How to Approach Gun Violence

Ever since the “Dark Knight” shooting on July 20, 2012, the nation has been in a frenzy over gun control.  Since then, there have been multiple infamous events including the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.  Gun control has been a popular debate topic for quite some time now, but why?  Shootings are not a new issue, so why are they so important now?  To start off, the media, our main source of knowledge as 21st century citizens, is blurred with filter bubbles.  Filter bubbles are essentially the systems in media sites, like Google, that automatically do an advanced search to help find the most relevant information one is looking for by tracking one’s history.  Although intended to be helpful, filter bubbles might provide only one side of information to a researcher and not allow them to get a full perspective.  It is common knowledge that the media tends to be liberal; with that in mind, the information a citizen sees tends to be filtered for the liberal agenda.  This extends to say that when President Obama, our Democratic president, makes an announcement there tends to be less counter argument due to these filter bubbles.  Every person is biased, making filter bubbles inevitable, but it is the responsibility of a citizen to pop these bubbles and get down to the basic information and facts on a topic.  Back the the original question, why is there such an issue with gun control now?  This question is hard to answer, and so far hasn’t been answered because gun violence is not a new issue.  It is obvious to say that the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting added fuel to the debate.  Using this event as an example, a responsible citizen must look at how they approach an issue before developing an opinion on a topic, much like how they should with the Presidential Election.

Banning guns will not solve anything

There are surplus amounts of stories on gun violence on the news, and it is important to step back and look at the facts.  First, the increase in gun violence stories has increased rapidly partly because of filter bubbles.  Look at these stories but remember to take away the bias emotion associated with them.  This is not a new idea either: in Federalist #78, Alexander Hamilton approaches the idea of letting go of one’s emotions and just focusing on the facts with his argument about the “ill humors” of the people.  Second, remember the Constitutional rights.  The second Amendment of the United States’ Constitution gives citizens “the right… to keep and bear Arms.”  The radical solution to get rid of guns is unconstitutional, and not logical.  Remember where and why amendments were made: what is the history behind this amendment?

CNN does a good job of keeping up with the gun control debate.  In the article and video, Biden: Obama exploring executive orders to combat gun violence, Josh Levs goes through not only the main issue about violence, but also introduces ideas about the effects a change will have on gun sales. When approaching this article, it is important to notice the biased viewpoints.  The article consists of quotes by Vice President Joe Biden.  His perspective is that change will “affect the well-being of millions of Americans, and take thousands of people out of harm’s way.”  This is only one opinion.  The article breaks down filter bubbles by bringing in the National Rifle Association, who “has argued that it is committed to keeping people protected, but that a focus on stricter gun control is misguided.”  The evidence of no filter bubbles is prevalent again when CNN gives information past Biden’s quotes. The fact that “Wal-Mart initially said scheduling conflicts would prevent its “experts” on gun control from attending” but later “announced it will send representatives to the Thursday meeting” provides key information on changes, even on the economic level.  Showing that Wal-Mart is getting involved provides information to a voting citizen that gun control does not only affect the safety of people.

There are many aspects of gun control, and an accountable citizen should learn all facets of an issue before developing an opinion, even if that means suppressing passionate emotions.  The CNN article above serves to show what an article without filter bubbles looks like; multiple perspectives, and an overall look at the situation. There are a lot of emotions wrapped up in gun control, and it is illogical to make a decision on an emotional whim.

The Ongoing Marriage Debate

During our second and third trimesters in  government class at Parish Episcopal, we have discussed many current events and our stances on the particular topics.  Recently, on May 8, 2012, North Carolina passed a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage.  Gay marriage is illegal in many of the states in the the United States, except New Hampshire, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and Vermont, and Washington DC, where same-sex marrigae licenses are given out. Before anouncing this new constitutional amendment, North Carolina already had a statute that was banning gay marriage. Therefore, the creation of this amendment was almost redundant. According to CNN, the consitution amendment stated, “marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.” This portrays the extremities of the new amendment.  First,  it restates that same-sex marriage is illegal.   Second, it states that other marriages would not be considered valid.  This is very harsh to those who are involved and desire gay marriages. As a bystander, I believe that North Carolina’s new constitutional amendment is very unnessary due to the fact it just restates the law which already existed.

The marriage amendment has been a downset for those who campaign same-sex marrriage.  The campaign manager for the Coalition to Protect All North Carolina Families, Jeremy Kennedy, sorrowed for those who were at loss and told the supporters of same-sex marriage, “It’s OK to grieve.” However, he urged advocates of gay marriage to keep fighting for what they hope to conquer: same-sex marriage legal. North Carolina instituting this new marriage law has caused other states to reconsider their current laws. And maybe for the better. For example -according to CNN-  in Maryland, same-sex couples will be allowed to wed in in January of the new year. Another example, is Washington. Governor Christine Gregoire signed a bill that will legalize gay marriage starting in June, but advocates for female-male marriage have stopped the bill and declare that voters will determine the results. Overall, the North Carolina’s new marriage amendment has had a great effect on the nation and led other states to reevaluate their laws.

Same-sex marraige has been an ongoing debate for many years.  The fight to make gay marraige permitted is slowly becoming legal state by state over time. I think this topic is a very important current issue, especially becuase of the new laws being constituted around our nation. The outcome of this battle for same-sex marraige to be legal is getting closer everyday. It is up to the people’s votes, which can sway the outcome.

Avoid the 13% Affected

As citizens, we believe that everyone should abide to the law of the land, to serve and protect those in danger and to keep our government in place. However, power manipulates the authority and makes our system corrupt. Police officers are known to be the citizens’ protectors and we depend on them when a bad act comes along, but they too are open to become corrupt. Kelly Thomas, “a 37-year-old homeless man afflicted with schizophrenia” was brutally beaten to death by Cpl. Jay Patrick Cicinelli and Officer Manuel Ramos in Fullerton, California. To make matters worse, Ron Thomas, father of Kelly Thomas,was “offered…nearly a million dollars to settle the case” by Fullerton city officials. However, Ron Thomas declined and pushed for a criminal trial.

These men committed a violation of the 8th amendment for “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” and by violating the right of a mentally ill man, they should be charged as criminals. Under a U.S. code called Section 1983: Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights, “it [is] unlawful for anyone acting under the authority of state law to deprive another person of his or her rights under the Constitution or federal law. The most common claims brought against police office [of many]…excessive or unreasonable force.”

Though these policemen violated Kelly Thomas’ rights, they also have rights to stand trial according to the 6th amendment and have the right to have a “jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.” Currently, Officer Ramos “faces a potential sentence of 15 years to life if convicted of second-degree murder but only four years if convicted of involuntary manslaughter. Cicinelli faces a maximum sentence of four years in prison.”

Research has shown that there are number of percentages that police have used unjustified brutal force against a person, 13% are fatalities, sadly, Kelly Thomas was one of that 13%. No government system is perfect but it shouldn’t be so brutal that instead of protecting citizens, they kill them. Learn your rights as individual citizens and don’t be a victim of that 13%.

That’s Great President Obama… But When Will Gay Marriage Be Legal?

Today President Obama finally took a stance on same sex marriages.  He stated that he personally believes that gays and lesbians should have the right to get married, even though when he was running for office in 2008, he was against same sex marriages but for civil unions. Whether or not gay marriage will be allowed by all the states in the near future is irrelevant; what really matters is that someone in power finally took a firm stance on one side of the issue. Typically, politicians tend to avoid controversial and sensitive social issues in order to avoid stepping on certain people’s toes.  However, America is becoming a more open place, and it’s about time for people to start talking about these issues that used to only be talked about behind closed doors.

Obama recently announced his stance on gay marriage.

When it comes to actually implementing gay marriage policies, there is usually some trouble.  The constitution does not directly address social issues, let alone gay marriage, so there is a lot of room for debate on any social issue. The constitution does not explicitly say “Gay marriage is ok” but it also does not say “Gay marriage is illegal” or “Gay marriage threatens our democratic ideals”. So when debating gay marriage, it really comes down to how someone interprets the constitution. Whether or not someone uses the Whig model or the Stewardship model will play a part in determining whether or not they believe gay marriage is  constitutional or not.

There are also other factors that contribute to any policies made regarding gay marriage.  In the status quo of the United States, decisions fall to the individual states regarding gay marriage according to the constitution. Even though President Obama did say he is for same sex marriages, that won’t be enough to change anything because the responsibility of making laws regarding gay marriage falls to the states, and because of the fact that the President does not have ultimate power to make any decision they want.  Even if the federal government had the power to make gay marriages legal, the executive and the legislative branches would still have to be able to agree on the issue and enough people would have to want to legalize gay marriage.

While yes, it is great that President Obama can talk openly about his opinions regarding gay marriage, this does not mean that same sex marriages will be legal across America in the near future. In this case, personal opinion does not matter, because in order for gay marriage to be legal across America, many policy hurdles have to be overcome. In reality, same sex marriage will probably not be legal in America for a very long time. However, as a country we are making progress considering people are getting comfortable enough to discuss controversial social issues in public, and for now, that will have to be good enough.

Twitter, Facebook, You tube, Oh my!

For a term that was foreign 10 years ago, Social Media has had an immense impact on the political world and everyday news. Social media is a two-way street that gives one the ability to communicate about what can be read and seen. The technology behind Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo and other various news sites has allowed many people who may have been ill-informed before, to be become active in current happenings. It is also another way to compare one source of printed media with other sources throughout the country.  Through the invention of Social media, the ability to express ones thoughts and ideas can now be accessed much quicker. Citizens can now engage in the issues that are of high importance to them;they are able to share certain ideas and connect with those who have similar views.  Social media has the ability to open people’s eyes, especially for those who may not be as involved in the news, politics, or social networking. It shows them an accessible way to involved and be fresh on current events, as well as getting aquainted with the democratic process. Social media is becoming known as a new approach to politics, government and worldwide news.

  In politics, Social Media has become very important for campaign advertising, news coverage, and even soliciting campaign contributions.  One example where a major change occurred due to the effects of  social media was when the Susan G. Komen foundation was forced to reverse their course on Planned Parenthood, shortly after a public outpour of their decision to quit funding their organization. This past January millions of people signed online petitions and contacted members of Congress, protesting to pass poor legislation on online piracy. Due to these factors,  Lawmakers were forced to withdraw the bills. Another more recent example of a social media out pour is the Trayvon Martin case.  Many citizens were bothered by this 17 year-olds death but, what was anyone going to do about it? As soon as this innocent boys shooting made headlines, people all over the U.S. were in shock.  Online protests and pettions against Zimmerman, Trayvons killer. The protests began on began the morning after his shooting on a fairly new website,  MoveOn.org. People began sharing petitions on their twitter page and in just one day, the amount of signatures went from 75 to over 75,000, currently having 479,000. These examples clearly show that in order for our democratic system to remain stable, citizens must believe they have the ability to influence the outcome of the government’s activity.

Having the opportunity to blog on political and current subjects has helped me keep in contact with what is happening in our world on a day-to-day basis.  My opinions have been completely altered in certain situations because I am much better at being able to see different viewpoints.  The way our class has been set up has really helped my understanding of the entire political system, along with news papers, magazines, politcal newspappers and even blogs. These varities of social media have broadened my views about the government and all that it really does.

Cracking down on Illegal Immigration

For my Government Reflection I’m going to write about my policy brief and tie that back to a current event going on today that is dealing with illegal immigration and how it is vitally important for our citizens to vote on changes that need to be made in our Government to cut the high percentage of illegal immigrants in America.  We in America have a huge problem with our immigration issue and Government lets it fall bye the way side and don’t step up and do what is necessary to make a stop to this. I find it very difficult to understand how we have so many illegal immigrants coming into the states getting a lot of perks including health care, jobs, etc. and the U.S. Government refusing to stand up and do anything about it; if a American citizen was to go into a foreign country he/ she would be killed or held up in jail. I’m not saying that America has to go that extreme but at least use some different laws and methods to help solve this problem. Especially in the South they need help in states like Texas for example were the immigration rate is 31.5% which is ridiculous. The government should start a non-profit organization were people can freely donate to have a larger electric fence built on the borders to keep them out. Another example of a program the Government should put into place would be a program called E-Verify which checks the credibility of their social security numbers before letting them get a job. The Government needs to require this of companies because some of them can higher workers for cheaper if they are illegal and that is wrong. Or we could use a legitimate visa system; most illegal immigrants that are here aren’t from crossing borders they are here on a visit or work visa and just don’t leave when that expires. Which is pretty easy to do considering that the United States to date does not have a program in place determining whether people on visas did in fact leave on time. All of these things would drastically decrease the percentage of illegal immigrants but the Government refuses to do it.So,  to tie this to a current even that is going on with our society right now would be the issue of the border. According to Douglas S Massey(Princeton Professor). The government has recently stepped up in our border control. The story goes on to say that migration from Mexico that isn’t documented has dropped to zero for the first time in 50 years. Which means they are taking control of things with our border in a positive direction. That’s only one border though and that’s the Southern border. The main reason this is probably happening is because economic hardships and recession in the U.S. right now. But also because majorly increased border protection by a factor of 5 and its budget by a factor of 13. Yes this has in fact helped the fact that we have zero percent of illegal immigrants coming in from Mexico it doesn’t change the fact that we still have not many leaving or returning back to Mexico. It states in the article “ The probability that an undocumented migrant returned to Mexico within 12 months of entering reached a record low value of around 8%.” Meaning that they are getting permission to enter the states via visa or just using passports for traveling and not returning in the right amount of time. And there is a problem of when they come here illegally they are then trying to legalize themselves with family members that are already in the states. Around 3 million of immigrants coming in though are minors and cannot be punished for the decisions of their parents.

The Government has stepped up significantly in border protection causing a drastic decrease in illegal immigration but as to date they have no way to determine if people are leaving on time and that’s one thing that they need to work on.

Jeff D.

Tis Time

Talk of politics is everywhere; from talk shows and satires, to music, radio, and cartoons. There’s no escaping it. If it’s such a vital part of our everyday lives, then why is the youth voting percentage so low? To put it simply, they just don’t care.

Adults value government because their beliefs are brought forth and are what drive our nation. While I learning about the different parts of government, it became clear to me why young Americans don’t vote. Many don’t find that the issues being discussed affect them. Prescription drug coverage, social security, it just isn’t relevant to our lives yet. They are little words that fly way over our heads, when in fact these issues involve us all. Many people of all ages have medical issues and require prescription drugs, and social security is our identity concealed in a few digits.

I don’t think it should not matter whether young Americans vote or not. Why would you want someone to vote who is uneducated on the topic or has no interest in it? It is too important of a subject to have just anyone take a large part in it. Uninformed voters are easily swayed and, if swayed the wrong way, could put a damper on our country in the long run. George Will, a conservative columnist for Newsweek magazine said it brilliantly, “declining voter turnout is no cause for worry”. Voter turnout is not nearly as vital as protecting our nation’s democratic system, unless the youth of our nation is educated on the subject.

Photo by Party Hard Politics

Indiana University did a study last election. They came up with theories on why young voter turnout is consistently lower than their elders. They asked simple questions and took them apart. Questions such as “what are the factors that influence whether people are likely to vote” and “why young people around the world vote in lower numbers than their elders”. A survey was prepared and sent out across the university. As the results came back, 30% of respondents said they were irritated with the activists around campus constantly urging them to take polls. Other said they just didn’t care to hear about Barack Obama day in and day out.  It is also the appeal of advertisements. As I have witnessed firsthand in class, presidential ads have a major impact, both negative and positive, on voters. However,

Out of all of the topics discussed in our government class, the presidential campaigning topic has had the most impact on me. Learning about the campaigning aspect of the process opens my eyes to new innovative ideas that might capture the eye of the public, more so than some of the ads today. Quality in the commercials is what attracts young voters, as it is important to get much of America involved once and for all. I believe that our generation must be educated on the importance of politics and the changes that the voters, themselves, can encourage simply by participating. It is not up to the select few to run our country; rather it is up to us. We can make our voices heard, and we can make a difference. If young adults realize that they could influence the course of history, voting participation would skyrocket.

A Dollar Paid is a Dollar Earned… Or is it?

You can never have enough money!

Money has always been a contributing factor in political races across the political spectrum, but lately, money seems to bear an even greater importance in the races. An executive director of the Michigan Campaign Finance Network states, “Throughout this decade, money wins 95% of the time.” Also, a research which has been taking place for many years states that it costs about 16% more money each year in order to run. This being said, limited money can be a problem, especially if you intend to win. Another interesting fact concerning money is that to run for state House and Senate, winners in this decade have spent upward of $100,000. With all of this eye opening evidence and blatant facts, there is no way to disprove the fact that more money equals more votes, right? Wrong. To understand why this is wrong, you must know that you could have a billionaire running against a millionaire. Both people can support their dues and successfully run to win, but does the billionaire have the edge? not at all. For example, at this year’s 2012 Iowa Caucus, Rick Santorum defeated big names such as Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul, who spent over 20 million dollars each in Iowa. Santorum only spent one million dollars all in, yet he came out on top. Despite this being a small battle in the war for the Republican nomination, it speaks volumes for those candidates with less funding who want to compete and win their political race.

Super PACs are also very important when it comes to money and elections. PAC stands for ‘Political Action Committee,’ this organization campaigns for or against political candidates. Federally, an organization becomes a PAC when it receives more than $1,000, while at the state level, an organization becomes a PAC depending on that state’s election laws. These Super PACs are sometimes the deciding factor when it comes to more money and more votes. So all of this being said, while it is probably true that ‘A dollar paid is a dollar earned,’ it all depends on how this money is being gathered, whether it be from donations, outside spending, government plans, or Super PACs. For example, these Super PACs can collect unlimited amounts of money, and use it all toward one candidate whom they want to win. With all of these overwhelming facts and enticing ideas pushing me farther toward the pro side of this argument, I still have my doubts. For example, think of two candidates in around January, and think about who might be the richer candidate by that November. Say they both get millions and millions over this time span, but candidate #1 makes 50 million more than candidate #2. Candidate #1 won right? maybe, maybe not. Candidate #2 could actually have won because his net worth would be higher, therefore it didn’t matter what sum of money he made, because his net worth was already larger. This being said, I believe that it is not possible at all to know how much money really matters when it comes to campaigns when only factoring in who wins and loses.

In my opinion, modern politics is one of the most complicated systems around when it comes to raising, spending, or anything money. There are so many important factors like votes prior to an election, primaries, finding good candidates, and the fund raising, which all require lots of money. Our country faces deadly challenges, lots of upkeep, and lots of demand for leadership, and these are the factors which should win over money every time. In the end, gold doesn’t always buy you success in politics, but you better be willing to get some, because in the long run it could be the difference between success and failure.

More money better elections?

Sen. Edwards (D) is Fighting Campaign Finance Felony Charges

In my government course at the Parish Episcopal School we explore the function and operation of our government in the United States.  As was made clear at the beginning of the course, we need to familiarize ourselves with our government in order be responsible citizens and protect our liberties as citizens.  As part of our learning process, we have read historical documents including the United States Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and Federalist papers in order to investigate the information required for discussion and exercise thought regarding how these documents can be applied to our lives, our culture and our legal system.By studying government we become aware of our rights as citizens, the basic structure of our government, how government functions within the framework of our culture as well as how we can participate as responsible citizens.  This process prepares us to be the scholarly, informed citizens necessary for a healthy democracy.

Experience with Current Event:
As a student, our study of government has been a great success, and here is proof.  As I go about my daily life, I am able to apply and relate course material to current events that I am confronted with in newspapers, on television and on the internet.  For example, as I drove to school on April 12, 2012, I was listening to the Morning Edition of National Public Radio and I heard some rather peculiar words from the reporter.  Carrie Johnson, a NPR news reporter, was talking about “campaign funds.” Before taking my government course, I would have preferred to be entertained by the banter of “Bo and Jim.”

The Case:
In Carrie Johnson’s report, she updates her NPR radio audience about the upcoming trial of Senator John Edwards.  The court case is questioning John Edward’s usage of “campaign funds” that were donated to him by two long-time supporters.  Sen. Edwards, a Democrat representing North Carolina, is fighting campaign finance felony charges.  He allegedly accepted and failed to report over $1 million that he used to support the lavish lifestyle of his mistress and former campaign worker, Rielle Hunter, with whom he an illegitimate child.  Apparently, the money was not assigned to any specific campaign expense.  Senator John Edwards (D) received money from two donors who will not face criminal charges in the trial: Fred Baron, a trial lawyer, is dead and Rachel Mellon, who considered Edwards as a “romantic hero,” is 101 years old and therefore is not expected to testify.

Is Senator John Edwards guilty of criminal charges?  Should he face prison time for the illegal usage of Presidential campaign funds, locking him up for up to 30 years?  Is he really a danger to society?

Connection to Gov:
In our government class, we discussed and explored the role of money in elections.  We read articles that express contradicting viewpoints about the Constitutionality of donations and their relationship to protecting freedom of speech versus the corruption that money can cause when it buys influence, undermining the fundamental philosophy of democracy.

This case involves legal forms of donation that were made legally.  The allegations question the proper use of those donations.  We read Obama’s criticism on the Supreme Court decision, Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, where he states that he believes that large donations from organizations and lobbyists corrupt our political system.  In addition, we read John Samples and Ilya Shapiro’s criticismof the Supreme Court Case, Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, where he states that he believes donations are an important part of our political system because they are a form of free speech, reflected in support of a political candidate or party.  Money talks and talk is free speech.

The role of money in politics is controversial issue that is hotly debated and that people will never agree on.  Some see the donation of money as a form of speech or political expression, while others see money as a corrupting force that suppresses the voice of the common people, who can not afford to buy influence.Government class has helped me see that the issues of the world are not clear cut, or even black and white.  There are always struggles between competing interests and different perspectives.  But, our democratic system provides a level playing field, or at least a system of rules in which differing viewpoints can compete for the favor of the public in open forum.  I have learned from government class and from following current events that the workings of government are held to a high standard of accountability, public opinion.  This is much better than the opinion of one man, such as dictators like Kim Jong Il, Fidel Castro or Adolf Hitler.