The IRS Scandal

Recently the IRS has surfaced into the news as an agency abusing its power. In Cincinnati numerous groups that contained "Tea Party" or "Patriot" in their name were put through numerous questionnaires that turned out to be a means of intimidation for those filing the applications. The accusations originally began in 2010 and continued for about two years. The additional questionnaires with unfair criteria that were sent out from the IRS were found to be done by low level employees. When their managers caught wind of the acts they made an attempt to correct the issue. 

It's troubling that such an important agency could allow something such as this to occur. Some individuals that were attempting to receive the tax exempt status which would allow them to carry out various political activities felt frightened about divulging their information or not divulging enough which means committing perjury. The IRS has admitted to the unnecessary criteria being used as a tactic to discourage the conservative groups from being created.

Other reports have risen about the same issue occurring in California but it appears that the only legitimate offenses have so far occurred in Cincinnati. Now that the issue is in the public's focus if it happening in other locations then it will hopefully be taken care of quickly. Unfortunately it won't help those that feel the government will always abuse its power and is too large to serve its purpose.

Works Cited

  

GOOD, CHRIS, and SHUSHANNAH WALSHE. "IRS Asked About Political Views, Tea Party Groups Claim Mistreatment." ABC News. May 14, 2013. Accessed May 14, 2013. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/irs-asked-political-views-tea-party-groups-claim/story?id=19171967.

"New IRS Scandal Revives past Allegations against Agency." Fox News. May 14, 2013. Accessed May 14, 2013. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/14/new-irs-scandal-echoes-agency-problems-past/.

PHILLIP, ABBY D. "IRS Guilty of 'Thuggish Abuse of Power,' McConnell Says." ABC News. May 14, 2013. Accessed May 14, 2013. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/irs-guilty-thuggish-abuse-power-mcconnell/story?id=19176388.

Tanfani, Joseph, and Richard Simon May 14. "Report Cites Poor Oversight in IRS Targeting of Certain Groups." Los Angeles Times. May 14, 2013. Accessed May 14, 2013. http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-irs-taxes-conservative-groups-20130514,0,591063.story. 

Fight On Food

Looking through the science articles in the news papers many things keep coming up. What I keep seeing is genetically altered food. The biggest story that hit email this week was about making the perfect burger, this dish that will cost $325,000.  This is not only a case that is controversial with in the United States, this burger article takes place in the Netherlands and has to do with the United Kingdom. Yet within the United States the fight about food rages on. Though the issue on food has not been at the fore front of the news lately it is very much with in the secondary tear, as I like to call it. 

This issue comes up over and over again, in so many different ways, PETA will argue and lobby for animal rights, even going as far as to advocate that meat should not be served as food. Yet, the scientific solution to that opinion would clearly be artificially growing meat in a lab, where it may not even take animals to make it. On the other hand, this means that many chemicals and preservatives and additives would have to be added to make sure the food will last, and will taste similar to what people are used to. With that, many people also are against chemical additives in there food, which also includes pesticides. This is also a very valid point in my opinion since there isn't much research of the long term effects that the genetically altered food can have on us. 

With that this issue seems to be nothing less the a double edged sword. There is no solution that will please all parties, and with that in mind there is not much room for compromise, if there is any at all, so where does this leave us. It leaves us all very split on the issue, with out coming to a conclusion. Each side of this issue seems to feel so strongly about there opinions and stance on the issues that there is really no way to even really talk about the issue. If the news has shown me anything it just seems like each side is just doing there own thing to try and prove there way is better rather then having someone very scientifically compare and contrast both side and decide what is useful, safe and helpful from both sides. Will we ever be able to agree on what food should be, most likely not, but the battle rages on.

"Engineering the $325,000 In-Vitro Burger - NYTimes.com." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 May 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/science/engineering-the-325000-in-vitro-burger.html?ref=science>.

" People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA): The animal rights organization | PETA.org." People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA): The animal rights organization | PETA.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 May 2013. <http://www.peta.org/>.

"Genetically engineered foods: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia."National Library of Medicine - National Institutes of Health. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 May 2013. <http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency

Violence Solution?

With the upcoming trend of shootings going on around the country along with other acts of violence that extend further then just a shooting many people are "up in arms" for lack of a better term about the subject. Today there was a shooting during a mothers day parade in New Orleans, which left nineteen wounded at least. This year alone we have dealt with more of these public acts of violence then i can remember ever seeing. Be it the shooting that took place at the elementary school, the Boston bombing or the theatre shooter at the premiere of the new Batman movie.

 This of course is not only happening in the United States, its happening all over the world, this kind of violence is starting to make its way into the media constantly unlike when I was younger and only the big stories that had to do with gun violence were covered. Due to this a lot of things have happened, a lot of people are begging for more gun regulation and even for more mental health facilities that fit the needs of the people who are not in a healthy mental state. The questions then becomes how do we fix this. Politically this has become an extremely hot button issue, most likely because it is so shocking each time it happens and it really hits home with a lot of people. It seems no candidate is taking a full stance one way or another.

 There are a lot of things at play that make it very hard to solve this with a black and white answer, or solution. The constitution for one which implies the right to bare arms, and though the interpretation of this amendment has been discussed it is still a very bit influence on this argument. The other side is wanting to extend the law for background checks so that this includes gun shows, though this could start to solve the problem it won't take care of what is already out there. What I have seen this whole year of hearing this come up over and over again, is that no one has a clean cut solution. Clearly no one wants to see kids being shot, and that seems to be what everyone can agree on, but beyond that there seems to be no middle ground for compromise, and well even with out compromise it doesn't seem as if the problem would be fixed.

Press, The Associated. "17 Wounded in Shooting at New Orleans Parade." The New York Times. The New York Times, 13 May 2013. Web. 12 May 2013

"Teen Shot at Atlanta School; Student Held." USA Today. Gannett, n.d. Web. 12 May 2013.

"Metro." BostonGlobe.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 May 2013.

international food aid

            Interestingly, it was on a conservative blog that I came across an article about  Obama’s idea to reform how we conduct international food aid, and accredits the president’s reform as a, “small but very reasonable suggestion.”  As of now we buy most the food from our farmers and then ship it overseas rather than buying the food in the impoverished area.  If we were to buy the food overseas not only would we feed over an additional 17 million people, we would strengthen their economy and potentially discourage their reliance on food aid in the future.            

            Our current policies regarding international food aid are outdated and inefficient.  We support our farmers by buying the food here and then ship it overseas on preferred shipping vessels supporting certain corporate interests.  Our international food aid costs us only .05% of our federal budget annually and recues millions from malnutrition and starvation.  They way the system has worked until now we spend .53 cents per dollar on transport and regulation of the food which adds up to a staggering $471 annually.  On top of that the food takes up to six months to reach its destination.  In the case of Ethiopia, 2,200 tons of wheat bought here could be 5,400 tons bought in the local economy. 

            Many politicians involved in agriculture, in both parties are opposed to this reform.  Republican Robert Aderholt of Alabama, also the head of the House agriculture subcommittee is worried about how this would affect American farmers.  Democrat Sam Farr of California, who is also on the committee is,
“not endorsing the transfer-the realignment-until there are assurances that the program will remain intact and not be raided by other foreign ops interests.”  He is also confident that we will not see this happen any time soon as, “that’s the politics.”  

            While of course this type of change will bring economic losses to the country don’t think this is a party, or even political issue.  When we are talking about the lives of over 17 million people it becomes an ethical issue.

 

Works Cited

"Food aid: a critical program, ripe for reform — Oxfam America." Oxfam America: Working together to end poverty and injustice. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 May 2013. <http://www.oxfamamerica.org/campaigns/food-justice/food-aid>.

Johnsen, Erika. "Attempt to improve U.S. food-aid efficiency going about as well as you’d expect «  Hot Air." HotAir — Politics, Culture, Media, 2012, Breaking News from a conservative viewpoint. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 May 2013. <http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/02/attempt-to-improve-u-s-food-aid-efficiency-going-about-as-well-as-youd-expect/>.

 

           

 

 

Guantanamo

     The Guantanamo Bay detention center, located at a military base on the coast of Cuba, houses over one hundred prisoners of the United States. These prisoners are those that are suspected of being connected to terrorist organizations in countries across the Atlantic, specifically in Northern Africa and in countries within Southwest Asia. The prison camp was created in the tense period between the start of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and has held some prisoners there for some eleven years now. A recent hunger strike at the camp, involving one hundred of the one hundred and sixty-six prisoners, has put more pressure on President Obama to make good on his 2008 election promise to close Guantanamo.

     I feel that the Guantanamo Bay detention should be closed. My stance on this issue is based around two points. First I believe that the basic function of the camp, to incapacitate the prisoners held there, can be accomplished by high security and maximum security facilities here in the United States. Simply put, I feel we’re spending more money than we need to on a base that does a job we can already do here on home soil. Secondly, an off-shore prison camp where detainees are held without trial for an indefinite period of time with no opportunity to appeal their imprisonment looks decidedly awful from a foreign policy standpoint for a country that prides itself on ideals such as a fair trial and other rights of the accused.

     One of the issues facing the closure of Guantanamo is what the federal government is going to do with all of the prisoners. It has been suggested in the past that the prisoners could be moved to maximum security facilities here in the United States. Not surprisingly nearly every state wanted nothing to do with these prisoners. While I understand the position of not wanting to have terrorists imprisoned in one’s own state, I do not feel that this is a rational fear. I feel as though our federal maximum-security prisons would do a more than sufficient job of keeping this prisoners incapacitated in their ability to commit terrorist acts against the citizens of the United States.

-

"Naval Station Guantanamo Bay." CNIC // NAVAL STATION GUANTANAMO BAY.        Commander, Navy Installations Command, n.d. Web. 01 May 2013. <http://www.cnic.navy.mil/guantanamo/index.htm>.

Patriots Day Justice

As I am sure that everyone in America and a great number of the world’s population has heard and watched the news and videos of the tragic Boston Marathon Bombing on April 15, 2013 also known as “Patriots Day”.  Unfortunately most people today forget the true meaning of Patriots Day and why it is important to remember its affects and outcomes as it can almost directly relate to today. 

With the unfortunate happenings this year in Boston most people including myself are claiming this as an act of terrorism.  A clear act of violence used to shock, kill, and put fear into the people of Boston. This is the wrong city to mess with as we have already killed and caught those bastards!  As much as we might hate them some people are claiming that the living brother Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should be tried as an enemy combatant and not given a trial like an American citizen.  This action would dishonor both the American Judicial System and the 6^th Amendment in the Constitution. 

You’re probably asking yourself how this relates to the Patriots Day.  Well Patriots Day is a holiday that remembers the citizens who died on 5 March, 1770 from the Boston Massacre, when British regulars fired upon a crowd in front of the old state house in downtown Boston.  At that time the American colonies and England were at high tension with each other and with war about to break.  Today we see the same thing, except we are at war with anything to do with the word Islam or Muslim since the attacks of 9/11 and now the Boston Marathon.  After the Shootings the British soldiers were arrested and put on trial, which many Bostonians and colonists wanted to skip and to kill the soldier’s right then in the name of revenge.  But one man named John Adams, one of our Founding Fathers disagreed, as he believed everyone has the right to a fair trial, no matter what atrocious act they have committed.  The soldiers were still found guilty, but the point of a fair trial was for then on engraved into American Tradition.

As bad as this act of Terrorism was, it was committed by an American and one of his rights guaranteed by the constitution is the right to a fair trial.  This is an American tradition and Constitutional right, and one that we should be proud of even in the face of acts like we face today.         

 

1.       Tsarnaev Steel Door: Boston Bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Moved to Secure Detention Center (VIDEO)." Christian Post. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Apr. 2013.

2.       Kindig, Thomas. "The Boston Massacre." The Boston Massacre. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Apr. 2013.

2016 Presidential Race

I was debating on what to write my post about for everything in the news recently has already been covered. I saw an article about a 2014 gubernatorial election in NY between Chris Christie and Sen. Barbara Buono.1 The article was commenting on how Christie was going to be releasing his first ad of the campaign and mention his opponent Buono has not yet done an ad. Still not knowing what to write about I went to CNN.com to see what they had for topics and I ended up finding an article called 2016 Poll: Hillary Clinton lapping potential Democratic field. The article was about how in a recent poll asking democratic and democratic leaning voters who they would support in  2016 Hillary Clinton was the top choice followed by Joe Biden. Hillary had 63% of support towards 12%for Biden. This got me thinking on this blog being about the 2016 Presdential Race.2 I know that last November saw the end of the 2012 election but with the 2014 midterm election making an apperance the 2016 election would not be far behind.
 In working on the exercises for this class I found a list of potential presidental candidates for both parties for 2016 through www.2016election.com. If you click on the power Ranking it gives you a list of potential candidates for each party.3 Also on the website are pages for Presidential Odds, one for each party. that also has candidate choices listed but by vegas odds. So going with the Power Ranking we have:

Republicans Potential Candidates
1. Paul Ryan
2. Scott Walker
3. Chri Christie
4. Marco Rubio
5. Jeb Busch
6. Bob McDonnell
7. Kelly Ayotte
8. Rand Paul
9. Rick Santorum
10. John Boehner
11. Colin Powell (lised as a dark horse on www.2016election.com)

Democrats Potential Candidates
1. Hillary Clinton
2. Joe Biden
3. Andrew Cuomo
4. Martin O'Malley
5. Mark Warner
6. Evan Bayh
7. Elizabeth Warren
8. Rahm Emanuel
9. Julian Castro
10.Cory Booker
11. Tim Kaine (lised as a dark horse on www.2016election.com)

Looking at this list I see alot of names I haven't heard off such as Cory Booker, Evan Bayh, Bob McDonnell, and John Boehner. One name I thought would make it but didn't would be Sarah Palin. Also some names I found surprising was Kelly Ayotte and Jeb Busch. I think the two best potential races would be Biden against Ryan or Clinton against Ayotte. Even Rubio verse Clinton matchup would be exciting to see.  In all honestly I would love to see a female nominee in the general election and even win the presidency. How exciting would 2016 election be with both parties having a female nominee.  With that said, in closing I welcome your thoughts on names you found were left out, potential matchups you might want to see, or just any thoughts on this topic.

Bibliography

3. Parkhouse, Nate. "2016 Presidential Power Rankings." 2016 Election. January 31, 2013. Accessed April 30, 2013. http://www.2016election.com/2016-presidential-power-rankings/.

 

2. Steinhauser, Paul. "2016 Poll: Hillary Clinton Lapping Potential Democratic Field." CNN (blog), April 30, 2013. Accessed April 30, 2013. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/30/2016-poll-hillary-clinton-lapping-potential-democratic-field/.

 

1. Walshe, Shushannah. "Chris Christie Launches First Ad Wednesday." ABC News (blog), April 30, 2013. Accessed April 30, 2013. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/04/chris-christie-launches-first-ad-wednesday/.

Gun Control

For a few months Republicans and Democrats have been bashing head over the issue of gun control. One bill proposed by Senator Feinstein’s aims to ban or regulate the sale of assault weapons and the also limit the size of magazines that are used with those weapons.

I would submit that gun control, especially the type of reform suggested by Senator Feinstein, does little to nothing to deter future crimes.

Without getting into the numbers behind gun control just yet, I want to talk about what the assault weapons are that Senator Feinstein is trying to regulate. The term assault weapon refers specifically and exclusively to the visual appearance of a firearm and not the manner in which it functions. Assault weapons are NOT assault rifles. Assault rifles are an entirely different class of weapon, most notably featuring a selective fire capability enabling the rifle to shot in a fully automatic or burst-fire mode. Assault weapons are only semi-automatic rifles, meaning they fire one round for every time the trigger is pulled, that look like military assault rifles. In terms of mechanical function they are equivalent to any other semi-automatic rifle. Again, the term assault weapon only refers to the aesthetics of the weapon, not its ability to protect or end a life.

Gun control has proved itself to be ineffective in the past and present. If it was effective a city like Detroit would be one of the safest cities in the country. Gun laws in the city of Detroit and the state of Michigan require that every individual purchasing a firearm be approved on two separate occasions by the police and be subject to a federal background check. This applies for every separate purchase of a firearm. This gun control has done little to stop violence in the city, and in fact Detroit has the second highest murder rate in the country.

Truly, in some cases the opposite of gun control has been shown to be more effective. The city of Kennesaw, Georgia enacted a city ordinance requiring all citizens living in the city to own and maintain one firearm and associated ammunition. The result in Kennesaw? Kennesaw has the lowest crime rate of any city of its size in the country, with crime rates lower today than when the law was originally enacted in 1982.

The country is already saturated with guns. Whether this is a good or bad thing is a pointless argument. It is simply a fact. Enacting new laws to try and stop criminals from accessing them is an exercise in futility. Criminals, by their very nature, do not obey laws. Criminals do not register their guns, go through background checks, and are not affected by gun control.

Works Cited

"25 Years Murder-free in 'Gun Town USA'" WND, 19 Apr. 2007. Web. 24 Apr. 2013. <http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41196/>.

"ARTICLE II. - FIREARMS." Kennesaw, Georgia, Code of Ordinances. City of Kennesaw, n.d. Web. 24 Apr. 2013.

"Assault Weapons Ban Summary." United States Senator Dianne Feinstein. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Apr. 2013. <http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons-ban-summary>.

Fisher, Daniel. "Detroit Tops The 2012 List Of America's Most Dangerous Cities." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 18 Oct. 2012. Web. 24 Apr. 2013. <http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2012/10/18/detroit-tops-the-2012-list-of-americas-most-dangerous-cities/>. 

.

FCC Censorship

As discussed here, David Ortiz of the Boston Red Sox raised attention last week by using the dreaded "f-word" on air while talking about the Boston Marathon Bombings. "This is our fucking city!" the slugger exclaimed. But the real story is how the FCC was completely okay with this. 

To quote the article: 

"David Ortiz spoke from the heart at today's Red Sox game," outgoing FCC head Julius Genachowski tweeted. "I stand with Big Papi and the people of Boston."

According to Genachowski, it's okay to swear on live TV if it "comes from the heart", but in other circumstances, cursing is not okay. This points out just how silly censorship is. Why is an acceptable word "fuck" acceptable sometimes, but offensive others? In our language, all words have a defined meaning, but the FCC thinks that some words are so offensive that they should never be allowed on air... well, in most situations. Then when is it okay to swear? Should we set guidelines on when words "come from the heart'? It seems ridiculous that the word"fuck" is okay in Ortiz's situation, but it automatically becomes dirty when talking about two consenting adults consummating their lust. This reminds me of some observations made by the great George Carlin.   

Primary and Secondary Education in The United States

The United States is responsible for providing millions upon millions of children with knowledge in several different fields that positive mental development and growth through the education system. Education in the United States has never failed to produce great minds that have utilized the knowledge gained through schooling to create monumental differences around the world in nearly every field. However, in recent years, the education system has come under fire in terms of efficiency and international position, leaving many citizens to speculate whether education standards and norms in the United States are as high as they should be. I decided to focus my research analyzing the role of the public sector in education, the efficiency of a few of the techniques used in our system, and how well the US compares to other educational systems around the world.

In the current economic situation, the public sector has found itself struggling to manage funds on the local, state, and federal levels. An article published recently in The Concord Monitor provides an excellent example of how large the role of local officials is in determining what children are able to learn. Less than a month ago, the newly-named New Hampshire Teacher of the Year and her husband spoke about a recent million-dollar budget cut to their school district through a decision voted on by district members. Heidi Welch, music teacher and NH Teacher of the Year, recently decided that the decline of education spending in their district is deterring her from putting her 3 year old son in the school district in which she teaches. Randy Welch, Heidi's husband, was quoted saying, "...when you cut $1 million out of a $20 million school budget – if this is what our town is going to do, I don’t know that I have the same faith in the town that I did when we were raising our first two kids". Budget cuts at the local level directly impact the educational freedom of children in the area heavily. $1 million could provide students with new musical instruments and the means to pay "good" professors, new textbooks, art supplies... The list goes on.

Events much like the one listed above accurately represent the gravity of our economic situation combined with the ignorance of the public regarding the importance of primary and secondary education. Numbers on the National Center for Educational Statistics clearly show that the number of students enrolled in schools at nearly every single age group, race, and gender has increased over the last decade. So, with more students arriving at public schools all over the United States annually at nearly every level, why is taking money from this necessary program deemed acceptable in so many cases?

The Washington Post published an interesting article regarding performance by US students in math and reading and how well they compare to those in other developed countries, such as Finland or Japan. A graph pictured in the article depicts the United States scoring below several countries on two different studies designed to mark the progress and knowledge of students in reading and mathematics. The article continues on to compare the style of education utilized in the United States and criticized it's efficiency compared to places like Singapore or Finland. For example, the Finnish education model does not believe in standardized testing, but instead emphasizes creative play between students and the important role of teachers in the classroom. Another article published by Harvard's Graduate School of Education goes in depth explaining the troubles that come along with the use of standardized testing, and the extreme limitations that it can place on a student's interest and will to learn and to enjoy school overall.

The Education system in the United States is a costly but necessary part of nearly every citizen's life. My post has only outlined a few of the many problems in the system today. Although a national revamp of education as a whole in the country coupled by a larger investment in the system would undoubtedly move the United States forward and open opportunities for students everywhere, there are hundreds of factors that make large changes improbable. The recent speech made by Arne Duncan, the Education Secretary in the US, quite possibly points to a step in a new direction for the education system. Duncan not only refers to education as a critical investment, but goes as far as to say that, "America cannot win the race for the future without investing in education—it’s that simple." You do the math!

Bibliography

"Hillsboro-Deering Budget Cuts." Concord Monitor. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Apr. 2013.

Khazan, Olga. "Here’s Why Other Countries Beat the U.S. in Reading and Math." N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Apr. 2013. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/11/heres-why-other-countries-beat-the-u-s-in-reading-and-math/>.

Koretz, Daniel. "Usable Knowledge: Measure for Measures: What Do Standardized Tests Really Tell Us about Students and Schools?" Usable Knowledge: Measure for Measures: What Do Standardized Tests Really Tell Us about Students and Schools? N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Apr. 2013. <http://www.uknow.gse.harvard.edu/decisions/DD315-608.html>.

"Overview." The Condition of Education -. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Apr. 2013.

Strauss, Valerie. "Duncan Spells out Education Agenda to Congress." N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Apr. 2013. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/04/21/duncan-spells-out-education-agenda-to-congress/>.

Boston Marathon Explosion

On Monday April 18, 2013 two devices exploded near the finish line of the Boston Marathon, killed three people in which one of them was an eight years old boy and leaving hundreds people injured. Till today no one knew who is behind the attack. Immediately, partisan politics appeared to stop; both Republicans and Democrats came together to mourn the national catastrophe. What happened in Boston became everybody problems regardless of their political differences. While Senator were very busy at the Senator floor, Senator Pat Toomey a republican from Pennsylvania was the first to sadly notify the Senate members about the bombings at the Boston Marathon. After Senators heard about the tragedy they were all shocked and they begin to show people that they care about all Americans regardless of who they are.

To show bipartisan in the government, both senators decided to postpone the immigration reform to next week so they can focus more on what happened to Boston and come up with solution. The former senator Scott Brown a Republican from Massachusetts mourned together with Bostonians and other Americans nationwide. In his own words Brown said “our thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and their family.” This was very meaningful to see how everybody in the government was at the same page about the tragedy. Different speeches were made and each one of them showed that there was not a Republican or Democrat when it comes to this issue. For the first time in history, Republicans and Democrats worked together to deliver their speech. One of the speeches was from two senators; one was a Democrat while the other was a Republican. In their words, they said “The rest of America stands with us the Boston marathon is an international event, and I would be shocked if the people injured are from outside of Massachusetts.” In showing a bipartisan a Democrat representative and a Republican representatives mourned together with other Americans around the world. Both representatives worked together to deliver their speech. They said “We pray that this matter will be resolved in a way that brings anybody that brings harm to anyone.”

 After few hours president Barack Obama deliver his message to American people. He mourned together with the rest of the population and also congratulated both the house and the senate by showing a bipartisan. In his speech president Obama reminded Americans that on such days like this there are no Republicans and Democrats. We are Americans united. President Obama finishes his speech by promising the public that “We will find out who did this. Any responsible individuals will feel the full weight of justice.”

Like many other public services, President Obama attended the interfaith service commemorating the victims on Thursday. He was accompanied by the first lady and there were many other politicians who attended the crevice. Other dignitaries who attend the service were the president's former election rival, Mitt Romney; Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick; and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino. In his speech today, President Obama said that “We will find you. We will hold you accountable. But more than that, our fidelity to our way of life ... will only grow stronger, for God has not given us a spirit of fear and timidity, but one of power and love and self-discipline.”

It was very remarkable to this how all of the politicians worked very hard to cope with the tragedy that happened on Monday. As many of them noted, there was no such thing such as Republican or Democrat when it came to this issue. Both parties worked very hard to keep the public together.

Creitz, Charlie. "Boston Marathon Explosions: Pols Come Together To React To 'Terrorist Attack'" The Latin Times (2013): n. pag. 15 Apr. 2013. Web. 18 Apr. 2013.
CNN Political Unit. "Obama Says Spirit of Boston 'undaunted'" N.p., 18 Apr. 2013. Web. 18 Apr. 2013.
Pearson, Michael. "Obama at Boston Service: Our Spirit Remains Undaunted." CNN U.S(2013): n. pag. 18 Apr. 2013. Web. 18 Apr. 2013.                 

Background Checks

Obama's recent speech to the reaction of the Senate voting down the Toomey- Manchin Bill on background checks for gun reform got me very fired up. This speech was very direct. You could feel and hear the anger in the president’s voice. The reason I feel this way is that the president asked the question to senators; “Who are they in Washington to represent?” (Barak Obama).  This statement was very non-sugar coated and to the point. It truly did make me realize how broken our system is.  

Over ninety percent of Americans supported background checks for guns. Despite this overwhelming support from the public, the senate voted 54-46.  It is sad how the divide is so strong between these two parties. It is also sad how much power the NRA has and these lobbying groups can essentially buy votes. Ninety percent of Democrats voted for these measures to be instated while ninety percent of Republicans voted against it (Washington Post)  

I apologize for this upcoming rant but I cannot understand why people would be against background checks for someone buying guns. We need to acknowledge that guns are a problem in our country right now. How can we be so blind to see that if there is a problem is something it needs fixing. Common sense should prevail, not interest groups and party divides.     

The problem with the gun issue is that many pro gun advocates have this fear that the government is out to get them; it seems many have this delusional obsession with totalitarianism and big brother. The paranoia that their rights are being stripped away from them when in fact nothing of the sort is happening. They claim that the right to bare arms is necessary to protect us from the big scary government coming to get us and take us away. Sorry to break it to you, but if the government really is coming to get you, you are screwed. Nothing that you have in that shed that is stocked to the gills, that looks like it is straight out of a zombie apocalypse movie with any “toy” imaginable wont muster up to the weapons and technology that the government has. There toys are bigger and they are stronger. None of that matters though because the government really is not going to enslave us all. It is ludicrous that this point even has to be made.       

I need to address the notion that if it can fix the entire problem it is useless. Some pro gun advocates tend to argue that if a law does not eradicate the problem then it is worthless and there is no point in having it. Really? Murder is against the law in every single state.  Does this mean there is no such thing as murder? Of course not, murder still happens. If the litmus test for passing a law were complete prevention, then it would be anarchy because we would have no laws. 100%  prevention is impossible with any issue.

Laws do not exist to eliminate crime. That is fantasy and is never possible. Laws exist in order to reduce the behavior or action that they address and to provide penalties for those that break them. Laws conform to norms and human nature.

I do not understand why one would be against a background check if they were not a convicted felon. If you are a felon, you should have to declare that when you buy a gun. Do you have a mental illness associated with violent behavior? If you do not fail these two standards then you would pass a background check and be allowed to purchase a gun. Where is the violation or elimination of your rights? How is insuring the safety of others such a lambasting on your rights?

There are only two logical reasons to oppose universal background checks. First is that you would fail them yourself because of problems in your past. Secondly, is that you have a serious illness where you should not really have a gun in the first place.

Honestly, the bill was only asking for such minimal background checks that most people would think they would be commonplace in the first place. The fact that this issue came down to party lines and interest groups is beyond me. It is common sense. There is clearly a problem with guns in our country. We have the most gun related deaths out of any nation in the world. Our nation has just suffered two recent tragedies (Aurora and Newtown) and the shooting of a senator just last year. There is clearly a problem. I am not trying to take your guns away. I am just asking that you pass a reasonable background check before you purchase a weapon that has the ability to end a life in mere seconds.   

End Rant….. 

Sources 

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/04/robert-farago/safs-gottleib-why-you-should-support-the-manchin-toomey-gun-bill/ 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/president-obamas-remarks-on-failure-of-manchin-toomey-background-check-plan-transcript/2013/04/17/0b3666ba-a7a8-11e2-b029-8fb7e977ef71_story.html 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/18/national-rifle-association/nra-says-manchin-toomey-would-have-criminalized-so/ 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/04/17/manchin_toomey_gun_control_amendment_compromise_lacks_votes_to_avoid_gop.html

The Iron Lady

This is not the post I originally planned on writing but this occasion was so momentousness that it needs to be discussed. If it does not fit the context of the blog I apologize and I will do my best to make it work. I will also try to be as unbiased as possible as I still have family in England who are all Irish immigrants, one uncle who was a miner......    

Unless you have been living under a rock this past week, you would know that Margaret Thatcher is dead. The ex prime minister of Great Britain passed away at 87 on Monday. This post will discuss Margaret's connection here in the United Sates, her impact on the UK, and to try to connect it to the course I will discuss how I feel Margaret policies would work today here in the states.  

Even if one did not care for Thatcher it is hard to deny that she was one of the most influential women in the world. She was prime minister from 1979 to 1990. She led to an ideological change in the UK going away from the "welfare state." Thatcher stood up to trade unions and the strong Labour Party. She despised Socialism and the Soviet Union. Though Thatcher did not single handedly bring down the Soviet Union, she did play a vital part in the Cold War leading to the death of Socialism.  

Perhaps her greatest downfall, in the eyes of British citizens, was how she treated the lower class. With privatization, the raising of the VAT, a huge unemployment rare with no real help on the horizon, and claiming there is no such thing as a society. People believed she only cared about the rich and pushed a false sense of nationalism to a falling empire. This sentiment of her legacy can be demonstrated in this quote shown below from an Op ed piece from TheSpec.com         

 "her greatest contribution to politics, and the foundation of the right’s political success over recent decades, was not ideological but tactical. She was the first politician to grasp the fact that with the decline of the old working class, it had become possible to win elections on a platform that simply ignored the wishes and needs of the poor. There weren’t as many of them as there used to be, and the poorest among them usually failed to vote at all." 

Thatcherism and Reaganomics go hand in hand. Thatcherism promoted free markets, financial discipline, small state, firm control over public expenditure, tax cuts (for the rich) populism and nationalism. I did not see Thatcher as a Tory but rather a 19^th century liberal with a libertarian twist.  

I believe Thatcher’s policies would not be too kind to the American people but I could see it getting great support from conservative right. Thatcher, to put it in American terms, is the female Ronald Regan. I suppose that many conservatives would like the idea of a hands off approach to economics. Everything should be left to the individual. Monetarism should reign supreme.  Conservatives would love to see welfare cut back and might support frivolous wars in the terms of “national interest” (IE the Falklands).

Despite what you think of Thatcher, one cannot argue that she has a profound effect on the western world today in how conservative governments operate. The Iron Lady always be remembered whether if it is with love or hate that is for you to decide.   

For your listening pleasure: Billy Bragg Thatcherites          

SOURCES
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/importance-margaret-thatcher-article-1.1311615
http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2013/04/margaret-thatcher-and-america
http://www.thespec.com/opinion/columns/article/915328--dyer-why-margaret-thatcher-was-important
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22079683
       

The Sandy Hook Debate

Google the recent Sandy Hook tragedy and the one of the first searches is “Sandy Hook Conspiracy.” Somehow, this heartbreaking event is turning into a polarizing, political frenzy over gun control in the United States. What sparked my attention to this initially was a recent CNN article entitled “Sandy Hook Families to ride AF-1 to DC, Lobby Senate.” The author, Jessica Yellin, goes on to describe how eleven family members of Sandy Hook victims are spending two days in the nations’ capital lobbying senators about the importance of gun control. President Obama will be urging Congress to pass gun safety legislation concurrently. Inherently, politicians on the Right as well as NRA lobbyists and constituents against gun control are vehemently opposed to this legislation. A disturbing YouTube video called “Breaking: Sandy Hook a Conspiracy with Loads of Proof” has about 1.5 million views, confirming that there are many people out there who believe the entire Sandy Hook massacre was staged. I viewed the video myself, which includes images of Sandy Hook parents supposedly “laughing and smiling” days after their first-grade children were killed, along with quote on quote “bogus” responses from the chief medical examiner and misinformed news reporters. The creators of this video even go as far as claiming Emilie Parker, one of the victims, was photo-shopped into all her family photos, and include a photo of her supposedly hugging President Obama days after the Sandy Hook shooting occurred.

            Of course, it’s hard to define who is viewing this video in support of its claims, and who is viewing it merely out of curiosity or disbelief, like I was. I’m not implying that all conservatives believe this conspiracy to be true because it is obviously radical. It’s existence, however, goes to show the enormity of the gun-control argument and the passion that couples this debate. As a Huffington Post article states, “The Connecticut legislation bands the sale of gun magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds and requires a background check for private gun sales, including those at gun shows. It also expands the states’ current assault weapons ban to include more than 100 gun models.” This means that Connecticut now has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. The article continues to discuss that while Obama ad Senate Democrats support tougher gun control laws, Republican Senators such as Marco Rubio and Rand Paul continue to oppose such legislation, as does the powerful lobbyists of the NRA.

            Of course the NRA vehemently opposes the recent laws passed by Connecticut’s legislature. Another Huffington Post article quotes a statement made by the NRA’s CEO, Wayne LaPierre in a recent Fox News interview. His point may be valid to many, “I think the problem with what Connecticut did, is the criminals, the drug dealers, the people that are going to do horror and terror, they aren’t going to cooperate…All you’re doing is making the law books thicker for the law-abiding people.” This remains as the one of the largest debates in Washington—will stricter gun laws equal less violence? I tend to think yes, for the simple fact that many crimes of impulse would not occur if guns were not so available. I realize this a sensitive issue with many implications, but the amount of mass shootings lately certainly calls for some sort of reform.

Sources:

Breaking: Sandy Hook a Conspiracy With Loads of Proof. Dir. LuxtinDev. YouTube. N.p., 13 Jan. 2013. Web.           

Wilkie, Christina. "Connecticut Passes Nation's Strictest Gun Law In Wake of Sandy Hook Massacre." Huffington Post Politics. N.p., 4 Apr. 2013. We

Wilkie, Christina. "NRA Attacks Connecticut 'Sandy Hook Law'" Huffington Post Politics. N.p., 4 Apr. 2013. Web.

Yellin, Jessica. "Sandy Hook Families to Ride AF-1 to DC, Lobby Senate." CNN Politics. N.p., 8 Apr. 2013. Web.

OBAMA CARE IS BEING CHALLENGE

                                                     

After three years of debate, the Supreme Court ruled the Obama care constitutional. For the Democratic Party it was a big victory while Republicans were not satisfied by the Supreme Court decision. Whether you are Republican or Democrat it is very important to understand that it is very difficult for lower income people to afford regular health insurance. After Republicans were defeated last summer they began to form committees within the party so they can repeal the Supreme Court decision. Most of the Republicans claim that Obama Care is Unconstitutional. As of today President Obama health care is on trouble.

            Democrats promised that Obama Care would create jobs, lower health care cost in which Republicans thinks that the Obama Care would harm the economy. According to the Republicans, the Obama Care would raise health care spending by $580 million; and 7 million people their employer-sponsored health care over a decade.     

            For Republican Obama care is no longer a health care issue instead it had become political issue. In order for the Obama Care to be repeal, Republican senator from Kentucky McConnell mention that republicans have to take back control of the senate in the past election. Senator McConnell was hoping that the Republican Party would control both the white house and the senate in order to appeal the Supreme Court ruling. However, that’s not what happened. Obama was re-elected again and Democrat Party still controls the senate. However, after the election was over Republicans didn't stop to criticize the Obama Care and came up with new different ways of repealing it. According to Republican senate Hatch, there are 34 Democrats have joined the Republican in challenging the Obama Care and are trying to repeal the Obama Care’s medical –device tax. What is surprising is that some of the Democrat senators are now opposing the Obama Care. More than half of the Democrat senators vote to repeal the Obama Care. Thursday night the senate voted to 79-20 to repeal a 2.3% sales tax on medical device. However, the problems that Republican are facing toward this is that while their want repeal the whole Obama while Democrat Senators only want repeal some part out.           

As of right now it hard for Republicans to repeal Obama Care, if there are seriously of repealing Obama care then they have to take back the senate in 2014 election and win the white house two years after in 2016. In order for Republican to take back the senate they have to win half a dozen seats, Whether or not is going to be easy for them to do all of that is debate. To show how seriously Republicans are on repealing Obama Care, Representative Michelle Bachmann said that Obama Care will kill people. She said that “We’re here because we’re saying let’s repeal this failure before it literally kills women, kills children, kills senior citizens. Let’s not do that. Let’s love people, let’s care about people. Let’s repeal it while we can”. Whether or not Republican would be successful to repeal it, they need to keep in mind of 45,000 Americans die every year because they don’t have money to afford health insurance from private companies. 

References:

Scheer, Robert, ed. "Bachmann Says Obamacare Will Kill You, Fey Revives Palin Impression, and More." Death by Obamacare (n.d.): n. pag. 21 Mar. 2013. Web. 4 Apr. 2013.

ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, RICARDO. "Senate Democrats Vote To Repeal Obamacare Tax."WASHINGTON (2013): n. pag. 22 Mar. 2013. Web. 3 Apr. 2013.

Frates, Chris. "National Journal." The Secret Republican Plan to Repeal 'Obamacare'(2013): n. pag. 27 Mar. 2013. Web. 3 Apr. 2013.

Immigration Reform: Reality or Killed by Deadlock

To me the United States has been built from immigration. Why is Immigration Reform being discussed you may ask? It more about the mass flood of illegal immigration occuring. According to both the White Houe and Fabian there are 11 million undocumented workers. The White in Jaunary 29th, released a brief of the President's Plan. It revolves around four principles: countinuing to stregthen the borders, streamlining legal immigration, earned citizenship, and cracking down on employers hiring undocumented workers. The earned citizenship is about letting those undocumented workers legally earn citizenship by passing backgroup checks, paying taxes and a penalty, and learning English. Since then according to Avila, a senate group of eight, four from each side has been hard at work on creating their own bill. They are hoping to introduce it next week. Also Avila is stating that a general principle agreement has been reached on the main big parts, such defining border security. Also according to Avila, "labor and business have agreed on a guest worker plan." Despite labor and business agreement to Guest Worker Plan, that may be the undoing of the bill. The part in contention about the Guest Worker according to Fox News it seems like a reward for rule breaking. Also the Fox News in the article has new republican Senator Ted Cruz stating "insisting on a path to citizenship is the surest way to kill the bill." In the same Article it is writen that Senator Rand Paul a republican from Kentucky, is in favor of the idea of path to citizenship. The Fox News Article also states that although few democratic in the pass have favored pathway to citizenship today majority agree pathway is needed. According to  Fabian Senator Cruz is quoted saying Obama insisting on a pathway to citizenship is trying to kill the bill in order to use issue in 14 and 16 elections. The Pathway isn't the only problem with getting this bill through or even forming it.

According to the Fox News Article, Democrats and Republicans have asked the White House on how it plans to measure the improvement in border security with no response. The Deparment of Homeland Security responded by saying "department had not completed any new measurements and was not going to be able to do so in coming months", from Fox New Article. Fox News Article is claiming Democrats are accusing Republicans of trying to push out millions of illegal Immigrants from the country that are on the path of citizenship. Republicans are off course denying this.

My view on this issue is reform needs to happen. I'm also believe that people take the easiest road to survive. By choosing illegal immigration many of those people may be scared to apply for citizenship. By allowing the pathway that fear is eliminated and it gets them to pay taxes adding the national income, which is only fair. The fact illegals don't pay taxes is the biggest reason people have issues with it.  The only part I fear is according Fabian is Senator Cruz is calling on Conservatives to not pass the bill. If this bill doesn't pass who know when the issue with come to light again or with the increasing differences on views when agreement of terms will happen again. This bill seems like the only chance to get reform on immigration to happen.

In ending I would just like to ask you what you think on this issue.

Bibliography

Avila, Jim. "Immigration Reform for Thanksgiving." ABC News Blog (web log), April 1, 2013. Accessed April 1, 2013. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/04/immigration-reform-for-thanksgiving/.

 

"Creating an Immigration System for the 21st Century." Immigration. January 29, 2013. Accessed April 02, 2013. http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/immigration.

 

"Despite Guest Worker Deal, Path to Citizenship Looms as Key Divide in Immigration Debate." Fox News. April 02, 2013. Accessed April 02, 2013. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/02/path-to-citizenship-could-be-make-or-break-issue-for-parties/.

 

Fabian, Jordan. "Why Ted Cruz Is Holding Out on Immigration Reform." ABC News. April 02, 2013. Accessed April 02, 2013. http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/immigration-reform-senator-ted-cruz-conservative-holdout/story?id=18864224. 

 

US Worrisome After North Korea declares 1953 Armistice Invalid

The Armistice of 1953 stopped the fighting between North and South Korea, after the Chinese Communist backed North attacked the American and Capitalist freed South in august of 1950.  At the end of 1953 no peace treaty was signed but and an armistice was agreed upon and a heavily defended border divided the two warring enemies, on the 38th parallel. Since 1953 North Korea has been nicknamed “The Hermit State”, as it rarely lets insiders in and has very bad reputation with international affairs.  This has led North Korea’s economy and country to famine and extreme poverty as it only spends its money on defense, as they now have the third largest army in the world.  The United States and other United Nations countries have tried to reach out to N. Korea with economic and humanitarian aid, but have been denied.  The same countries have also demanded that N. Korea stop the production of nuclear materials in fear that they would try and make weapon of mass destruction.  Fears came to realities as N. Korea has now positively tested 3 Nuclear weapons in the last 10 years and have tested long range missiles as soon as January of 2013.  With this hyped attention on N. Korea, Kim Jung Un has released statements and videos swearing to destroy and create war with the United States and our allies, with the dismissal of the armistice.          

With North Korea continually racing to get more and bigger weapons to potentially attack America has stepped up its defenses with the south and continued with air raid practice runs.  China has continually tried to be the peace keeping country and told both the United States and N. Korea to stand down, giving N. Korea ultimatums with humanitarian aid in the balance.  Even though this has not had lots of immediate change, it has worked in the past.  Some experts worry though thinking that Kim Jung Un, the young new leader of N. Korea is trying to prove himself to his people and military leaders and is eager for a fight.

Congress has now been shown a new bill “North Korea Nonproliferation and Accountability Act of 2013” which aims to punish/ cut foreign aid to N. Korea for their latest bombing tests.  This bill also calls on the UN to ask all other countries to fallow the United States stance on these punishments. 

These kinds of punishments remind some Americans of pre-World War II era were Germany was a small and demolished country who was trying to build some defense for themselves.  Before any one took action Adolf Hitler had the world’s 4^th largest army and 3^rd largest navy.  Colin Powell has been quoted stating that any war like act on the bordering S. Korea, Japan or American forces will be treated as an Act of War and the U.S. and the coalition regime will act swiftly and decisively.

Park, Madison. "North Korea Declares 1953 Armistice Invalid." CNN. Cable News Network, 01 Jan. 1970. Web. 30 Mar. 2013.

S. 298: North Korea Nonproliferation and Accountability Act of 2013." GovTrack.us. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Mar. 2013.

Mullen, KJ Kwon. Jethro, Dayu Zhang, and Greg Botelho. "State Media: North Korea in 'state of War' with South, Threatens to 'dissolve' U.S." CNN. Cable News Network, 01 Jan. 1970. Web. 30 Mar. 2013.

The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage

            This week the title that first caught my eye was The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage, especially since it was brought up in class this morning that the Republican Party does not want the support of gay conservatives.  This topic also ties in nicely with the two gay marriage cases set to be tried at the Supreme Court this week. 

            Ken Mehlman is heading a group of over one hundred established Republicans who signed a marriage legal brief in support of same sex marriage.  An unlikely supporter of gay marriage, Mehlman worked as the political director for the Bush administration and chairman of the Republican National Committee.  After coming out in 2010 Mehlman is undoubtedly the most prominent openly gay Republican.  The intent if these actions were to offer a conservative perspective in relation to overturning Proposition 8, which prohibits same sex marriage in California.  His was not the only high profile Republican signature on the brief.  Steve Schmidt who orchestrated the McCain presidential campaign, Kenneth Duberstein, the previous White House Chief of Staff, and Meg Whitman of California who had originally supported Proposition 8 also signed in support. [1]  I think it is wonderful that people are able to evolve their opinions and openly support something they once opposed.  What strikes me most is the irony here.  Mehlman worked with the Bush Administration against gay marriage, while Obama originally was of the opinion that marriage was something only to be shared between a man and a woman.  The difference here is the change of heart helped propel Obama’s support, and I am not sure the same will be true for Mehlman and conservative support.

            Last week the Conservative Political Conference also hosted an unofficial panel about the issue of Republicans adopting a more, “inclusive tone” in the matter of same sex marriage.  Sen. Rob Portom of Ohio voiced his support of same sex marriage. Jeb Bush has also recognizes the need of a less aggressive approach to marriage and said, “Way too many people believe Republicans are anti-immigrant, anti-woman, anti-science, anti-gay, anti-worker, and the list goes on and on and on.  Many voters are simply unwilling to choose our candidate — even though they share our core beliefs — because those voters feel unloved, unwanted and unwelcome in our party.”  Even Karl Rove said on ABC last week he can envision a GOP candidate that supports same sex marriage.   The Washington Blade reports a staging statistic that, “51% of Republicans under the age of 30 support marriage equality.” [2]  

            While reading through the right wing blogs a reoccurring arguement against redefining the definition of marriage is that it won’t stop with gay people, but with the number of people whom one can marry.  I was surprised by this beacause in my opinion, a threesome or foursome marriage is not relevant to the issue at all, as the conflict lies in the sex not the number.  I think it is really interesting how some Republicans are adopting this, “evolve or die” mentality. [1]  I would love to see this happen not only because I support equal rights to all people, but I think it could bring the two parties closer and get rid of some of the, “single issue” voting that happens.  I don’t see Republicans as a whole embracing this anytime soon, but I like to see that a party is having to adapt to new social norms and this represents a changing America.

 

References

1. Johnson, Chris. “CPAC highlights GOP Division on Gay Rights, Marriage.” washingtonblade.com (accessed 25 March 2013) http://www.washingtonblade.com/2013/03/18/marriage-debate-heats-up-at-conservative-conference/ Web.

2.   Totenberg, Nina. “Former Bush Aide Pushes “Conservative Case” For Gay Marriage.”

http://www.npr.org (accessed 25 March 2013) http://www.npr.org/2013/03/24/174982423/former-bush-aide-pushes-conservative-case-for-gay-marriage. Web.