped. How could sitting in a car with a guy be of any concern when you have a situation as terrible as this? I do not understand this phrase “illegal mingling”. It seems to him that if the Middle East had a bit more mingling in their country, between the sexes and the sects, they would be a much more peaceful area. All over this area, there is a current struggle between the Muslim sects and it centers on who can mingle with whom. In Iraq, the question is “Can Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis mingle anymore, after all the blood that has been spilled”. If so, can this country be stable enough that we can reduce our troops there? In my opinion, this is really an issue that affects our country directly. “Mingling” seems like kind of a trivial verb, but on the contrary it is everything; it is the basis of all citizen relations in the Middle East. It never occurred to me that some more interaction could mean the end of war.

America's big Drug Deal

I read this editorial that talked about Mexico’s and the United States’ efforts to battle huge amounts of illegal drugs that make it into the hands of American consumers every year. More specifically, the author felt that the Bush administration’s proposed $1.4 billion aid package is not enough to confront the problem. He feels that if Washington was serious about stamping out the northward-flowing cocaine, heroin and other drugs, its campaign must first stop the money and weapons coming from the south. This is what is financing and arming the cartels. Likewise, the author feels that the problem of American’s use of illicit drugs is not taken seriously. Federal financing for drug prevention and treatment programs has been steadily declining since 2005. In my opinion, the narcotics wouldn’t even be getting here if the demand didn’t already exist. The National Drug Intelligence Center estimates that Andean cocaine coming to the United States jumped from 220 tons in 2000 to 380 tons in 2006. I am putting the proposed aid package itself aside for a second, as well as its prospective effectiveness for this problem. In my opinion, it is a big deal that Mexico is coming to the United States for help for the first time. It marks a great transition in the relationship between the two countries and Washington wants to respond to it.

Veterans and their Short End of the Stick

I read this editorial that focused on the life of a veteran. Horribly enough, I had never really thought about this concept very much before. Turns out, not a lot of people do. Especially with the current war in Iraq, it is a terrible time to be a veteran. It is not that there is outright hostility toward returning military personnel today. In fact, both Congress and the White House praised the war as we approached Veteran’s day. However, it is not rare that soldiers who return from Iraq or Afghanistan or those who served in Vietnam or Korea are left to fend for themselves. They do not get much help from the government. Recent surveys shows an astonishing amount of our veterans were homeless at some point during 2006. Not many from Iraq or Afghanistan have turned up homeless so far, but aid groups expect a huge upsurge in coming years. Tens of thousands of reservists and National Guard troops were told that their jobs were protected and returned to be denied prompt re-employment or lost seniority or pay. In my opinion, we have to do all that we can to show these Veterans that they are appreciated. We do not have a mandatory draft in this country. Instead today’s wars have to be fought by a voluntary military. The larger public makes no larger sacrifice so the least we should do is support the troops when they return.