Rapists and the death penalty

As I read “Death penalty, who gets it and who doesn't.” my blood pressure raised, I’m very furious that a man who rape an eight year old girl who saw him as part of her family did not was sentenced to death. I personally think that the person that is capable of raping an innocent person should be sentenced to death. Why allow them to live when their victim is death alive, many of their victims end traumatized and have no more reasons to live. If rapists, are man enough to rape a little girl or even old women then they should be man enough to accept the death penalty. Moreover, if the rapists’ argument is that, he did not kill the girl so therefore he should be given the death penalty then allow me to use that argument against him. If he raped the little girl then lets look for another rapist and then he too can be raped. That way he will not be sentenced to death and its not going to be a cruel punishment either, lets just punish him with the same crime he committed. No matter what perspective I look this case from I think raping is an awful crime but if out there are men sick enough that want to rape little children and women, I said lets give them a piece of their own medicine to see how they will feel about rape once they are the victims

The 2008 Primaries

This year primaries have been a popular conversation theme wherever I go. Since the beginning of the Democratic Presidential Nomination race until now, many citizens have been following the race for the presidency very closely. I have experienced heated conversations about the presidential race as I walked through UT campus or waited for class to get started, and even at family gatherings where politics had never been the center of attention until a couple of months ago. It seems like everyone is interested on what is going to happen on this primary. The immerse involvement of UT students and family members in this primary has raise my curiosity. I have questions such as; what is it about this years’ presidency race that has caught the attention of so many people? Is it due to the unpopularity of the Bush Administration and the desire for change? The candidates position on important issues such as Iraq? Or perhaps because is the first time in history a candidate is of African American decent?

I have a particular point of view; I think the reason why the presidential election is being followed so closely is a combination of all the questions mentioned above. I think part of American citizens’ desire a change and in order to be certain to of a real change they must follow the candidates’ position closely. On the other hand, minorities are getting more involved since they feel that this time their voice might be heard if a president that comes from a minority as well is elected. Others are following the race because regardless of the outcome history is already being made by having an African American candidate running for president. I just hope that when people go out and vote on Tuesday, November 4 they make the right decision. I do not want to think that the rumors that many supporters of Senator Clinton will vote for McCain now that she is out of the race will come true. I would rather want to know that the voter turnout is going be greater than in the past years and that the voters based their ballot on critical thinking.

Health Care Situation in Our Nation

I could not agree more with Karmen’s article “Are you part of the problem or the solution?” My family and I are originally from Cuba and although the economic situation in Cuba is awful we never struggled with health care. Even though Cuba is a communist and third world country, it has one of the best medical systems in the world and it is completely free. On the other hand, in the United States many immigrants do not have a health care insurance and have to pay outrageous medical bills. I know from first hand that not having insurance is another factor that influences our decision on how long to wait before deciding to go to a doctor’s office, and by the time we do what ever illness we have has progressed even more.

The United States needs to establish a Universal Health Care program and fast. With a health care program there will be no need for Medicaid or Medicare funds, instead everyone would have equal access to health care providers. After all the middle class is the one most affected by not having medical insurance, people with low incomes have the opportunity to have Medicaid and those with high incomes can afford excellent healthcare. However, what happens with the middle class? We cannot afford everything, so we have to choose between some indispensible needs and healthcare. Many times, we choose to have other things and not the highly priced insurances.

U.S. and the War on Iraq

After the 9/11 attacks and after approximately 2974 casualties, the people of the United States was indigenized and supported President Bush’s determination of taking precautions that so this unfortunate event could be repeated by Al-Qaeda. Despite increasing national security almost immediately after the attack president Bush wanted to take further action once in for all by attacking Iraq. The purpose of the war was to deprive Iraq from all the weapons of mass destruction they had on their power. By May 1, 2003 U.S. troops invaded Iraq thus commencing the Iraq War, which until present day has lasted more than five years. Now, five years after the beginning of the war U.S. troop casualties keep increasing daily, the cost of the war is now in the 100’s billion and no such thing as weapons of mass destruction have been found. While the war on Iraq has not make much progress the U.S. economy is getting worse as the day passes. Big corporations such as airline companies are cutting personnel and even added new fees such as fifteen dollars for their first bag or a thirty-dollar fee for a round-trip.

Weather our country’s economic problems are solemnly due to the war I am not sure, but without a doubt the war has a role in this economic crisis. Now, many questions arise: Did our president made the right decision on the Iraq invasion? Why didn’t he tried to solve the problem through diplomacy? What there more concrete accusations to base the war on? Today, many questions remain unanswered and as the presidential elections are approximating many voters are going to be basing their votes on the candidates’ views on the war on Iraq.

"Latinos will vote for Obama"

In his commentary "Latinos will vote for Obama" Ruben Navarrette Jr. a "member of the editorial board of the San Diego Union-Tribune" is certain that now that Senator Clinton has suspended her campaign and Obama is the democratic candidate running for the presidential election Latinos will vote for Obama. Navarrette says that despite the war between Latino and African-American gangs both minorities will vote for Obama. He says that the majority of Latinos are going to support Obama due to their loyalty for the Democratic Party.

I agree with Mr. Navarrette, yes now that Senator Clinton is out of the race for the presidency Latinos will vote for Obama. However, there is one thing I do not understand from Navarrette’s analogy between the ongoing war of gangs among African-Americans and Latinos, when in reality most gangs if not all have disputes between them. What exactly was he trying to infer by mentioning the rivalry between these two particular gangs? The preference of Latinos for Senator Clinton was not due to her white ethnicity and Obama’s African-American heritage. On the contrary, as a Latina I’m more than certain that those Latinos that supported Clinton based their decision on Clinton’s historic support for us, and on former president Bill Clinton. We Latinos are most of the time characterized as being brown, but in reality there are Latinos of all kinds of skin color, there are Latinos that look “white” as many blonde hair and blue eyes Americans are characterized, black, and even “Asian.” For that mere reason, I know that now that Obama is the democratic candidate, many Latinos will vote for him based on his promises and the Democratic Party’s history for defending the rights of minorities such as African-Americans and Latinos.

"Tinsley: Hillary Clinton's campaign shows us how latent biases matter"

In "Tinsley: Hillary Clinton's campaign shows us how latent biases matter", Tinsley a professor at Georgetown’s McDonough School of Business questions the reason why New York Senator Hillary Clinton lost the democratic presidential nomination. Through out the commentary professor Tinsley argues that the reason why Senator Clinton lost the nomination was due to her gender. The professor supports her argument by mentioning a series of studies that have been taking place since 2005. The study contrast how the public of both genders portray males and females with the same job position when these professionals behave the same way under certain circumstances. Tinsley goes in depth explaining how under all given circumstances in the study males always were approved of their behavior, or where seen likely and competent of their decision-making, without taking into consideration what was their decision. On the other hand, women’s behavior was seen as offensive or either likeable and incompetent or unlikeable and competent when they made the same decisions as the males did.

In conclusion, the professor suggest that the discrimination against women still is very present, even though many females today hold important executive offices as males do. She does take the time to make it clear that is not a gender war what is causing the differences, but a cultural fight. Moreover, she says that we, women are “willing to criticize the female executives” as harshly as men do, which leads her to say that prejudice towards “fellow members” still is very common.

Although, professor Tinsley supports her argument by recent studies, what guarantees us that the reason why Senator Clinton lost the nomination was due to her gender? There could have been other reasons for example greater support for Obama’s political agenda, campaign tactics, etc. May be, Miss Clinton focused on the wrong potential voter audience. We have to keep in mind that yes, Clinton could have been the first female presidential candidate but Obama is the first African American presidential candidate. Therefore, there was something more than being female that affected Clinton’s outcome. They both had a minority backing them up, Obama had the support of the majority of African Americans, but Clinton had the majority of Hispanics. Her flaw could have been on getting out the vote strategies. Now that the race for nomination is over, we cannot know for sure where things when wrong, but we can be certain of one thing we cannot be sure that the sole reason why Clinton lost was due to her gender.

"Obama Clinches Democratic Nomination"

After one of the longest preliminary race for the democratic presidential nomination in history, we finally have a winner, Jennifer Parker reported today on her report Obama Clinches Democratic Nomination on ABC news.
Parker announced that Obama has secured his nomination today with more than the 2118 delegates need it to accomplish such an important nomination. Moreover, with his victorious nomination he has also become the “first African-American major party presidential nominee.” Consequently, the race for presidential nomination has closed and now one of the nations most important presidential races is about to commence as Republican McCain faces Democrat Obama, for the presidency on the upcoming elections on November.