Comment on "Who's the Real Killer?"

In Ms. Hausmann's article, "Who's the Real Killer?", she makes the case that guns should be treated as tools for self defense and not so heavily restricted.  I wholeheartedly agree with Ms. Hausmann's stance on guns and the government's legislation about them. She is absolutely right in saying that "guns aren’t the killer; it’s the people that are in control of these tools that make them into lethal weapons." She also makes the excellent point that even if guns were somehow removed from society, I could just as easily kill someone with a car. In fact, I would wager that the number of motor vehicle fatalities is greater that those caused by firearms.

There are risks in almost every aspect of life. The issue with guns, as Ms. Hausmann mentioned, can be handled by creating and enforcing proper punishments for the misuse of a firearm. I also agree with her idea that everyone should go through a mandatory gun safety course and be trained on how to use THEIR particular gun, safely. Many people are worried about children getting a hold of guns, and children's deaths because of a poorly stored firearm are tragic. However this goes back to the motor vehicle example, children die in collisions, but still ride in cars. It is the parents responsibility to protect their child and this responsibility extends as much to locking and storing their gun correctly as it does to making sure their child wears a seat belt.

Guns are great tools for self defense and recreation. The key to maintaining a safe society is making sure those who misuse the privilege of gun ownership are punished accordingly, not making laws that restrict the citizens who know what they're doing with their gun.

I believe Ms. Hausmann did an excellent job of stating her case in support of gun ownership and citing examples of why she felt this way. Her examples were clear and her article was enjoyable and well thought out.

Isn't it about time to make bacon out of pork-barrel spending?

In both a political climate and an economic state where the federal deficit is at an all time high, and everyone is looking for ways to cut the budget, shouldn't pork-barrel spending go by the wayside?  For those not familiar with the term, pork-barrel spending, also known as "earmarks" are special projects attached to pieces of legislation so they will be voted through along with that legislation, even if the pork is completely unrelated to the legislation.  The purpose of the earmarks is to get federal money for these special projects in the representatives' home districts.

These projects are often completely unnecessary and are simply ploys to garner favor and get votes lined up for the next election.  They can also be very expensive for the taxpayers.  The "bridge to nowhere" is a classic example of a pork-barrel project and was talked about a lot during the 2008 presidential election.  The bridge would have connected a small Alaskan island of about 50 people, to the mainland even though there was already a ferry running 24/7 and year round.  50 people would have benefited from the project, but the Senator who proposed it wanted to spend $398 million dollars of tax payer money on the project.

There are countless other examples of even more useless projects that get funding by way of pork-barrel spending.  I think that pork-barrel spending should not be allowed as it is a burden on the already fragile economy and takes needed tax payer dollars away from other, necessary areas.  The earmarks also become a big issue in Congress, distracting from the bills that are hard enough to pass as it is.  I believe cutting pork-barrel spending would not only allow more money to flow to areas that need it, but it would also allow congressmen to focus on their job, representing the country, and not provide them an opportunity to bribe voters.

Comments on "The Death Penalty: Should We Have The Power?"

In Mr. Mowry's, "The Death Penalty: Should We Have The Power?", he offers a very reasoned and well written criticism of the death penalty and offers the solution of life imprisonment. I really enjoyed this article as it both taught me some things about the death penalty and also made a strong case for a ban against the death penalty on the national level.

The facts cited in the article were both interesting and useful. I had no idea that cases involving the death penalty cost somewhere around $2.3 million! Compared to $750,000 for cases not involving the death penalty. Equally hard to argue with was his statement that life imprisonment is a way to punish murderers without taking the life of another human being. Also, his point that the extra money could be used to beef up police forces and in turn more efficiently deter murders is a well founded one.

All in all, I found Mr. Mowry's article to be clear, persuasive and well thought out and I enjoyed reading about his position.

Immigration Reform in the U.S.

An election year can do two things - it can bring issues to the forefront of debate and it can sweep issues under the rug in the name of campaigning.  After all, who would want to confront those pesky issues when there are voting machines to tamper wi--... I mean... an election to win!  One of the pesky issues being swept under the rug is immigration.

The current political climate is all about the economy and healthcare - who has jobs, who doesn't; who is creating jobs, who isn't; who needs a bailout, who doesn't; who can afford healthcare, who can't.  The political scene is still reeling from the financial debacle and together with the healthcare bill (which is for debate another time), these issues have eclipsed the issue of immigration.  Immigration is a heated topic on both sides of the issue. The list of accusations against illegal immigrants, mainly coming from Mexico, goes on and on and includes items like: jobs taken away from U.S. citizens already starved for jobs, not paying taxes, clogging ERs due to lack of medical insurance, driving illegally....etc.  Those on the other side of the argument quip that these people are only taking jobs that Americans don't want anyway and they therefore are an integral part of our infrastructure.

Personally, I believe no matter the benefits or problems with having illegal immigrants in the country, it's not really an issue that should be debated. If you pay the slightest bit of attention, you'll see that it is ILLEGAL immigration... meaning, against the law.  I strongly feel that people need to acknowledge it for what it is, illegal. Having said that, I also believe our country needs to acknowledge it as a serious issue and start coming up with some viable solutions.  Two kinds of solutions are needed: solutions to fix the current problem and solutions to prevent future problems.  I was fortunate enough to be born in the United States of America and am therefore a citizen.  Because of this, I don't know what our immigration policy is like, but I am more than willing to admit that it probably needs some overhauling.  This, along with attempts to work with Mexico and taking action to once and for all control the border with Mexico would fall into the later category.

With regard to fixing the current problem, several things could be done.  First, there should be heavy, exorbitant fines placed on employers who are found to be employing undocumented workers. If employers knew they would be fined out of business for hiring undocumented workers, they wouldn't do it, and if there were no jobs, there would be less of an attraction to jump the border.  Secondly, I don't agree with racial profiling and I don't think the fact that you think someone might be an illegal immigrant is a valid reason to make a traffic stop, but I do think that citizenship should be verified when arrests are made and anyone found to be here illegally should be sent home at the earliest possible convenience.

Immigration has always been one of the things that make the U.S. great, creating a diverse and rich population. Illegal immigration is something that threatens that.  Even if you stand on the side of the issue that argues that illegal immigrants take jobs citizens don't want, you can't deny that that's not really the point.... it's still ILLEGAL. Hopefully, this issue can get some attention soon; some genuine attention from the right people that can come up with smart, practical solutions that can relieve the U.S. of this stress and set it on course for a more modern immigration policy.

Would You Like Some Sugar to Sweeten That Tea (Party Criticism)?

How the Media Created the Tea Party asserts that the Tea Party was created by the major media outlets when they all rushed to the left, "creating a vacuum... and nature abhors a vacuum."  Definitely a right-leaning blog, the author makes the case that the Tea Party is not made up of protesters, trying to make a fuss.  Instead, it is made up of regular, middle class right wing citizens who decided the only way to get noticed was to pick up a picket with a sign attached.  The argument the author makes a good point when he says the reason the Tea Party members were attacked by the left as "fake, astroturf" was precisely because they were people who wouldn't normally be picketing, wouldn't normally be making a fuss.

The author goes on to say that the recent, severe lack of honest news coverage for the right-wing spectrum of the political scene is what created the very same Tea Party the Liberals tried to take down (without succeeding...)  Of course, the articles points may be completely discarded by someone from the left, but I believe the point is sold that the mass media outlets like NBC, CBS, ABC and others have left the Conservatives in the dark with regard to political coverage.  Honest reporting is had to find anywhere these days, but FOX and talk radio does a better job of addressing issues that are important to the right. It's also interesting to note that for the most part, these conservative media outlets do not attack the left-wing media outlets, they might contest and attack their opinions, views and things of that nature, but the outlets themselves, no.

The author's credibility, I believe is relative.  A blogger could have any number of credentials that qualify him to make such statements, any number including none.  However, the evidence to support his claims is there - the mass media outlets tend to paint everything in a rosy, Obama colored light.  Throughout the article, the author offers a sense of transparency by making easily researchable claims such as "other [major] broadcast news services are losing viewers... while FOX is a big and growing hit."  It's interesting to hear about the Tea Party both from the angle of discussing it's origins, and also without the constant attacking.  Increasingly, I think news networks that do more analyzing, discussing and criticizing of others views, and not the people themselves will become the "go to guys" in media. At least, I hope so.  Otherwise, the 2012 election season is going to be one bumpy ride.

Is Congress Failing Us With Its Frivolous Furlough?

In it's article about Congress' choice to adjourn for the year, USA today was critical of Congresses lack of productivity.  While noting that they have made accomplishments in the areas of economic stimulus and health care reform, the article also notes the lack of other accomplishments.  Not lacking however, are the "fundraisers" and cocktail parties our politicians seem to be so fond of attending.


Going on to examine specific issues Congress has failed to address this year, the article discusses the food scares of last year. Salmonella-tainted eggs, bad spinach and tomatoes... the list goes on.  A bill that would supposedly help deal with the issue and divert money and resources to the FDA is being blocked by Sen. Tom Coburn R-Okla., because he insists the sponsors of the bill find a way to pay for the measure before they pass it. Also citing  mines that need modified safety measures, some big ticket issues such as immigration and global warming, as well as taxes, since the Bush era tax cuts are set to expire at the end of this year. Did Congress put measures in place to mediate the end of those tax cuts? Nope. Not to mention addressing the national debt.


The article quips that the respective parties have "backed so far into their idealogical corners that compromise is next to impossible", which I think is a fair assessment... at least judging from the actions of Congress.  I think the article does a fair job of stating things as they are - Congress has not addressed key issues.  But at the same time, they do mention in passing the issues they have made some progress on.  I would've liked to see more specific examples instead of broad claims in order to make this article less of an opinion and more of a reliable source, but it was interesting nonetheless.  You can't argue with the logic that the actions of Congress do not fair well when held in the same light as their job requirements. As the article states, they do seem more interested in keeping their jobs than doing them.  With election season fast approaching, maybe it's time for voters to remind elected officials of their purpose... by electing new ones.

Federal Fingerprinting: Constitutional or Controversial?

In an Austin American Statesman article by Paul J. Weber, readers learn about the Secure Communities program, a federal program which went statewide in Texas today (Wed, Sept. 29).  An initiative of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The program collects the fingerprints of everyone booked in local jails and checks their immigration status.  Proponents of the program say it does nothing more than open the preexisting database of fingerprints to the federal government and in doing so, helps more easily identify those people that are residing in the US illegally.  Critics say that it will discourage people from coming forward to identify low-level criminals for fear that the criminal (possibly a spouse or other relative) would be deported instead of merely jailed.  The program has been used for two years in Houston, and has yet to meet the backlash that it has in other states.  California seems to be particularly against the program.  One California county has completely opted out of the program and San Fransisco mayor is in talks with the federal government to modify the program; one of the first to do so.

Personally, I support the program. As stated in the article, the fingerprints of suspects booked in jails are already sent to the federal government to check for federal criminal records.  All this program does is send the fingerprints to ICE also, allowing them to check the immigration status of the individuals.  This seems like very little additional work that leads to a big benefit.  The immigration issue can be a very personal one, and I am all for immigration, but if people are living in this country illegally, they should be deported and this system provides an easy way to identify those individuals.  Another added benefit, is that it is identifying criminals for deportation, not necessarily individuals that would otherwise be contributing to society.

You can read the article for yourself, here:
Immigration check program goes statewide in Texas