Editorial- Published February 25, 2010
Link- http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/26/opinion/26fri1.html
After the Health Care Summit
The healthcare bill has caused a big dispute between the Democrats and the Republicans. At the meeting President Obama tried to sway opinions for the bill explaining how it would provide healthcare for 30 million that are currently uninsured. It also provided a way to cut the rising cost of the medical care deficits. The minority party leader said that the United States has the "best healthcare in the world." Thursdays meeting tried to bring arguments to an end to finally see if the healthcare bill could be passed. Each party tried to implement their own ideas into the bill but it seems like the bill will not be passed. Republicans tried to tear Obama's plan apart saying that the bill will not pass unless we start all over. The author of this editorial believes that the speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi, should push the house to agree with the senates final bill. The author also says that obama needs to identify how significant the bill will be and how it can change uninsured peoples lives for the better.
The author seems to be optimistic on the bill passing. I don't agree with that I believe that Obama will have to start over like the Republicans said because they will not pass the bill. I also don't agree with the auther how he/she says that Obama needs to explain how important the bill is. I think the president has explain that showing that it will allow 30 million americans, who are currently uninsured, to become insured. I don't think its the presidents fault it is the house and senate have to come upon an agreement with one another. I think it will take awhile for them to agree although the author brought up a good point pushing the house to agree with the senates plan but who knows if it will ever happen.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Monday, February 15, 2010
Editorial #1
Editorial- Published February 11, 2010
Link- http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/opinion/12fri3.html
Cell Phones and Privacy
This article discusses how phones are a device which holds personal information on it which should be protected by the law. Cell phones have adapted over the years to hold more information and it is like a walking diary, it holds information that the person carrying wants to keep safe. Cell phone providers can see where you are at any given moment in time which may concern many people. The writer brought up that this "tracking device" can expose to what you are doing like attending a religous service or involvment in a protest. Some of these are things that people want to keep private. Police have used cell phone providers to find suspects to a crime in which they may or may not have committed. The writer also say that "the fourth amendment requires the government to obtain a search warrent for locational records after showing probable cause for connecting the phone user to criminal activity." The writer believes that if the court allows the government to obtain these records without probable cause it will impact the privacy of people. Is the government doing the right thing just to protect us or are they abusing this power.
As we have discussed in class the amendments do not specify privacy through technology because the creators of the constitution did not have these technological advancements back then. Therefore, many argue the governement abuses this power and since it is not stated in the constitution then they can track us down by using our cell phone providers. I think this is much like the government tapping into our phone lines and listening to our conversation. The government does not care or report harmless day to day activities but they look for suspicouis activities which may be against the law. The government is trying to protect us from criminals and does not care about if we are at church or involved in a protest. I think people are simply overreacting. If the government is truely abusing this power then have them get a warrent but I believe the government is simply trying to protect the community.
Link- http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/opinion/12fri3.html
Cell Phones and Privacy
This article discusses how phones are a device which holds personal information on it which should be protected by the law. Cell phones have adapted over the years to hold more information and it is like a walking diary, it holds information that the person carrying wants to keep safe. Cell phone providers can see where you are at any given moment in time which may concern many people. The writer brought up that this "tracking device" can expose to what you are doing like attending a religous service or involvment in a protest. Some of these are things that people want to keep private. Police have used cell phone providers to find suspects to a crime in which they may or may not have committed. The writer also say that "the fourth amendment requires the government to obtain a search warrent for locational records after showing probable cause for connecting the phone user to criminal activity." The writer believes that if the court allows the government to obtain these records without probable cause it will impact the privacy of people. Is the government doing the right thing just to protect us or are they abusing this power.
As we have discussed in class the amendments do not specify privacy through technology because the creators of the constitution did not have these technological advancements back then. Therefore, many argue the governement abuses this power and since it is not stated in the constitution then they can track us down by using our cell phone providers. I think this is much like the government tapping into our phone lines and listening to our conversation. The government does not care or report harmless day to day activities but they look for suspicouis activities which may be against the law. The government is trying to protect us from criminals and does not care about if we are at church or involved in a protest. I think people are simply overreacting. If the government is truely abusing this power then have them get a warrent but I believe the government is simply trying to protect the community.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)