Should the United States torture?

This week, the CIA released their 2004 inspector general’s report revealing the full extent of harsh methods used on terror suspects. The report found that CIA investigators routinely staged mock executions, and used power drills, guns, and waterboarding techniques to extract information from the detainees.

These “enhanced interrogation techniques” have caused moral, ethic and legal debates across the country. President Obama has gone so far as to call some of these techniques “torture”. As the debate rages on, many feel is boils down to one question, “Did the harsh methods like waterboarding cause terrorist suspects to give up valuable information?” Like so many things in Washington, it depends on who you ask.

The program’s defenders, most notably former Vice President Dick Cheney have long claimed that the detainees broke down under the coercive techniques and gave up crucial tips. The information they provided helped foil imminent terrorist plots against the United States, and thus saved American lives. One the other hand, the inspector general’s report says it “did not uncover any evidence that these plots were imminent.” The report also raises the fundamental questions of whether the interrogators needed to use enhanced techniques at all. The report states that at least in some instances, they were used “without justification.”

So my question to you this week is, “What do you think of the ‘torture’ debate? Should the United States engage in these practices if it means keeping us safe?” Answers are due no later than Monday, August 31st, 2009.

Who made the best President?

This week's blog post will be short and sweet. In a previous blog, I asked students who they thought would've made a great President that never held the office. This week, I would like to focus on those men that have held the office.


My question to you this week is threefold: "Which President did the best job on domestic issues ? Which President did the best job on foreign policy? Who do you think was the best President overall?" Make sure you state why you feel the way you do. If you aren't sure, then look it up! You must answer all three questions to get full credit for this week's blog. Answers are due no later than Monday, August 24th, 2009.

Have you driven a Ford lately?

I've never been much of a car person. I drive a 1999 Nissan Sentra and usually, when people ask what kind of car I drive, I just say "A black one". I get flat tires regularly and this summer my air conditioning went out. For years family and friends have suggested I look into getting a new car, but as long as it gets me where I am going, I'm okay with driving a car that is a decade old. That is, until recently.

It started when the US car companies found themselves in real trouble. I began finding myself drawn to commercials offering no interest financing and other great deals designed to lure people like me into the showroom. Then I began seriously considering it when I heard about President Obama's "Cash for Clunkers" program. Today I heard news that might just push me over the edge and into the dealership.

GM is now marketing the Chevrolet Volt, a rechargeable electric car that will get 230 mpg! That is more than four times what the Toyota Prius gets. The Volt is powered by an electric motor and battery pack. The battery pack can be recharged from a standard home outlet. The Volt will cost roughly $40,000 and will be available in 2010.

Now, $40,000 is way out of my price range for car, but it did get me thinking. Will my next car be electric or a hybrid? Is there really any other solution? And what does that mean for the American big three auto companies? Will my future children laugh when they hear mommy used to drive a car that used gas? So my question to you this week is "What do you think of electric or hybrid cars? Are they the wave of the future or just a modern day fad? How do you think this will impact the American auto makers?" Answers are due no later than Monday, August 17th, 2009.

Should newspapers be saved?

This week, I would like to revisit a topic I have previously blogged about. Recently, we studied how the media affects our political culture. In a few weeks, we will discuss why media is sometimes called the fourth branch of government. The media's influence on politics has always affected how we view our politicians; from the times of the penny press, FDR's fireside chats and the televised Kennedy/Nixon debates. However, it is now possible that some major cities will soon no longer have a newspaper.

In a recent cover story, Times author Walter Issacon notes that although readership is on the rise, fewer consumers are paying. According to a Pew Research study, more people got their news online for free last year, than paid for it by buying newspapers and magazines. The newspapers, which traditionally have counted on sales from subscriptions and newsstands are now only relying on advertising dollars, thus making the content beholden to the advertisers themselves.Walter Issacon makes a case for charging for the news we access. Whether we pay an online subscription fee for the newspaper of our choice, or we are simply charged a "user fee" for each article we access, Issacon stresses that charging for content might just be the only way to save our newspapers.

You are all creative students, who produce artistic content that I am sure you would like to get paid for, yet at the same time, I am sure many of your access news for free off of the Internet. So my question to you this week is, "Do you think we should be charged for the news we access, and if so, with what kind of fee?". Answers are due no later thanMonday, August 10th, 2009 .