*Paris or.....something important?

I have noticed in the past few months that there has been more said about Paris and other celebs in the national media then the war, immigration, and gas prices.

Why do you think this is? I have an idea. I think that the media has figured out that people don't want to hear about all of the "bad" things. Because if they knew what was going on they would actually have to deal with it. People would rather hear about other peoples problems (like Paris in jail) then issues that actually affect them. It makes sense to me that they would want to hear about things going on that actually affect them...that way they would know what they can do to make sure they have a say the outcome.

There are many bills being tossed around in government that we should be aware of and make a choice about. We need to let our representatives and on up the ladder know how we feel.

What it boils down to is this...

In ten years when things have ended up in a mess and you begin to realize that the nation is in trouble...if you never took notice and voted...then you don't have a place to complain.

I am hoping that in 10 years we can all look back and realize that we did make a difference and helped the nation get back on track by making our voices heard instead of sitting back and thinking "oh, someone else will do it."

BE someone!

I am curious of a few things:
1. Your age?
2. Did you vote in the last Pres. Election? Why or why not?
3. Who are you leaning towards in the coming election? Why?
4. Who is the Speaker of the House?
5. Who is serving time in jail and misses her dog?

Thank you for taking the time to answer these to give us an idea of where we are as a nation!

*Men who rape drunk women face tougher law

From The Sunday Times

June 17, 2007 - Isabel Oakeshott, Deputy Political Editor

"Men who have sex with drunken women face a higher risk of being convicted for rape even if the alleged victim appears to give her consent, under reforms suggested by the government.

A new white paper is expected to propose that judges should give far firmer guidance to juries in cases where there is a question over whether a woman claiming she was raped was capable of giving or withholding consent to sex.

If she was deemed so drunk she was incapable, the man would be far more likely to be convicted of rape.

The change would mark a significant departure from the current law, under which a man can escape conviction if he can convince the jury he believed a woman wanted sex, even if she was drunk.

Police recorded 14,449 allegations of rape in 2005, one of the highest figures ever. However, only a fraction of rape cases ever reach court – about 12% – and few of those which do result in convictions.

The white paper will leave far more discretion to judges and juries than would have been the case under an earlier proposal to have legally determined thresholds of alcohol consumption above which a woman would be deemed incapable.

The government’s decision will disappoint those demanding more hard and fast rules to ensure more convictions. But the final version of the white paper follows a pivotal ruling by appeal court judges earlier this year.

They declared it would be “unrealistic” to create a “grid system” on alcohol consumption in rape cases, because people’s ability to cope with drink varies so greatly.

Ministers describe the appeal court decision in March as “incredibly useful” because it set a legal precedent. They say it has exposed the need for more help for juries considering such cases.

Benjamin Bree, a 25-year-old software engineer, was initially sentenced to five years in jail for raping a 19-year-old student in her halls of residence at Bournemouth University after she convinced a jury she was too drunk to consent to sex.

But the deputy lord chief justice, Sir Igor Judge, sitting with Lady Justice Hallett and Mrs Justice Gloster, overturned the conviction, arguing the jury had not been given clear enough directions.

They ruled that capacity to consent “could evaporate” well before someone became unconscious, but whether this was so “depended on the actual state of mind of the individuals involved on the particular occasion”.

A minister involved in the proposed rape law reforms said: “On cool reflection, it is clear we cannot have some sort of hard and fast law about how much drink is too much drink. What we need to do is provide better training for judges and juries on how to decide whether a woman was capable of consent.”

Other proposals in the white paper include the introduction of a “victim’s advocate”, who is not a lawyer, to give practical support to rape victims through bringing their cases to court and to help them see their way through fears and doubts about the court case.

A pilot project in which alleged victims of domestic abuse were assigned such representatives led to a significant increase in conviction rates.

However, the white paper is not expected to include proposals floated last year to allow expert witnesses to explain the psychological impact of the crime on women in court.

The government examined whether this might help juries understand why some rape victims show little emotion when describing their ordeals in court. In some cases, defence lawyers have successfully argued that the woman’s behaviour is inconsistent with someone who has suffered such a trauma.

However, ministers have concluded that allowing psychologists to give evidence would be fraught with difficulty and could lead to an American-style “trial of expert witnesses”.

__________________________________________________________________


I would like to hear your opinions about this topic before I share mine! :D I am leaning one way with what I think but before I share I would like to hear your take on the issue! I know you have an opinion...so...lets hear it!

*Bill would force rape suspects to take HIV test

"ALBANY, N.Y. -- Rape suspects would be forced to undergo HIV testing under a bill quietly making its way into law despite some impassioned opposition by gay rights advocates.

The bill, which has strong support in the Legislature, would give rape victims the option of forcing a suspect to be tested under a court order, with the results provided to the victim and the suspect. The test would be constitutional before a suspect is convicted, just as blood tests can be required of drunken driving suspects, argued the bill's co-sponsor, Republican Sen. Stephen Saland.

Supporters say the test would let victims know right away if they need to get HIV treatment.

"There are legislators who think this will be a good press release bill, but it could be very hurtful to the victim," said Sen. Thomas Duane, a Manhattan Democrat who is gay and HIV-positive. "On the face of it, it seems like this bill makes sense. What it really shows is a misunderstanding of what will help victims and about the transmission of HIV."

He said a rape victim should immediately accept the offer of anti-HIV treatment available in emergency rooms and not be tempted wait for a court to order the suspect to take a test for the virus that causes AIDS. Duane also said a test result might show the suspect didn't have the virus, prompting the victim to discontinue preventive treatment, only to find out later that the suspect was the wrong person.

Housing Works, the nation's largest community-based AIDS organization that provides housing and other services, is still lobbying to block the bill.

"It's really not something that has rape survivors at the heart of it," she said. "It's much more about hitting hard this myth of people with HIV going out there and murdering through sexual violence ... they should be ashamed of themselves."

The bill passed 44-14.

"It's a `go,"' Saland, of Poughkeepsie, said Wednesday. The bill sponsor noted victims receive counseling to help them decide whether to require the suspect to be tested. "Basically what (opponents) are saying is that people that have been victimized in the vilest of fashion, don't have the ability to make intelligent decisions," Saland said. "Why should that person be denied?" Saland said. "Why should they have to wait years, for conviction, buy which time it is truly academic."

By MICHAEL GORMLEY
Associated Press Writer
___________________________________________________________________

I think this bill makes sense. When you weigh the pros and cons I think it is more preventative than anything. However, if the suspect is tested and is not HIV positive and the victim does not take any precautions against HIV for that reason...and then later it is proved that the suspect was innocent... the victim is left in a vulnerable state. But if the suspect does test positive it could save the victims life!

It seems that the best solution may be to require testing of the suspects and also to provide HIV treatment to the victims. I do not think that requiring this test is making the point that all people with HIV/AIDS go out and rape people. I think it is a preventative measure to help the victims feel safe. They have just been violated and treated less then human. If anything this could be a step to help them recover by giving them one less thing to worry about.

*Tuition help for illegal immigrants???

"A bill currently being considered by the Legislature would provide in-state tuition at our public colleges and university to individuals who are in the United States illegally. That is wrong. Because a family breaks the law, that should not entitle them to a taxpayer subsidy. Enactment of this legislation would encourage more illegal immigration and send the wrong message to those immigrants who played by the rules. Governor Romney vetoed a similar provision last June, and he is prepared to do so again.

For the University of Massachusetts, the difference between out-of-state and in-state tuition is about $9,000. If, as some claim, there are 400 illegal immigrants who would attend UMass if this bill became law, the cost to the taxpayers would be $14.4 million over four years. This is money that would be better spent helping our legal immigrant community acquire the English skills they need to be productive members of our workforce. The waiting list is long for people trying to get into English as a second language classes. Clearing that waiting list has been a priority of the Romney-Healey administration."

-http://www.boston.com
/news/education/higher/articles/2005/11/08
/an_unfair_reward_for_illegal_immigrants/

I am asking myself why would we want to reward people for doing wrong? They are in this country ILLEGALLY! Why would they bother trying to go about it the legal way when they get treated better doing it illegally. Most people don't think it affects them...when in reality....it does. Where do you think our tax dollars go? The government is supposedly spending all this money on protecting our borders but if they happen to get in the country instead of sending them back we reward them with financial help, credit cards with no SSN, allowing them to register to vote, and all other sorts of treatments that LEGAL American citizens are denied!

I do not want this bill to be passed and welcome any suggestions on how we can make sure that doesn't happen.

I was thinking maybe writing our representatives and letting them know how we feel. Share your thoughts. Agree....Disagree...it doesn't matter to me...just as long as we care enough to know whats going on and how we can be apart of our future. The choices made now...create our future.