Reviving the Constitution

In a recent 5-4 vote by the Supreme Court, it was decided that a ban on handguns in Washington D.C. be overturned. The ban on handguns in the Capital was enacted in order to reduce murder and crime rates.

The majority opinion stated, "It is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct". Their decision to make the possession of guns legal supports idea of the Framers for the right to bear arms that is stated in the Bill of Rights. While it does go along with what our founding fathers envisioned for our country, one might question whether or not that vision should change and adapt to new times and present circumstances. 

Should the possibility of higher crime rates and violence in our capital be jeopardized in order to act in accordance with a law suggested over 200 years ago? The close vote shows that this decision was not an easy one and that the win was not hands down. So despite the law being overturned, it was only by one single vote and is left up to interpretation and scrutiny. 

In my opinion the possession of handguns, even for the purpose of self defense and protection, can lead to cases of accidental death and violence within the home. Owning a gun may make the owner feel more safe, but does it make the city less safe as a result? 

No law should be passed or enforced that could put people up for an even greater risk, because that, in itself, is unconstitutional.

Bipolar Americans

I understand, and agree that people are entitled to their own opinion of the American government and the job it is doing, I just wish that they would stand beside their views on most, if not all, political issues. Reading "Feeling the effects of raising gas prices?" on Kimberly's Present Day America blog made it evident how, for lack of better words, wishy-washy the American people can be.

Many people argue that the government has too much power and that the power should be slowly reallocated to the people. They feel that the government has no right to step into our personal lives and tell us who we can and cannot marry, and what we can and cannot say, yet as soon as we find ourselves in trouble, we are all of the sudden advocates of a powerful government that intervenes in our personal affairs.

In regard to the recent spike in home foreclosures, people can take which ever stance they prefer, but should not have a double-standard and expect the government to step in when times are bad, but be hands off with other issues.

I personally think that a lot of the foreclosures that are taking place are a result of poor choices, both by the American people trying to fake the American Dream and live beyond their means, and also by creditors ignoring red flags.

Poll Pressure

The duty of the news, whether through the television, radio, or paper, is to inform the people about important issues and not influence them in their decision making and opinion forming. I understand that this is easier said than done, and that keeping biases and personal opinions out of the public eye is something really difficult to do. The fact that news broadcasts are essentially businesses looking to compete and survive like any other business makes this task an even more arduous one. 

During the past few weeks since declaring his win over Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate for the Presidential election in November, and narrowing the race down, essentially, to two candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain, the press has already begun predicting the outcome of the election. They are doing this based on polls. It has already been discovered that polls can be both misleading and inaccurate, so it is alarming to think that each day the next President of the United States is being predicted and broadcasted based on these erroneous polls. 

The American people can be both irrational and easily influenced. I think that the effect of the daily poll reports and predictions of the victor in the race for president can cause "poll pressure". Hearing the claims of which candidate is more popular and supported by the majority of the American people, can potentially influence and almost brainwash others into which candidate they support based solely on predicted popularity. 

In my opinion, the votes will be tallied soon enough, and an official victor will be announced. Until then, let the American people be swayed and influenced by their own intuition and beliefs and not the "poll pressure" that is presented to them on a daily basis.

Things Unseen

In the article "Bush's America: 100 Percent Al-Qaida Free Since 2001" Ann Coulter expresses her reverence and respect of George Bush and his job as President. She establishes her opinion by focusing on the bad that he has prevented from happening, as opposed to the "bad" that has happened.

The things that have happened throughout his presidency are more evident than those things that have not happened, which ten to become the primary focus for many people when they gauge how well of a job he has done over the past eight years. Coulter focused on the fact that over the past seven years, since the attacks that took place on September 11, 2001, there has yet to be a single terrorist attack on American soil. Many people argue that the decision for war was a bad one and that there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction, but they fail to take notice that something has bee done in order to put a hold on terrorism strikes in the United States.

I found her comparison of the data on deaths in Iraq with deaths in Chicago to be very surprising and unexpected. "For the entire month of May, there were only 19 troop deaths in Iraq. (Last years, five people one average were shot every day in Chicago.)" The comparison does not take away from the seriousness of the deaths of American soldiers, but puts the data in more relatable and understandable terms.

I think that before the American people are quick to judge based on the so called "facts" that are presented on a daily basis, they should thoughtfully consider that sometimes the best way to evaluate someone is by equally considering those things which have happened with those that have not. Which takes precedence and out weighs the other, well thats up to you.

Extremists in America

There seems to be a lot of confusion amongst the American people on how our government actually works and runs. Yes, our nation was created to be a republic form of government by the people for the people, but much of the governing power was left out of our hands, on purpose. The votes we cast are not for candidates themselves, but for electors who will votes for the candidates. 

After reading many articles that have suggested that this system is unfair and faulty, I felt myself beginning to feel the contempt of the Americans crying out for their voice to be heard. Then I read Mary Shaw's commentary, "Why Hilary's extremists must support Barrack Obama" on The Smirking Chimp, and was brought back to the reality of why all power is not left solely in the hands of the American people. 

Shaw suggests that there is a high likely hood that those who whole heartedly support/supported Hilary Clinton and were dead set on her becoming the first woman president would rather jump ship and vote for a Republican candidate, who stands for everything different, than vote for Obama, a candidate who shares many of Hilary's own views. It was hard for me to come to the realization that a group of avid Hilary supporters could so easily abandon everything they stood for in what seems to be some form of retaliation against the system of election.

Reading this emphasized how extremely irrational people can be and revealed how easily they are dictated by their passions. A people this rash and volatile, and they wonder why the Framer's created a system of government that limited their power. 

What's in a name?

After many months, debates, and headlines, Hilary Clinton has pulled out of the race for the presidential election this fall. The possibility of an Obama-Clinton unity ticket has been a hot topic. 

In a CNN article, Carter says unity ticket would be 'worst mistake',former President Jimmy Carter expresses his concern as to why a unity ticket would be not only a bad decision, but the "worst mistake".

Carter suggests "that would just accumulate the negative aspects of both candidates" and would cause negative repercussions as opposed to positive ones. 

It was not Carter's expressed view that caught my attention, but an idea that helped him form those views.  His idea that Obama's middle name could be one of the determining factors in the the way voter's cast their votes. The point is one of validity. I find it hard to grasp that someone would ignore all political issues and candidate's stances and vote solely based on a person's middle name an the negative connotations that come along with it. 

This is just one examples of how detached some of the American people are becoming from the heart of politics and an election that dictates our future as a nation.