Blog Stage 5

Arizona Immigration Law

In April of 2010, Arizona signed a new immigration law. The Arizona law states that all immigrants must carry their alien registration documents at all times and requires that law enforcement question anyone that they believe to be in the United States illegally.  This law does not just target the immigrants themselves, but also the employers who hire them for labor.

There is a lot of controversy around this law. Many believe that it will cause an increase in racial profiling, and that many law enforcement officials will not look beyond race when they suspect and decide to question someone about their immigration status. I agree with this thought. Much of the population, whether they want to admit it or not, will make judgements about people just because of the way they look or what race they are. This law should be more specific in the reasons that a person can be stopped and asked for their immigration status, not just due to a suspicion that a law enforcement agent might have unless it is based on solid evidence/reason.

I believe that the government's focus should be more on preventing further illegal immigration then questioning the population that already resides in the United States. Also, to evaluate and check the individuals legal status if there is strong reason to believe that they may be here illegally.  However, I do not agree with the process that the Arizona law has enforced which gives the power to the law enforcement agents to decide who to question about their legal status. Critics, including the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, argue that most police officers do not have enough training to look past race while investigating a person's legal status. So, if Arizona plans to keep/maintain this law then the government needs to properly train their employees so that there will be a lower risk for racial profiling to occur. Many other states are considering writing/implementing a law similar to Arizona's. I think that many more considerations and improvements should be made before finalizing a similar immigration law in other states.

Blog Stage 4

In the blog that I read on Thursday October 14th, The Wars on Drugs and Terror: mirror images, Glen Greenwald is discussing his views on how these two wars (on drugs/terror) have many commonalities and how they are both not beneficial to the general public. I think that the author's intended audience is for the population that believes these wars are beneficial and he is trying to open their eyes to what he believes is the truth about the situations.

He believes that both wars are providing people with profit, whether it be private war making industries or the privatized American prison industry. Also, that both of these wars try to depict a type of villain to make the population believe that the war on drugs and terror is for a good reason however that this is just empowering the villains. He believes that these depictions are empowering them because in the situation of the War on Drugs it is ensuring that profits from illegal drug trade remains high and that in the War on Terror it ensures support and followers who may be anti-American.  The view of giving up before "winning" a war is also noticed so that the cycle of both wars seems never ending.

I somewhat agree with this author. I think that he makes valid points about both the War on Drugs and the War on Terror and how it may not be benefiting the general public but may actually be more harmful because we, the general public, are the ones paying for it. However, I do think that all drugs should not be legalized and that some wars on terror are called for but overall everything should be considered and not dragged out if it is not beneficial to the majority of the population of the United States.

We Are What We Eat

We Are What We Eat

In this editorial, taken from The New York Times, the author is talking about the need for the FDA and Obama administration to become more involved in the regulation of the use of antibiotics that are used by growers when raising animals that are later used for Americans' to consume.  I believe that the author's intended audience may be the public just to spread knowledge of the situation that is going on and to get other's involved in improving this situation.

The author's claim is that the FDA should make it mandatory for growers to only be able to use antibiotics under the supervision of a veterinarian and only in the case that illness/emergency is apparant.  Also, to gradually phase out the use of antibiotics altogether. The author is making these statements due to the evidence and statement by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention which stated that there is "a clear link between antibiotic use in animals and antibiotic resistance in humans."

I agree with the author of this article because of so many strains of antibiotic resistant bacteria that are effecting people. I think that if the FDA or the government can help regulate the usage of antibiotics to decrease the chance of bacteria resistance in humans then it should be done. With many cases of antibiotic resistant strains (example: MRSA), it is making it more difficult for some to get over their illness. I believe that most of the population does not realize that these antibiotics are effecting us, but from this article we can see that it does. I believe that antibiotics can be used if an animal becomes ill but not to assist with speeding up growth or as a preventative measure, which this article states is the normal routine for many growers.

 I believe that what can be done, should be done by our government especially if it would be more beneficial to the health of the United States. More knowledge should be spread about how the use of these antibiotics are effecting our health, it may not be an immediate effect but it is still effecting our bodies. Antibiotic resistance is never a good thing, we do not want to contribute to this by just eating the foods we normally do. The FDA and government should be more active in regulating the use of antibiotics by growers.