Blog Eight

Tasha recently wrote a blog about warrantless wiretapping.She doesn't think that the “government should have the right to invade our privacy without a court order.” An underlying assumption that she makes is that the government is trying to do some good with this program and with programs involving wide-spread surveillance cameras in public. She accepts the surveillance cameras, but I think that an acceptance of surveillance cameras allows for acceptance of surveillance wires. She sort of alludes to herself later on in the blog by stating “If the government believes warrantless wiretapping is okay, there's no telling what they are going to do next and before you know it we won't have any privacy whatsoever.” She went on to conclude that she “believes something needs to be done before [it] gets way out of hand.” I think that something needs to be done as well, reduce government activity! The political implications of her blog could be that it might reveal to someone some of the government's illegal activities.

Blog Seven

Continuing my “discourse” on decreasing government action, I will now write about why I think the government should not try to control what people put in their bodies. The government has increased its control over what foods, nutrients, and drugs that they want or don't want people to put in their bodies. This is a violation of personal privacy and liberty. I think people should be allowed to get the type of health care that they want, eat the foods they want, and take the drugs they want without punishment from the government. If they can't, then the government is restricting their freedom.

Big companies lobby for certain legislation that benefits them, not the government, economy, or majority of citizens. As a result, dangerous drugs and other products are put on the market while safe products that could serve as preventative health care are restricted, and so are peoples' liberties. I went to an acupuncturist one day and while filling out the forms I found out that traditional Chinese medicine “legally” cannot be used as primary health care in Texas. While I did not have to leave to see a western doctor for my specific reason for visiting, I did not like that I wouldn't have the option of seeing a traditional Chinese medicine doctor as a first resource for health care in the future.

As for “illicit” drugs, I think that a person's liberty to manage their own body should not be infringed upon by the government, even if what they decide to do might be harmful to themselves. I also think that if drugs were legal, they could be of higher and standardized quality which would reduce overdoses, they could be done and acquired in a safer way, and they could also support the economy. In conclusion, I think that peoples' liberties of privacy and the right to health care of their choice should not be infringed upon by the government.

Blog Six

Stefan Covert wrote a blog about his distaste for John McCain and his economic plans. In some aspects I agree with Stefan, and in some aspects I don't. I think Stefan is probably a smart fellow, but I don't think he went into enough detail stating his opinion on the matter, perhaps he was pressed for time. He argued that John McCain has poor economic plans and doesn't know much about the economy in general, and it seems that he thinks that people should vote Democratically instead. I agree with him that John McCain doesn't know much about the economy, but I don't think that Clinton or Obama would really do a much better job. As far as the evidence he provided, the author referred to things that the candidates have said, which I think was sufficient evidence for his argument, though he could have put in some direct quotes. His conclusion may have been a bit overstated and I hope he wasn't accurate, but it stated his position. If a person were to have stumbled upon Sefan's post, he may have been influenced to not vote for McCain, because it was written in a “straight up” style that could effectively influence people.