The California’s, Arizona’s, New Mexico’s, and Texas’s borders with Mexico have effectively become war zones. The historical and current border policies coupled with North American greed has lead to the loss of over 23,000 individuals’ lives in the last 4 years. It is clear that the states that border Mexico are getting little sympathy from the U.S. Federal Government, and they have to bear the burden of North American greed and addiction for far too long.

Individuals of national or international origin in a country should be and are required to have identification on their person at all times. This is not a new concept, and it has been required by contemporary societies for the last 10 to 15 years. The concept is not hard to understand, and it actually helps all citizens visiting or residing within a country. By not requiring this, a country is effectively, legally, supporting criminal activity, especially in consideration of the U.S. Southern Border States and the current U.S. Federal Immigration laws. This is the longest border in the world between a developing country and a highly developed economy.

The U.S. Federal Government has failed and admitted failure in securing the U.S. borders. It is clearly not working because both Canadian and American citizens reject the local laws that make the crime on the U.S. and Mexican border so lucrative. My country spends more per capita on illegal drugs than the U.S. yearly. There is a huge cause for concern because the problem is not getting better, and it has historically proved to be ineffective and problematic. The communities on both sides of the borders should not have to be forced to live in a war zone due to their countrymen’s greed and addiction. The current legal setup mitigates racism under the guise of nationalism because it forces illegal workers and the illegal transportation of drugs together. They are, in fact, two separate and very different issues.

If the citizens of the U.S. and Canada want to consume illegal drugs, then they will have to suffer the political and biological effects ingesting these substances. The people seeking a better life, the migrants, and the citizens in the Border States should not be made to suffer from the greed and addiction for the other 450,000,000 individuals. The U.S. Federal Government has an obligation under the U.S. Constitution to provide proper security for the individuals living in these Border States. Clearly, reform is needed. Its current policies are putting over 70,000,000 of its citizens in harm’s way. It is not a states geographic location or its seniority in the Union that should permit its equal protection under the law. The United States’ current immigration laws are violating the Border States rights set forth in Articles II and IV. The individuals in these 4 states are not consuming the majority of illegal substances that are coming over the border, and the migrant workers seeking employment should not unjustly be categorized with gang involvement for seeking work.

The U.S. currently allows 140,000 legal immigrant workers in per year. The U.S. has about 12,000,000 illegal workers in its borders already. What to do? Clearly, the U.S. needs to be issuing about 11,860,000 more green cards per year and, possibly, a lot more. These individuals should not receive citizenship for seeking short-term employment or benefits other than what they pay for, but they should not be robbed either. The immigration to work issue has been coupled for far too long with drug importation on the American and Mexican border. If individuals are allowed to seek employment easily and legally, we may just begin to curtail some social issues leading to the violence and addiction within continental North America.

The immigration issue is simple to deal with. Instead of combining the smuggling of drugs and people, the U.S. should open up its migrant worker job sector, allowing the government to issue indefinite numbers of green cards, to workers from all nations. These individuals should be required to pay federal taxes, file tax returns, pay for private health insurance, pay for workers’ compensation insurance, and be subject to all of the a nations’ laws that they are working in. Should they receive protection under the law? In concern of humane working conditions and laws governing social interaction, including some torts and traffic regulations, they should. Individuals not of national origin should not be able to receive any state or federal welfare, education, or health benefits. If there are circumstances where individuals are incarcerated or have wronged a national, there country of origin should be held liable to foot the bill, and the federal government should have the ability to cease any bank accounts or assets that are held by the individual. How does this benefit North America?

This benefits North America because it will allow employers to hire competitive labor at better rates under the law. It will drive capitalism within the continent of North American. It will allow authorities to properly govern migrant employment and enforce employment laws. It will not burden tax payers with services for people of other nationalities, and it will allow for better production leading to a better quality of life for all. It will allow the federal governments to properly police borders for drugs. It will allow the U.S. Federal Government to stop stealing tax dollars from a portion of its working population and better track the working sector within America. How does the migrant worker win?

A migrant worker will be able to focus on work and make money. The current system has them facing racism and living in conditions that are little better than their home countries. They are not permitted to bank properly, drive legally, work legally, pay taxes legally, or send money home effectively. All of this leads to poor production. The system is not competitive in a truly capitalistic way, so employers are not getting the most for their dollar and can currently, inhumanely, exploit individuals legally. Migrants should be able to earn better wages than in their home countries, receive healthcare that they pay for, not be exploited, follow national laws, and work towards the opportunity to receive legal citizenship, in accordance with the national time period set forth by the government of the country they are residing in, if one chooses.

Unfortunately, some North Americans will feel left behind. The nature of competition is that there are winners and losers. More North Americans will win under this system than the current system because they will be forced to seek higher education and become business owners. Citizens of North American will pay fewer taxes, receive better government services, live in communities with lower crime rates, have better education systems, fewer illegal drugs available, better healthcare systems, and safer driving conditions. This system would increase North America’s competitiveness globally due to its efficiency and emphasis on work ethics. There is no perfect system or perfect answer to any issue. There is a need in North America for immediate ratification of the current system where everyone loses into a system where all benefit.

Yesterday, President Obama met with Tony Hayward, BP’s CEO, and an agreement was reached to establish a 20 billion dollar claims fund for the Gulf Disaster. Is it enough? Clearly, BP has a large amount of liability in this matter, but what about the other factors that contributed to BP having the opportunity to pollute North America’s oceans?

If BP is such an oil giant, then why do they need to subcontract to another company to cement their wells? Obviously, this is a specialized portion of the process, and liability should not be solely on BP due to this. Halliburton has been liable in numerous well blowouts in the past due to poor cementing, and it is obvious that they are liable in this disaster to some degree.

In offering a client an option, the option has to be usable. If the option leads to catastrophe, then it was not a viable option. Halliburton is guilty in poorly advising BP, and contributing, in part, to the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico because of their lack of professional foresight in the Deepwater Horizon’s well. Either Halliburton knew the well would blow, or they were negligent. Either way, they are financially liable, and, possibly, criminally liable for the disaster.

If BP was recklessly using a piece of rented equipment and the equipment’s company officials, who were present, did not stop it, then they are liable, too. They have to have known that the outcome would have been disastrous. The contract should have been ended or rendered null immediately, and the drilling should have ceased. Transocean lacked foresight, and it is criminally and financially liable similarly to BP.

Cameron is the least liable of the oil companies involved because they were just the manufacturer of the blowout preventer. Should it have worked? If the equipment was being used properly, they should be liable, too. BP, however, most definitely chose not to use this equipment properly as their track record has shown with their use of other equipment. Clearly, someone on Transocean’s rig tampered with the blow out preventer, whether it was Transocean or BP is not known. The last inspection of the BOP on the Deepwater Horizon was 5 years prior to the blowout.

The U.S. Government granted permits without the correct legal requirements for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico with blatant disregard for the United State’s ecology, economy, and people. How can the U.S. Government manhandle a company lawfully when it endorsed unlawful actions leading up to the disaster? I am a capitalist, and I believe in a laissez fair approach to markets. This, however, is ridiculous. This could be effectively viewed by BP, Transocean , Cameron, and Halliburton, as entrapment. Would BP, Transocean , Cameron, and Halliburton have taken on the risks that they did if the U.S. oil industry was correctly regulated? Is the United States Government entrapping oil companies because of its lack of foresight in preventing ecologic, financial, and social cataclysms?

Clearly, BP is liable but not solely. The world must require oil companies to drill mandatory relief wells in all waters to preserve ecologies, way of life, capitalism, and petrochemical production. Life is not possible without oil or the oceans. The way oil extraction is being regulated needs to change immediately and the procedures that are in place need to be corrected to make drilling reliably safe. The cost of drilling a relief well is miniscule in comparison to the cost of attempting to repair ecologic, social, economic, and governmental tragedies caused by unnecessary preventable spilt oil. Would requiring relief wells end drilling in the Gulf of Mexico? Statements against mandatory relief well drilling are false and rooted illogically in greed.

High estimates of drilling mandatory relief wells are about $1,400, 000 dollars per well in the deep sea. At $60 a barrel, oil companies will be able to offset costs of drilling relief wells after about 30 days of oil extraction from a production well at full capacity. Considering that most of these wells will be used for multiple decades to extract oil, it seems like a small price to pay for some ecologic, social, economic, and governmental piece of mind. Our demand for oil will drive us to the oceans, we must do it responsibly.

North Americans around the world are loved and hated. In general, people think that we are naïve, uneducated, and selfish. This incident is currently bringing about the best and worst of North America. Canadians are looking down on Americans lack of legislation, and Americans are blaming Britain’s largest company for the Gulf of Mexico’s oil disaster. Where does the blame lie?

Individuals are quick to judge when their jobs are affected, and they are constantly shown pictures of wildlife suffering on television. The cause of the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon on April twenty-second will probably never be known. The possibilities of its cause are endless. Could it have been terrorism, sabotage, human error, a competitor, another country, a disgruntled employee, or someone shorting BP’s stock?

Since, we cannot answer these questions we have to move forward. How can we prevent this kind of future disaster? The answer is in legislative governance of the industry.

Engineers on these drilling rigs would like you to think that their jobs are extremely technical. In fact, they are not. Like most work today, the majority of the digging is automated. The reality is that we will never be as technically gifted as we think. We need to take a step back and put safeguards in place to protect the oceans, the industry, and our own livelihood.

Alternative fuel proponents are unrealistic. If you are doubtful, I suggest that you inquire with any mechanic or mechanical engineer about the current performance of alternative fuels versus oil. The answer is that oil alternatives do not exist on the scale that we would like or with the efficiency requirements of consumers in today’s world. Therefore, our dependence on oil is not likely to subside in the next couple of hundred years. If you still do not believe me, look at your computer monitor or the shirt in your closet. They are probably made with petrochemicals.

How can we prevent terrorism, sabotage, human error, a competitor, another country, a disgruntled employee, or another capitalist from blowing up oil rigs and causing natural disasters? The answer is to level the playing field by requiring mandatory relief well drilling prior to production wells for all extraction of natural resources in our oceans. Our oil dependence will only decrease if we choose to compromise our way of life.

Presidents Obama’s anger over the Gulf of Mexico’s oil crisis is commendable but misguided. His administration has been dealing with the fallout from the greatest national disaster on American soil ever. The laws governing the extraction of oil need to be ratified to be consistent with natural, social, and financial requirements for proper oil extraction. Oil spills will always occur. Americans need to focus on the prevention of oil spill disasters. The answer lies with a heightening production costs slightly and creating an industry standard through the mandatory drilling of relief wells. This will not stop terrorism, sabotage, human error, a competitor, another country, a disgruntled employee, or another capitalist from blowing up oil rigs, but it can prevent an uncontrollable disaster.

Could it have been averted? These are answers that we may or may not find out. Everyone is currently doing a large amount of finger pointing and trying to manage the fallout since the Deepwater Horizon exploded.

Opinions vary widely in the media throughout the world on who is to blame. There are extreme opinions suggesting that the rig explosion was caused by terrorism and America’s own administration in Washington D.C. It is easy to blame British Petroleum, but the bottom line is that this could have occurred to any major oil company drilling in any of the world’s oceans.

Can future oil drilling disasters be prevented through caution and moderation? Clearly, drilling technology has not changed as rapidly as the industry would have the public believe. The bits used to drill into the Earth’s surface have evolved little since the U.S. granted a patent for Sharp-Hughes Rock Bit in 1909. We may have incorporated some electronic technology and adopted the ability to drill in more challenging environments, but the process has been fundamentally unchanged since the Chinese were extracting oil over 2,400 years ago with bamboo poles.

The machinery employed has is considered more modernized by the oil industry and governments around the world, but the underlying variables will never change in extracting from the Earth. These can only be answered after the fact when extraction has occurred. It is for this reason that every safety precaution, regardless of cost, needs to be taken when extracting natural deposits from the earth. How to govern it?
The answer is national and international legislation. The reality is that oil dependency is here to stay. There is just no alternative fuel that is as dependable and as efficient as oil. Alternative fuels have come a long way, but they lack oil’s efficiency, abundance, and usability. The future of energy for the masses is in oil extraction. Alternative fuels have a future, too. They, however, cannot provide for the energy needs of our planet as of yet. Alternative fuels can be problematic, lacking in standardization and application, and time consuming.

The future of oil extraction is in the world’s oceans. It is estimated that there is enough oil in the world’s oceans to satisfy our current demand levels for over 250 years. How can we meet our world’s current demands and not sacrifice our environment? The Canadian Government may be approaching the stated advancements by oil technologists with the correct caution. The Canadian Government has required that relief wells be dug prior to production wells for the last 34 years.

The advantages to having a relief well dug prior to a production well cannot be seen in daily oil extraction or costs, but they are a necessary caution for extracting of natural deposits. This should be adopted by the entire industry as a standard throughout the world. The building of mandatory relief wells prior to production wells is considered by opponents to be unnecessary, costly, and not needed. But one only need to cite the current disaster in the Gulf of Mexico for the reality to become apparent about how current practices need to be altered, especially as oil companies and our demand for crude oil pushes oceanic drill rigs into deeper depths.

Following Canada’s legislative requirement of having mandatory relief wells dug prior to production wells, we will be able to confront ecological disasters caused by unforeseen variables in oil extraction, still meet our demand for oil, thwart potential terrorist activities, and satisfy profits of capitalists simultaneously. If we do not change our practices now, they will be repeated. Oil extraction technology is not as modern as we or the industry may think. At its most basic level, oil extraction has not changed for over 2,000 years. This is analogous to the paved road adopted by contemporary societies from Rome. The Roman Road has seen very little change in the last 2,500 years.

The fact that the Roman Road is still in use, with the exception of the addition of asphalt in 1824, should be an indication that we are not as advanced as we think and that simple technologies remain because they work. Should we improve upon relief wells? Can we approve upon relief wells?

The answer is no. They just make sense at their most basic level. If you are putting a hole into the earth, it is necessary to be able to have multiple options to close the hole in a face of a catastrophe because in reality we should not be putting holes in the Earth in the first place. Have we become so arrogant, as a species, to think that we can drill into the ocean floor to extract The Earth’s natural deposits without having multiple levels of basic safety precautions in place?

I do not blame the people of the region because they are surviving in their own manner, and it usually works for them. I, however, just cannot grasp happiness in the world without the opportunity to better one’s self through work. Eastern Europeans are not lazy, but they have not grasped the understanding that money follows those who work to get it. With that said, I have often found that we are overworked in North America, especially in comparison to other Western countries.

What can we learn from history on this matter? Historically, North America and Western Europe have lost millions of lives in war. In comparison, however, Eastern Europe has, not only, lost millions of lives to war, but it has surrendered millions of lives to famine. I respect Eastern European’s for their perseverance throughout history. I just cannot understand this idleness and support of ideologies that lead to widespread starvation resulting death. Unfortunately, one cannot blame the governments of the region, but the people of Eastern Europe who empower and support these governments that have a historic track record for sacrificing human lives for the benefit of a few under the guise of providing for the masses.

Is North America perfect? We are not without problems, too. Happiness cannot be found in something material. It, however, does function as a nice reward for one’s work. It is impossible to live without necessities, which, in the modern world, are becoming increasingly more expensive and complex. Without material and genetic variation in a populace, there confusion and rebirth. One needs material items to exploit the freedom of self expression, and one needs the ability to buy material items as a motivation to go to work and work well. Although we cannot find true happiness material items, it does help to end idleness.

How to FGM and circumcision differ? FGM is not known to serve any medical purpose. Circumcision is believed to reduce the risk of HIV and urinary tract infections. We must ask ourselves. Do the suggested medical benefits of circumcision, an irreversible and extremely painful procedure, outweigh an individual’s rights? Should laws be passed allowing circumcisions and FGM procedures to be allowed after an individual is an adult? Does a parent’s right to religious freedom outweigh a child’s individual rights? Currently, the Jewish and Islamic faiths are two major world religions practicing circumcision on young boys and converts.

The practice is defended by commandments from holy books, religious leaders, and communities around the globe. Jewish law, the ‘mitzva aseh’, states that it is obligatory for all Jewish males to be circumcised after birth or conversion. This is usually done by a ‘mohel’ on the eighth day after a Jewish male’s birth.
Here is a quote from the Center of Disease Control promoting circumcision as a way to help prevent HIV transmission.

Ecologic studies also indicate a strong association between lack of male circumcision and HIV infection at the population level. Although links between circumcision, culture, religion, and risk behavior may account for some of the differences in HIV infection prevalence, the countries in Africa and Asia with prevalence of male circumcision of less than 20% have HIV infection prevalence several times higher than those in countries in these regions where more than 80% of men are circumcised.

The studies put forth by the CDC and the international medical community are guilty of selection bias and observation bias. These studies have been performed in underdeveloped regions and have not had a significant number of participants. The CDC’s recommendation of circumcision for male’s in aiding the prevention of HIV is reckless and counterproductive. Circumcision is genital mutilation regardless of one’s religious beliefs, and it should not be endorsed by the CDC’s over generalization of bias studies. Condoms are still the best way to prevent HIV transmission, and this should be continued to be endorsed.
The World Health Organization and the United Nations Children’s Fund need to issues statements against the practice of male circumcision. Male circumcision is an endorsed practice of genital mutilation that is practiced unjustly on infant male babies worldwide. It is an irreversible procedure, and it should not be permitted in any country until one is considered an adult regardless of one’s religious affiliation or upbringing.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2134499/murder_by_facebook_or_social_networking.html?cat=7

All social networking sites should allow all invitations from their site to be blocked if wanted. The social networking sites make money off advertising, and they should not be promoting spam that is unwanted to individuals who have not willingly sought out their sites. The current set-up assumes that individuals want to network with people and have their lives displayed for profit on the Internet. If someone has not joined and they are receiving invitations to join, it is spam.