In response to Court Ruling on Handgun Ban is Recipe for Disaster.
Sure, in a perfect world no guns would mean no violence. Unfortunately our world is far from perfect. The ability to own a weapon helps ensure American freedom. A gun provides the owner protection from others. Yes, some people abuse this liberty, but denying it from everyone will most certainly lead to just as big of a disaster.
I am not arguing that crime rates would not decline with such a ban. I merely point out that a criminal seeking a handgun could get one just as easily as a drug addict finds his fix. Not only would this criminal still be a threat to the public, citizens would now have no means of defending themselves. Eventually criminals would recognize this trend and become more confident when committing acts of violence. This last thing we need is confident criminals.
With this in mind, it is important that I clarify my point of view. I believe Americans should have the right to own a gun, in accordance with some fine print. Restrictions should be put in place to limit the people purchasing weapons: past felons, children, etc. I would also strongly support gun registration and control laws. These would cut down on certain people having access to guns and speed up disciplinary action for those connected with weapons used in crimes.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Friday, June 27, 2008
What Debt?
Presidency after presidency our national debt continues to soar to unprecedented levels. Does anyone seem to care? As political candidates debate popular issues, it seems they often overlook the money hole the United State has dug itself into. This goes unopposed because they promise new government programs and generous tax cuts. Where does this money come from? Can anyone look beyond the present and peer into the future?
The current national debt is well over $9 trillion. That's a 9 with 12 zeros after it. Just imagine. To better put this number into perspective, if split equally, each U.S. citizen would represent over $30,000. Each day the government's deficit grows by $1.3 billion. I only wish the government would let me spend like this. A plasma screen and brand new Ferrari would hardly put a dent in my budget. With this same attitude the government continually pours money into program after program, recklessly disregarding any consequences.
Our economy is in a drastic downward spiral and the last thing Americans need is to face high inflation. Unfortunately this outcome is inevitable as our debt reaches new heights. We all remember our parents saying that Coke used to cost a nickel or a gallon of gas was well under a dollar. This increase is now occurring faster than ever. In my short twenty-year lifetime, I have seen many product prices double in value. Gas alone has skyrocketed from $1.60 when I started driving to an astonishing $4.00 today.
Someone needs to put a stop to our ridiculous deficit spending. Turning our course around will take many years, but it must begin somewhere. It's time that citizens overlook enticing programs or compelling tax breaks. We must show some concern for our nation's future.
The current national debt is well over $9 trillion. That's a 9 with 12 zeros after it. Just imagine. To better put this number into perspective, if split equally, each U.S. citizen would represent over $30,000. Each day the government's deficit grows by $1.3 billion. I only wish the government would let me spend like this. A plasma screen and brand new Ferrari would hardly put a dent in my budget. With this same attitude the government continually pours money into program after program, recklessly disregarding any consequences.
Our economy is in a drastic downward spiral and the last thing Americans need is to face high inflation. Unfortunately this outcome is inevitable as our debt reaches new heights. We all remember our parents saying that Coke used to cost a nickel or a gallon of gas was well under a dollar. This increase is now occurring faster than ever. In my short twenty-year lifetime, I have seen many product prices double in value. Gas alone has skyrocketed from $1.60 when I started driving to an astonishing $4.00 today.
Someone needs to put a stop to our ridiculous deficit spending. Turning our course around will take many years, but it must begin somewhere. It's time that citizens overlook enticing programs or compelling tax breaks. We must show some concern for our nation's future.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Sometimes It Takes a Crisis to Bring About Change
In response to Is There an End in Sight?
There has been an energy crisis for many years now. Unfortunately its economic effects have taken a drastic turn for the worst in recent months. As the author mentioned, consumer gas prices are not the only area of increased costs. I have worked in the restaurant industry for several years and have recently seen significant menu increases. Let me assure you that the price of growing produce and raising cattle hasn't changed much, but transportation costs have certainly increased. Is anything being done about this crisis? The author seems to think not.
Every major auto company has devoted significant resources to developing energy-saving cars. This past year hybrid engines were included in many low-end and luxury class models. Certainly economic pressures will continue to drive up the demand for more fuel efficient cars, and manufacturers will likely answer accordingly. Despite these recent efforts, car companies are not the only ones looking out for our future.
The government has assumed a great deal of responsibility for energy efficiency. Recent legislation and political efforts have pressured manufacturers into improving vehicle performance. Unfortunately the economy won't feel any relief until consumers begin to purchase hybrid models more steadily. The government has played its part in two areas. First, many low-efficiency vehicles require an additional gas-guzzler tax upon purchase. Ideally this penalty will discourage consumer dependence on such cars. Secondly, the government began offering a $4000 tax credit for purchase of certain hybrid autos. These two actions are significant steps toward a more energy-minded population.
So is there an end in sight? There most certainly is. Our current economic crisis has induced drastic changes. We have made significant strides in many areas: consumer, industrial, and political. There is still a great deal of innovation that needs to take place. The government will need to maintain its role in encouraging energy-efficiency. Initially alternative energy resources will require a great deal of funding, but long term returns will be extraordinary. As oil prices continue to rise, improvements in energy usage are imminent. How much are Americans willing to endure before requiring change?
There has been an energy crisis for many years now. Unfortunately its economic effects have taken a drastic turn for the worst in recent months. As the author mentioned, consumer gas prices are not the only area of increased costs. I have worked in the restaurant industry for several years and have recently seen significant menu increases. Let me assure you that the price of growing produce and raising cattle hasn't changed much, but transportation costs have certainly increased. Is anything being done about this crisis? The author seems to think not.
Every major auto company has devoted significant resources to developing energy-saving cars. This past year hybrid engines were included in many low-end and luxury class models. Certainly economic pressures will continue to drive up the demand for more fuel efficient cars, and manufacturers will likely answer accordingly. Despite these recent efforts, car companies are not the only ones looking out for our future.
The government has assumed a great deal of responsibility for energy efficiency. Recent legislation and political efforts have pressured manufacturers into improving vehicle performance. Unfortunately the economy won't feel any relief until consumers begin to purchase hybrid models more steadily. The government has played its part in two areas. First, many low-efficiency vehicles require an additional gas-guzzler tax upon purchase. Ideally this penalty will discourage consumer dependence on such cars. Secondly, the government began offering a $4000 tax credit for purchase of certain hybrid autos. These two actions are significant steps toward a more energy-minded population.
So is there an end in sight? There most certainly is. Our current economic crisis has induced drastic changes. We have made significant strides in many areas: consumer, industrial, and political. There is still a great deal of innovation that needs to take place. The government will need to maintain its role in encouraging energy-efficiency. Initially alternative energy resources will require a great deal of funding, but long term returns will be extraordinary. As oil prices continue to rise, improvements in energy usage are imminent. How much are Americans willing to endure before requiring change?
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Caught Up in the Past
Modern political policies focus too much on aligning with a Constitution more than two centuries old. For each new piece of legislation or court ruling, this aged document is the definitive know-all of legality. In fact, an entire branch of our government is devoted to interpreting the Constitution and determining if a particular case violates the Framers' intentions. What did elitist colonists know about 21st century government anyway?
I am not arguing that the Constitution should be ignored or that Founding Fathers did not have a well-formulated plan for U.S. government. I am merely pointing out that we at times lose sight of what is best for the nation when trying to coincide with Constitution specifics.
Take for example selective incorporation. Many original signers of the Constitution insisted that a Bill of Rights be included. Unfortunately the document only guaranteed these rights at the national level. It took nearly 100 years with the ratification of the 14th amendment for states to acknowledge them. Even then, each had to be individually incorporated on a case-by-case basis in the Supreme Court. Don't you think that what was promised by the federal government should have been equally accepted in its underlying states from the start? Even though the Constitution fails to explicitly state it, the government should have figured this one out much earlier.
Similarly, Congress cited its authority to regulate commerce as a means to curb racial discrimination in private businesses. Isn't this somewhat convoluted? Shouldn't voters' opinions determine racial equality? Why can't the legislators, who have been chosen by the populace, make these kind of decisions without delving into some complicated explanation? As our society continues to evolve, Congress must have the power to make necessary changes unforeseen by the Constitution's original authors.
A prime example of this is the controversy around abortion and stem-cell research. How can our court attempt to reference an 18th century document for insight on the legality of such practices? As new technology is developed, regulation should be in the hands of America's voters, not those of long-dead colonists.
The Constitution is a rock-solid foundation for American principles and ideals. The government must continue to support the freedoms and natural rights laid out over 200 years ago, but it must not let this political groundwork cloud reality. Day after day our nation must adapt to new situations and not be afraid to define government policies in-line with the modern era.
I am not arguing that the Constitution should be ignored or that Founding Fathers did not have a well-formulated plan for U.S. government. I am merely pointing out that we at times lose sight of what is best for the nation when trying to coincide with Constitution specifics.
Take for example selective incorporation. Many original signers of the Constitution insisted that a Bill of Rights be included. Unfortunately the document only guaranteed these rights at the national level. It took nearly 100 years with the ratification of the 14th amendment for states to acknowledge them. Even then, each had to be individually incorporated on a case-by-case basis in the Supreme Court. Don't you think that what was promised by the federal government should have been equally accepted in its underlying states from the start? Even though the Constitution fails to explicitly state it, the government should have figured this one out much earlier.
Similarly, Congress cited its authority to regulate commerce as a means to curb racial discrimination in private businesses. Isn't this somewhat convoluted? Shouldn't voters' opinions determine racial equality? Why can't the legislators, who have been chosen by the populace, make these kind of decisions without delving into some complicated explanation? As our society continues to evolve, Congress must have the power to make necessary changes unforeseen by the Constitution's original authors.
A prime example of this is the controversy around abortion and stem-cell research. How can our court attempt to reference an 18th century document for insight on the legality of such practices? As new technology is developed, regulation should be in the hands of America's voters, not those of long-dead colonists.
The Constitution is a rock-solid foundation for American principles and ideals. The government must continue to support the freedoms and natural rights laid out over 200 years ago, but it must not let this political groundwork cloud reality. Day after day our nation must adapt to new situations and not be afraid to define government policies in-line with the modern era.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Not-So-Super Tuesday
CNN columnist Roland Martin stresses the need to change election day in his article "We should vote on the first Saturday in November", and I couldn't agree with him more. Who picked Tuesday to be the ideal day for elections anyway? It turns out that Congress chose this date to appease the dominantly-agrarian population of 1845. Because it was the most convenient for agricultural workers, this day maximized voter turnout. Nowadays voting on Super Tuesday is far from optimal. With so many politicians and media personnel concerned with voter turnout, it seems that a minor change in election day would be a simple means of improvement.
The U.S. populace falls behind other nations in voter participation, including many European countries. Martin points out that recent Iraqi elections attracted ninety percent of its citizens. How can America promote a strong democracy when it struggles to get half of its population to the polls? The neck-and-neck presidential race of 2004 only attracted sixty percent of eligible American voters.
Why is Tuesday such a terrible election day? The majority of Americans work a typical five-day work week with hours from 8:00 to 5:00. Most attempt to vote before or after work. This leads to overwhelmingly long lines. Many are discouraged from even going to the polls because they expect the hassle and frustration of waiting. One solution to keep voting during the week would be to offer multiple days. For example, if polls were open Monday and Tuesday then lines would be much shorter and people could choose the most convenient time and day for them.
Still even better, Saturday-voting is a clear alternative to the current system. Fewer Americans work on Saturday, and most could find the opportunity to get to a poll. It is time for Congress to stop living by tradition and make a decision that would benefit our nation's politics. As Martin puts it:
The U.S. populace falls behind other nations in voter participation, including many European countries. Martin points out that recent Iraqi elections attracted ninety percent of its citizens. How can America promote a strong democracy when it struggles to get half of its population to the polls? The neck-and-neck presidential race of 2004 only attracted sixty percent of eligible American voters.
Why is Tuesday such a terrible election day? The majority of Americans work a typical five-day work week with hours from 8:00 to 5:00. Most attempt to vote before or after work. This leads to overwhelmingly long lines. Many are discouraged from even going to the polls because they expect the hassle and frustration of waiting. One solution to keep voting during the week would be to offer multiple days. For example, if polls were open Monday and Tuesday then lines would be much shorter and people could choose the most convenient time and day for them.
Still even better, Saturday-voting is a clear alternative to the current system. Fewer Americans work on Saturday, and most could find the opportunity to get to a poll. It is time for Congress to stop living by tradition and make a decision that would benefit our nation's politics. As Martin puts it:
Year after year both political parties funnel significant funding into a "Get Out the Vote" campaign to encourage participation on election day. Obviously politicians already favor increased voter turnout. Super Saturday would be a simple legislative change that would be advantageous to everyone involved. For the twenty-first century, it just makes sense.This is one of those simple decisions that doesn't require a ton of debate. I can't imagine there being major opposition to moving the election date.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
The 'Average' American President
Roland Martin argues that today's elitist politicians cannot possibly represent the average American. I argue: do you have to be a common citizen to understand common ideology and desires?
Democracy does not imply that every man (or woman for that matter) is qualified to be a political representative. It does, however, imply that every man has the right to vote for the candidate that will best represent his interests. For Martin to place Katt Williams and Barack Obama on the same scale and question levels of competence is elementary. And while we are here, does Katt Williams really represent the average American any better than today's politicians? He is an elitist just like the rest of them. The difference: his tasteless moral standard.
The author repeatedly identifies politicians' Ivy League roots. Does this suggest one must have a prestigious educational background to run for office? No. This suggests that the democratic process has continually favored well-educated candidates over middle-class prospects. This makes sense though; I would much rather my political well-being be in the hands of a Harvard grad than some Midwest farmer with a second-class education.
A significant portion of Martin's commentary lists the alma maters of various Supreme Court justices, which include Yale and Standford just to name a few. Would you expect any less from the men and women who collectively make up up the brightest lawyers in the country?
It doesn't take a man who grew up in a struggling family to understand the importance of healthcare. In the same way, Texans do not require a president in cowboy boots. Ideally politicians will express their beliefs, and democratic voting will help determine which candidate is best fit to represent American interests. If they lie, they won't get re-elected. In the end I feel much more confident with an elitist running our government than an average Joe.
Read the full article here.
Democracy does not imply that every man (or woman for that matter) is qualified to be a political representative. It does, however, imply that every man has the right to vote for the candidate that will best represent his interests. For Martin to place Katt Williams and Barack Obama on the same scale and question levels of competence is elementary. And while we are here, does Katt Williams really represent the average American any better than today's politicians? He is an elitist just like the rest of them. The difference: his tasteless moral standard.
The author repeatedly identifies politicians' Ivy League roots. Does this suggest one must have a prestigious educational background to run for office? No. This suggests that the democratic process has continually favored well-educated candidates over middle-class prospects. This makes sense though; I would much rather my political well-being be in the hands of a Harvard grad than some Midwest farmer with a second-class education.
A significant portion of Martin's commentary lists the alma maters of various Supreme Court justices, which include Yale and Standford just to name a few. Would you expect any less from the men and women who collectively make up up the brightest lawyers in the country?
It doesn't take a man who grew up in a struggling family to understand the importance of healthcare. In the same way, Texans do not require a president in cowboy boots. Ideally politicians will express their beliefs, and democratic voting will help determine which candidate is best fit to represent American interests. If they lie, they won't get re-elected. In the end I feel much more confident with an elitist running our government than an average Joe.
Read the full article here.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Go Green, Go Broke
The two biggest issues dominating today's society are rising energy costs and environmental mistreatment. Unfortunately a Dallas Morning News article cites recent Senate legislation as pitting the two up against one another. Proposed emissions regulations will most certainly drive energy production costs through the roof. What does this mean for Americans, or even Texans: high gas prices, soaring electric bills, hundreds of thousands of job cuts, and a plummeting economy.
Supporters of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act hope to restrict levels of carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and manufacturing companies by 2012 and reduce global warming gases by sixty-seven percent as early as 2050. Opponents of the legislation foresee our struggling economy taking an unforgiving turn. Pump premiums may rise above $8 and energy costs could more than double, an outcome that would be reflected in every aspect of the economy. The states most affected by this green proposal would include California, Florida, and Texas.
Despite the heated debate over this issue, few expect the legislation to gain any momentum in an election year. Do, however, anticipate there to be significant political concerns regarding the environment and energy crisis as November gets closer.
Read the full article here.
Supporters of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act hope to restrict levels of carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and manufacturing companies by 2012 and reduce global warming gases by sixty-seven percent as early as 2050. Opponents of the legislation foresee our struggling economy taking an unforgiving turn. Pump premiums may rise above $8 and energy costs could more than double, an outcome that would be reflected in every aspect of the economy. The states most affected by this green proposal would include California, Florida, and Texas.
Despite the heated debate over this issue, few expect the legislation to gain any momentum in an election year. Do, however, anticipate there to be significant political concerns regarding the environment and energy crisis as November gets closer.
Read the full article here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)