“Bickering continues as health care summit nears”

From Deirdre Walsh, CNN Congressional Producer

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/24/health.care/index.html?iref=allsearch

This article is about the on going argument over the healthcare bill. There is going to be a summit on the 24^th of February to try and get things moving. Both sides had a meeting on Wednesday to plan out what they were going to do. The democrats met in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office and she said they were only going to talk about substance and she felt very optimistic about the meeting. The democrats did talk about reconciliation, which is a process to solve debates on budget-related bills. It bypasses the need for 60 votes in the Senate and only majority vote is needed. The democrats do not want to do this but they believe it must at least be considered because this is a big deal and it needs to gain steam. Many warn that there could be a very large backlash without the full support. The Republicans have already showed disapproval of this. The number 2 House Republican Cantor of Virginia says, "Their endgame is clear: Demand support for their approach, or go it alone using reconciliation. This partisan tactic -- once soundly rejected by Democrats -- now appears to be a foregone conclusion. That's a sad statement for bipartisanship and for America." Senate Leader Harry Reid though pointed out that this tactic has been used more than 20 times since 1981 by both sides. This ongoing battle is very interesting. The Republicans want the Democrats to rewrite the bill but the Democrats won’t budge. This though is what the Republicans want, they want nothing to happen. It is also interesting what lengths Democrats are willing to do to get the bill passed, if they use the reconciliation process they will be on their own because no one will support them. Then the way republicans react to the idea of democrats using that process is also interesting because they spin it. They make it seem like a negative thing that is horrible and sleazy but both sides have used this process plenty of times within the last 29-30 years.

Loosening Gun Control Laws?

Some may believe that the outcome of the Virginia Tech shooting could have been prevented or perhaps “softened” if there had been an armed individual at the scene of the crime. While this may prove to be the ideal situation, I see a different situation in my mind. If gun control laws are to be weakening, I see a situation where Person #1 draws his gun and starts shooting. Then Person #2, hearing the commotion, draws his gun and shoots Person #1. Persons #3 and #4, seeing #1 and #2 with guns blazing, shoot them both, and so on. I believe that there is good reason as to why SWAT teams and other police organizations undergo special training. Why do all those pro-gun activists out there think that they can do what cops do? The cops undergo a LOT of training, and even then, the cops do not always like the odds that are presented. They know how to react and to intimidate, keys to bettering your odds in gun play. We the gun buying public do not, except for maybe a small minority. I sincerely believe that an armed public will result in an influx of accidental shootings/deaths which will vastly outnumber the potential lives that could have been saved.

When pro-gun activists say that “if everyone was carrying a gun, everyone would be able to defend themselves,” I am not sure if they fail to realize cases of mental illness and domestic violence. In these cases, I believe that it is far better to have no guns around. They become a greater source of temptation to the desperate. Any mentally ill person or person with a criminal background can walk into a gun show and buy a firearm with no questions asked.

The problem with gun control laws is that criminals do not abide by the law, whatever those laws happen to be. Carefully crafted administrative procedures will have absolutely zero effect on the propensity of a person hell bent on committing a violent crime to procure a firearm. Law abiding citizens however, will usually abide by those laws and will have their access to firearms restricted. We are left with a society with easy access to firearms that have armed criminals and unarmed law abiding citizens. However in these types of situations, we should place our trust in our police force, as an armed public is more dangerous than an unarmed one with several criminals running around.

The Second Amendment was a product of the 18th century - just as "bleeding" to get rid of bad blood was a product of their medicine. We would be horrified by anyone foolish enough to practice that kind of medicine today. In the 18th century there was reason to think a "well regulated" militia might have to depend on private ownership of guns, like to fend off a foreign invasion. That concept is obviously no longer valid - just as bleeding is no longer good medical practice.

What I do not understand is why anyone would need to purchase more than one gun a month, in the USA, no less. I cannot even begin to fathom the thought of a person thinking he needs to purchase multiple guns within a month. Would you not be frightened by someone coming into a gun store demanding multiple handguns (from the perspective of both the store owner and a random civilian)? Sure, maybe it might inconvenience someone who needs a gun for himself and his son to go out hunting, but all this means is an extra month of waiting.

Two Supreme Court cases which greatly influence our current era of gun control are District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. In essence, District of Columbia v. Heller was a landmark legal case in which the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. However, the decision did not address the question of whether the second Amendment extends to the states. This is when the “to-be-decided” McDonald v. Chicago court case comes into play. The purpose of the lawsuit is to require state and local officials to respect our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. It will be interesting to see how this Supreme Court Case plays out and how it will completely redraw the lines between pro-gun activists and gun-control proponents.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/24/us/24guns.html

More health care drama

With the senate seat won by a Republican Scott Brown, the health care bill looked pretty grim. Obama now revised a new bill that will challenge the old bill with a new $1 Trillion price tag. The 10 year bill does not include a public option, but will cover 31 million Americans who are not insured. This bill will also give powers to federal regulators to regulate the insurance industry and premiums.

I find that the bill would not possibly work since Republicans will most likely block the bill again as it had in the past year. The health care bill will probably become even smaller before it even passes both houses and the President signing it. In my opinion, I believe that a health bill right now is not a good option because of the price tag attached to it. The cost of the bill is $1 trillion and we have a deficit at $13 trillion. I would more likely to buy in to the health care bill if there is a reasonable solution to first paying off the debt before mounting more debt on tax payers.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35520064/ns/politics-health_care_reform/

Social problems are for society not government

It is ironic that most people are sick of the health care reform debate. The issue is not whether our health care system is efficient or fair but whether we want big government or small government. The only true health care reform would be creating competition between insurance companies. From what I see you have a choice between a crappy insurance or a crappy insurance with a different name. But this is not any situation the government should intervene, people should intervene after all we are the market.

It is my personal belief that social Darwinism should rule our society. Social Darwinism however is much like the principle of a free market, if there are obstructions to the natural flow there will be negative effects. Take for example social welfare programs like Unemployment or Welfare. These programs in the short run put a band aid on a social problem but in the long run they do not promote self accountability. Government run social welfare programs create somewhat of a dependency and can be misused. It is this dependency and misuse that can create a sustainable lifestyle while still allowing de-construcive behavior.

America does not promise equal results but equal opportunity. Health care is not a promise the United States Government should promise. However, much like public education public health care should be given to children. Equal opportunity for the pursuit of happiness should guarantee that children should be as healthy as possible no matter their families financial situation. The reasons for universal health care for minors are the same a the reasons for public education. Healthy workforce would increase output, healthy students perform better.

The question is not should government intervene in health care the question is when does government intervention get in the way of natural forces that balance our society.

news article: "Comprehensive health bill may be no-go" MSNBC http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35539047/ns/politics-health_care_reform

Repealing 'Don't Ask Don't Tell'

The New York Times article discusses President Obama's promise to repeal 'Don't Ask Don't Tell', which keeps gay men and lesbians in the military from openly discussing their sexuality. When it comes to the issue of gay people in the military, Obama's decision to repeal the act is definitely the best choice. Religious Americans believe being homosexual is immoral, and while religion plays a factor in politics, it should not be one of the deciding factors for who can be in the military. The First Amendment of the Constitution includes freedom of religion, which gives the right of Americans to practice any religion they choose. If Americans choose to go against the word of God and be homosexual, the government has no right to stop them from practicing that nor should they stop them from hiding it while they are in the military, for it violates the first Amendment.

Bumiller (author of the article) also points out, that by not allowing homosexuals in the military, many desperately needed translators are being discharged. One example is Dan Choi, a West Point graduate and an Arabic linguist. He served a very important role in the military, and is now being discharged for openly announcing that he is gay. With Obama's promise to "end the war in Iraq" not being kept, and his decision to send more troops to Iraq, the most logical decision for most would be to keep as many options open as to who can serve in the military. With the discrimination against homosexuals, America is simultaneously risking losing resources while pushing away some bright and talented people just because of their sexuality. In fact, the article points out that recent polls show most Americans support openly gay service.

The final fact is; sexuality does not play a factor in the ability of a person to be a soldier, character and personality do. The politicians and citizens obstructing the repeal of 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' are just showing close-mindedness, and their inability to see what is best for the country. 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' was a thing of the past, even Bill Clinton regrets passing the policy. President Obama and the Pentagon have already met to discuss the repealing of the policy. I think this meeting shows that the policy being repealed is inevitable, the only question that is left to answer is: When will Obama, Congress, and American citizens push to have it repealed?


http://http//www.nytimes.com/2010/02/01/us/politics/01military.html

Obama's New Education Proposal

With the competing world powers like Korea hoping to out-educate Americans, Obama proposed a plan to have a higher standards for reading, mathetmatics, and science on Monday February 22. In a meeting with governors of the country Obama stressed the importance of having higher education standards to keep up with worlds competitive marketplace. Obama's proposal calls for states to a “college- and career-ready standards” in reading and math. This enables states to retrieve money and aid for students that cannot afford education. The no child left behind policy that is in place right now gives the states the power to define what is "challenging and academic" for schools to teach. This causes different states to have different standards to what "challenging" is. Massachusetts for example is an example of a state who possesses challenging academic material, who ranked 9th in reading and 11th in math for its eighth graders. But with the no child left being, 11 states have actually lowered their standards in 2005 and 2007, which is not a good thing for the economy, and American education as a whole. Obama intends to revive education for the next generations so the United States can remain at power. Democrat or Republican Obama intends to work with everyone as to achieve this proposal to strengthen the United States and its education.
I think that it's definitely good that Obama wants to improve the education of Americans, I mean I do think that most Americans ar e unintelligent as it is. The no child left behind is a good policy in theory but i think that there should be a stricter and more challenging standard for all Americans, so we can all be on the same page. I mean wouldn't that make more sense than to have some states be "smarter" than other states when we can all be an intelligent nation as whole? Counties for all over the world are inching and hungry for american jobs, i know it, and many countries are taking our jobs because we are not educated enough. This needs to change, and Obamas proposal is a step towards something better, i guess.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/23/education/23educ.html

Example of Blog Entries

Example Blog Entry

Here's an example of a post that would receive full credit. Here's some criteria for a good blog post.

1) Review an article that is of some relevance to the AP Government & Politics course (ie. Congress, Supreme Court, Presidency, etc.)
2) Use a credible source, not rantings of a deranged lunatic who regularly posts his own blogs.
3) Do not copy and paste an article. Provide a link, and perhaps a portion of the article, but do not just copy and paste the contents of the article to your post.
4) Feel free to express your opinion: conservative, liberal, libertarian, authoritarian, but do not say anything disparaging about members of the class or use profanity.

Good luck!