Debate on Gun Control

   Recently, a Colorado massacre which resulted in the deaths of 12 citizen, both adults and children (as well as many injuries) has caused a major debate on gun control through out America. Is the Government's lack of gun control to blame or the individuals who act out in violence using such weapons. Well, Kylie Moden makes a great point in her commentary about this debate over the Colorado massacre. Many are putting the government to blame in this situation saying it could have been easily avoided if not for the weak and minimum gun control laws. But lets think realistic here. Just because the government allows individuals to purchase, operate, and have  a gun does not mean they also told them such violent actions are appropriate and the government certainly should not be held accountable for the individuals violent actions. As Moden said, creating more gun restrictions will definitely make guns harder for individuals to purchase but there are plenty more ways for them to get one. I also agree that gun control laws are very helpful but they are not the answer to completely stopping such violence as the Colorado massacre. America needs to wake up quickly because the government is not a fault for this crime the criminal is, the individual.

   Not only has this tragic caused a major debate but has also had an affect on request for gun certificates and gun purchases. People want to gain education on how to operate a gun more now than ever to protect themselves and their family from such horrific events as this one. Three days after the massacre gun sales increased and 2,887 background checks had to be approved for gun purchases just in Colorado. In Florida 2,386 backgrounds were checked Friday, 14 percent more than the week before. As we see this issue has really stirred up a lot of chaos. But in order to get the justice we want we must stop putting the blame on our government and instead support them and their ideas so that they can help us.

Sources:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2012/Jul/25/fear_prompts_gun_sales_after_colorado_massacre.html

Scandals, the new trend for financial industries.

   It seems that more and more scandals and dishonestly is happening in the financial industry more frequently. Since when did ripping off and scamming become so popular? Well in an USA Today article by Lefteris Pitarakis, AP it was said that maybe the "punishments" for such crimes are ironically solutions for the people committing these crimes.
   Recently, GlaxoSmithKline agreed to pay $3 billion to the government for failure to report safety data on it's diabetes drug and for marketing it's antidepressants for unauthorized uses. Similar deals have been made by Pfizer in 2009 and Abbott Laboratories in May. Not only has the pharmaceutical industry had major scandals but also the banking industry. In the 1980s the savings-and-loan debacle was forced a bailout of $100 billion because of scams in the investment banking and similar fund industries. Recently, the Libor (London interbank offered rate), which has a major impact on mortgages, credit cards and other borrowing lied about the rate they were offered on short-term loans.
  Over a 1,000 people were convicted of felonies during the savings-and-loan crisis and during the Libor scandal, Barlays CEO Bob Diamond and two other executives resigned. It is certain that financial penalties are not the answer to stop these crimes. In a  2005 book Freakonomics, the authors pointed out that when a day care center began to fine parents who were late to pick up their children, tardiness increased. Parents saw this penalty as a simple way to excuse their tardiness.
  Making these criminals pay a simple price that they can pay off is just giving them the okay to do these things. If they know their consequences are that easy, why not do it right? So regulations and expensive fines aren't the solutions to change criminal behavior, the way to change it is "with criminal penalties".

Classmate's Blog - Southern Hospitality

   Ogechi E. Acknowledges an important issue, which reminds us of our rights as American citizens. What happen to Freedom of Speech? Now every time someone protests or speaks out in disagreement automatically they're seen as ignorant and are criticized. What happen to our right to express ourselves freely, because isn't that a right we've fought for?
   Recently the NAACP has been criticized for booing and heckling Mitt Romney while Joe Biden was given a warm welcome at their convention in Houston. Knowing that this convention would contain a majority of Democrats, Mitt Romney still decided to give his speech. Which is fine because as Ogechi pointed out they're surround by mature adults. But when those same mature adults decided to express themselves with a noise as simple and harmless as booing those adults are now criticized.
   I agree with Ogechi's argument that while these people expressed themselves with a harmless noise and are being bashed, instead we should think of the people right now expressing themselves by acting out in violence. I also agree with Ogechi's thought that people have failed to think deeply about this situation. People have failed to think deeply about this situation because they are not seeing the fact that maybe the heckling wasn't out of immaturity and ignorance it was out of beliefs and opinions. We all think and believe differently and there is nothing wrong with this and for this reason we we're given the right to express ourselves as we wish. We have every right to harmlessly exercise our Freedom of Speech. It isn't right for citizen to be seen as ignorant for taking advantage of their rights and at that taking advantage of them properly.
  It is so sad to me that we cannot even express ourselves without being judged or criticized. America is a great Country for reasons like our right of Freedom of Speech. Instead of us being worried about the innocent disagreements we express in politics we such be worried about the violence people use to express themselves over silly disagreements in meaningless things.

Immigration law, do or don't?

   Immigration is a rising concern in America and Arizona's law (SB 1070) has surely stirred up the issue. In 2010 Arizona passed the SB 1070 in "defense" of illegal immigration. The law allows police officials to stop someone and ask for proof that they belong here. Many argue whether the law enables discrimination or not. Some feel that this is no different from a traffic stop or is that just a cover up to lighten up the problems this law brings. Can't they just improve and advanced their border. Why must citizens be asked to prove that they have the right to be in their homeland? Arizona's intentions maybe have been to protect themselves from crime and trouble. But then again was that even their intention? What or who are they trying to protect or protect themselves from, their jobs or the fact that Hispanics are a rapid growing minority? The SB 1070 really needs to be over looked and a new law needs to be put in place for the right reasons rather than the wrong reasons. America is a great country and many civilians around the world (not just from Mexico) want to be part of this amazing country to better themselves and/or their family. And this should be allowed without making American citizens suffer and be discriminated against. We can make this possible if laziness is not an option and we strengthen our borders to ensure protection of our wonderful country. The SB 1070 has surely turned around illegal immigration. And probably has influenced other states to create such a law that may continue to offend American citizens.
   Others have also argued that fear influenced Arizona's defense while freedom is being taken and too much power is being given. The power Arizona will be given will probably end up in misuse because isn't that almost always the case when more power is given. The fear that whites will become a minority has raised concern. But while Arizona worries and is finding ways to protect themselves by passing this law, Americans worry and try to find ways to protect themselves from this law.



http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/04/arizona_facts.html
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-04-23/opinion/opinion_navarrette-arizona-immigration-law_1_illegal-immigrants-immigration-law-fake-green-cards?_s=PM:OPINION

Romney vows to 'replace' Obama's immigration order

  In an editorial I found on USA TODAY by Catalina Camia, It was said that Obama's temporary solution to halt the deportations of about 800,000 illegal immigrant is just a "political move" to gain support from Latinos in this up coming election. Romney criticizes Obama's temporary solution because it would only put a hold on deportions for two year so that illegal immigrants could apply for a work permit. Romney claims that he would veto the lastest version of the Dream Act (which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants who were to the United States as a child, have completed high, attended college or served in the military) and instead grant legal status to students who did military service. Camia acknowledges that Obama's solution would not grant legal status like the Dream Act intended to do (but bypassed congress). Camia states that Romney,promising to stregthen legal status, would find a "long-term solution" to immigrantion and border issues, vowed to get rid of the crucial system that grants green cards and would grant legal status to illegal immigrants who served in arm forces.

  I personally feel that though Romney's ideas are straight forward and reasonable, would congress agree? Immigrantion is such a touchy issue and will probably continue to be for several years. Obama's idea is not that bad either and would give the government time to figure out how to solve the illegal immigrantion issue. Giving illegal immigrants two years to apply for a work permit considering that Hispanic unemployment is at 11% would be beneficial not only to the government but those who are unemployed. Obama's idea is a win, win situtation because even if the government did not come up with another solution then at least immigrants would be working and not living off of America's social programs like welfare, public housing, education, healthcare and etc. But then again would congress agree?

Editorial: Obama's gay-marriage evolution mirrors nation's

   "Obama's gay-marriage evolution mirrors nation's" an editorial by Carolyn Kaster, AP where the issue of same sex marriage should be put in the hands of the federal government. President Obama recently came out and openly stated his supportive view in gay marriage, which no other president has ever done.  This surely added some heat to the issue for the presidential race but author Kaster acknowledges the fact that support for gay marriage has increasingly risen to 50% from 27% in 1996. Even one of the nation's most popular TV sitcom, Modern Family features a married gay couple. Kaster claims though president Obama has stated his view on the issue "The idea has yet to catch on where it matters most: with voters." Only in about 8 states is same sex marriage legal and recently North Carolina was the 30th state to ban gay marriage. In the nation same sex marriage is supported at 71% for people of ages 18-29 and 21% for those of ages 80 and older. Kaster feels that Obama's "shift on the subject" has furnished the nation's view on the issue and will soon be making its way to the top, but yet may not get very far. Most importantly, Kaster states,  "Is that the country find a solution that gives all citizens equal treatment under the law". But the middle ground for that has for the most part been destroyed. Civil unions, where same sex couples are granted legal rights like hospital visitation, adoption, tax and health benefits just like a married couple was a solution which has been rejected in 14 states including North Carolina. Though civil unions have failed to a certain extend Kaster claims the issue will find its way back to the top and the only opinion that will then matter the most will be the one of the nine justices of the Supreme Court not president Obama's.
   I agree, this issue is too big to be ignored and will find its way to the top. Support for gay marriage is fastly increasing and soon will be too big of an issue to leave in the hands of the states. The federal government needs to bring the problem upon themselves. As it is, states are having trouble finding a solution that gives all citizens equal treatment under the law and when they do it is denied for some and given to others. With some states supporting an idea and other states denying it, it causes a bigger issue on top of the one trying to be fixed. If federal power was to set certain rules or principles then it would be one way and that's it. No one could change it and the law wouldn't be different in one place so no one could complain. Now that America's who are in-favor of same sex marriage finally have a leader on their side they should speak up and the Supreme Court should listen and decide.

Romney and Obama, disconneting with America.

In a CNN article by Halimah Abdullah, Romney, Obama: Why they have trouble connecting, Abdullah explains maybe why voters are turned off.

In the article many questions come about like "Are politicians too rich to understand us?" as to why voters feel a disconnection with politicians. Abdullah acknowledges the fact that "America rarely elects "everyday" folks into office." America has had the habit of electing presidential candidates with the background  and income of a wealthy man. Obama is labeled as the "elite professor" and Romney is labeled as the "rich guy", which can't be related to everyday people. Like many of the past presidents Obama and Romney background of wealth and power prevents them from relating to the average person. Though their personalities may be a way for voters to relate to them it will only take Obama and Romney along so far before they start disconnecting with America once again.

This article is so interesting to me because for once criticism towards presidential candidates isn't about how they have the right idea to fix our economy or country, it is focused on the connection they have with voters. Abdullah is right wealth and power is the qualifications for our candidates. But power and wealth is the last thing the average person can relate to, maybe this why there is such a big disconnection between America and our presidential candidates. For example, when Romney talks about all the "20" cars his wife has, what connection can an average American make to that? His wealth isn't going to fix our problems. Through out the past centuries you hear how the new president isn't what we thought he was, how he has destroyed America, or how everything he does is wrong. Well maybe if we thought that our next president or leader of  our city or state should be not some one who is a millionaire or who's dad was a former leader,but some one who makes a personal connection with us , some one who says I understand because I've been in that same situation then we wouldn't be so disappointed all the time. This article caught my eye because it changed my point of view and made me analyze an issue from a deeper prospective. So I hope for this next election America thinks about this and decides very carefully because who ever it is they pick they will have to deal with for the next 4 years.