Gun Control and the Second Amendment

Sandy Hook Elementary School. Oregon Mall. Aurora movie theater. Wisconsin Sikh temple. Only four of the fifteen US mass shootings that have occurred throughout the year 2012. These indescribable tragedies have captured the attention of millions across the United States and the world, and the United States and the entire world is wondering how can we stop these inexplicable shootings?

The recent Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting has really sparked the debate about gun control laws in the United States. Many people across the country believe that the United State’s allows very easy access to guns, and this easy access calls for trouble. However, the Second Amendment acts as a serious obstacle to the United States gun control legislation.  

Supporters of the Second Amendment believe that the amendment has one interpretation and that is that Americans citizens have the rights to bear arms. They argue that, in contrast with the First Amendment that has very vague language, the Second Amendment has very clear language that the Second Amendment right “shall not be infringed”. Advocates for the Second Amendment believe that gun control laws do not make communities safe. They believe that gun control laws take away guns from righteous citizens and that if criminals want guns, they will get a gun regardless of the laws. 

Because of the recent shootings that have occurred, there have been a lot of people throughout the United States that are calling for a change in gun control laws that would infringe upon the Second Amendment. New York City Mayor Bloomberg is calling for a change in gun control laws. Bloomberg is a proponent of the Fix Gun Checks Act that would make it necessary for a person to get a background check before purchasing a gun license. Bloomberg claims that this act would not take all of the guns off of the street, but it would “ go a long ways in limiting them”. There are many other strategies of gun control, including the act that would forbid sales of semi-automatic weapons. Semi-automatic weapons are very powerful and should not be allowed in homes or for hunting. There are many different proposals that would limit and control guns, however the biggest obstacle that does not allow these proposals to pass is the Second Amendment. 

Do you think the Second Amendment should be infringed upon and new gun control laws should be instated into the nation? Why or why not? How should guns be controlled in the United States that would prevent massacres to occur in the future? 

Fair Trade and Classism

     In late November, a fire broke out in a Bangladeshi sweatshop. This fire, which was caused by criminal negligence on the part of the owner, killed 112 people.  The highest-paid workers at the Tazreen Fashion Factory only made 23 to 26 cents an hour and worked in horrific conditions. Contemplating both this tragedy as well as Robert Pinsky’s “Shirt” has given me a lot to think about. I have never really paid much attention to where the clothes I wear or the food I eat comes from. However, since watching the news and reading “Shirt,” I have been doing a lot of research on the sources of my food and clothing. It has been shocking. During my investigations, I became very interested in the concept of fair trade, how it works, and how it can be related to classism. 

      Fair trade provides certified products that are not made in sweatshops or grown on a factory farm. The goal of fair trade is to help workers create safe working conditions and fair wages. Although fair trade is a great way to assure that the products you are buying are coming from quality working conditions, it can be very expensive for both consumers and producers.
      Because of the higher costs of fair trade, people who earn high salaries are more likely to buy them.  I might buy a Patagonia down jacket for $279 because I appreciate their ethical and environmental policies.  Someone struggling to clothe a family would likely opt for the Faded Glory Jacket for $17.99 at Wal-Mart.  That jacket is made in Bangladesh.  Although Wal-Mart has a no-sweatshop policy, the workers who died at the Tazreen factory were making goods for this retail giant.  The person buying the Wal-Mart jacket undoubtedly does not condone sweatshops but must keep a child warm and is left with a dilemma. 
       Ethically produced goods attract people who are in a higher socioeconomic class because of high prices of these goods. This relationship between ethically produced goods and social class can be characterized as classism.

         Classism is a discriminatory attitude based on distinctions made between social or economic classes. Creating products similar to fair trade that are noticeably more expensive than other products and are more ethically produced creates a clear distinction in what types of consumers these products are attracting. Producing goods that only appeal to certain classes allows classism to perpetuate. How do you think we can stop classism? Do you think that classism is becoming more common because of products like fair trade? Do you think the fact that only those with higher incomes can afford fair trade products will help or hinder the fair trade movement? Why or why not?

The End of the World?

Planet earth collides with another planet. The sun dies and leaves the world in the dark. Global warming erupts and flooding washes away civilization. A nuclear war breaks out. These are only some of the hundreds of December 21st, 2012 apocalypse theories. Well, December 21st and come and gone, and our planet earth remains the same. So, how did this 2012 apocalypse theory come to be, and how did so many people trust the Mayan calendar and believe December 21st would really be the end of the world?

      The Mayan calendar is very different than the calendar that we use today. The Mayan calendar used three different types of calendars, one including the Long Count Calendar. The Long Count Calendar counted the days from a specific starting date that some scientists believe is between August 11th and 13th 3114 BC. This calendar lasted for about 5,139 solar years (www.history.com/topics/2012) and ended on December 21st, 2012.     

          A new Grand Cycle is scheduled to start on December 22nd, however many people across the world believed that that because the first Long Count calendar finished its cycle, the world will end. Will this happen? Many people believe that the world will end on December 21st, although there is information that proves the theory wrong as well as the Mayans,  who believed that the world will not end. So why were there so many people, an astonishing 41% of people across the world, who believe that the world was going to end (Discovery)? 

         A blog post created by Discovery Retreats (link here) states that the most simple and basic reason why people believe these theories is because of their religious beliefs. Many people are very involved with their religion and tied to their religion's belief. However, there is no way that religion can account for 41% of the world that believe the world is going to end in 2012. So what could be other possible reasons? Obviously, the Mayans have been trusted throughout a lot of history, and the fact that their calendar was "ending" resulted in a lot of hype that the world was in fact going to end. A lot of media coverage, especially recently, has been a factor in so many people believing that the world was going to end. From ABC to CNN, there is a lot of coverage of the supposed December 21st apocalypse. The coverage of the apocalypse contributes to the extremely high percentage of people who believed in the apocalypse. 

         So, why do you think so many people believe in the 2012 apocalypse? Do you believe in the 2012 apocalypse? Why or why not?

The Twinkie Controversy

Nearly two weeks ago on November16th, Hostess food brands filed for bankruptcy, requesting permission to close all of its businesses and sell their assets. Hostess food brand was established in 1930 and has created classic American treats that have been around for many decades including Twinkies, Devil Dogs, Snowballs, Coffee Cakes, and Yoddles. However the question is, after so many decades of business, what caused this American company to file for bankruptcy?

One side of this Twinkie controversy claims that the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco and Grain Millers Union caused Hostess's bankruptcy. The makers of these iconic junk foods had to navigate through more than three hundred labor contracts and a walk out earlier this month after Hostess received Bankruptcy court approval to implement a wage cut that was not including in its contract. After Hostess presented a new contract to the unions, which cut salaries across the company by 8% in the first year of the five-year agreement, but then were scheduled to bump up 3% in the next three years and 1%in the final year, union workers rejected the deal and went on strike. (Hostess Brands closing for good). Instead of riding out the strike, Hostess Brand decided to liquidate and on November 16^th Hostess shut down its 33 bakeries and 565 distribution centers and have prepared to fire nearly 18,500 employees. 

However the other side of the Twinkie controversy blames years of greedy management and constant executive changes. Since the 1980's, Hostess has been sold three times, racking up debt and shedding profitable assets. In the past decade, there has been seven different CEO's, and many say this has resulted in an unstable company. Because of the constant money troubles, the company filed for bankruptcy two times in the past decade, in 2004 and 2011. It has also been noted that the current CEO tripled his pay after cutting worker's salary in a previous bankruptcy. Earlier this year, members of the BCTGM Union were well aware that as the company was preparing to file for bankruptcy, the Hostess CEO was awarded a 300 percent raise and at least nine other top executives received massive pay raises even though executives denied the unions their current salaries and implemented wage cuts. 

After 82 years of business, Hostess Brand has gone bankrupt. But what do you think really caused Hostess’s bankruptcy, unions or greed?

Torture: Just or Unjust?

         Recently, our American Studies class has had many discussions about torture-induced confessions. During a class discussion, Jon Burge was mentioned and his story really shocked me. Famous for reportedly torturing more than 200 criminal suspects, Jon Burge is a former Chicago Police Department commander and detective. Throughout his career working for the Chicago Police Department, Burge tortured suspected criminals by allegedly hitting, burning, and even slamming large objects, such as a telephone books, onto their head. According to an article by Opposing Viewpoints, each man under the supervision of Burge was, “subjected to racially motivated physical abuse - including electric shock, mock execution, suffocation with a plastic bag and beating - that caused him to inculpate himself involuntarily in a crime". However, the men that accused Burge of torture were sent to jail and their claims were not looked in to by courts until recently. There has been recent new evidence showing that," torture and physical coercion was a routine and accepted occurrence under the command and supervision of Jon Burge. Now, after many years in prison, these men who claim Burge tortured them are finally getting their change to speak, and evidence shows that they may not have even committed the crimes they are accused of. I believe that using torture to pressure suspects into falsely confessing should never be allowed and people like Jon Burge should be punished for what they have done. I believe that it is not right for someone with an authoritative power, like Jon Burge as a police officer, to torture suspects into confessing. However, others believe that confessions, even if prompted by torture, is always just. 

      Do you think that torture-induced confessions be used in court, even if the result in untrue confessions? Why or why not? Would you rather have guilty criminals walking free or innocent people in jail? Why?

   

Drunk on the Job

Earlier this year, videos recordings surfaced of US defense contractors in Kabul, Afghanistan who appear to be staggeringly drunk and or high on narcotics. The defense contractors are from a private contracting company, Jorge Scientific Corporation, a trusted partner of the US government that designs solutions to the most challenging problems in critical situation. The contractors appear drunk and high, despite a strict zero tolerance of drugs and alcohol by the Department of the Army's general order number one. The general order reads that, "possessing, consuming, introducing, purchasing, selling transferring, or manufacturing alcohol" is prohibited as well as controlled substances and prescription medications (to read more of the actual General Order Number 1 click here).   These videos were sent into ABC News by John Melson and Kenny Smith, two former Jorge employees.  (To watch the video click this link, http://www.tubechop.com/watch/61553, or watch below from :35 seconds to 1:03). Not only are the contractors endangering Jorge employees and US military personnel, but they are also endangering the US mission and American tax dollars.

These US defense contractors in Kabul, Afghanistan are under the US Legacy Program to train Afghan National Police in counter-insurgency efforts, a forty-seven million dollar contract funded by American tax dollars. These videos raise questions about the role of private companies in Afghanistan after US military leaves. Not only is this concerning for the role of private companies in Afghanistan, but also concerning the issue where American tax dollars go.
So, where do our tax dollars really go? How do we know that there are not more of these types of prohibited behaviors going on in other tax-funded operations? After this incident, do you think tax-funded private companies should stay in Afghanistan?

The Third and Final Presidential Debate

cbsnews.com

With only a little more than two weeks until Election Day, the presidential campaign's are heating up. On Monday, President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney will meet for the third and final Presidential Debate in Boca Ration, Florida for a must win televised debate on international affairs. Florida is also important because it is the biggest swing state prize with twenty-nine electoral votes. The third debate proves to be a pivotal one, after Romney landed a much-needed boost after his widely-applauded performance in the first debate and Obama barely edging out Romney in the second debate.
According to a NBC/ Wall Street Journal poll released today, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are in a dead ties, both having likely voters of 47%, which makes the third debate even more important. This time around, the candidates will return to a more traditional formatted debated, similar to the first presidential debate and will focus on the controversial topic of international affairs. Many believe that President Barack Obama has the advantage because he is the incumbent and has ended the war in Iraq, ordered the mission to kill Osama bin Laden, and as claimed by many polls, is trusted more among voters on foreign affairs and policy than Mitt Romney. Monday's The moderator, Bob Schieffer, will also play a big role in the debate because of past moderator's performance. How will Schieffer approach questions?How will Schieffer guide the debate? These are some of the many question people are questioning as the final presidential debate approaches. This debate will be Romney and Obama's best chance to pull ahead, but who will win? How do you think the debate will turn out?

Eleven Years and 2,044 Deaths Later

Eleven years, 2,044 deaths, and almost a half-trillion dollars. This Sunday, October 7th, marks the beginning of the US Military's twelfth year in Afghanistan. The war in Afghanistan started October 7th, 2001 when the United States launched Operation Enduring Freedom, or the War on Terror. The original driving force of the invasion was the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Towers and ending Al Qaeda's base in Afghanistan. Since 2001, the US has accomplished its original goals and has  removed a large portion of Al-Qaeda from Afghanistan and killed Osama Bin Laden. Although the US has accomplished all of its initial goals in Afghanistan, we still remain there.  As many years have passed and military deaths have hit the 2,000 mark, many US citizens are wondering why the US is still there while others have simply forgotten about the war. Earlier this year, President Barack Obama's exit strategy was signed off by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) that calls for an end to combat operations next year and international military force removal, led by the US, by the end of 2014. (CNN) However, 2014 is two years away, which leaves many wondering why the United States is still in Afghanistan after eleven years, thousands of deaths, and billions of dollars.  Many people have their own opinions about the Afghanistan war, so why do you think the US remains in Afghanistan? Should the US continue to have a presence in Afghanistan?

War in Afghanistan Collage

2012 Presidential Debate: Jim Lehrer

This past Wednesday, the presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Barack Obama had their first 2012 Presidential Debate in Denver, Colorado with Jim Lehrer moderating. Jim Lehrer is an American journalist and a former PBS anchor who has been honored with many journalism awards. (Read more background information of Lehrer here) This past presidential debate was his 12th debate as a moderator. However, his moderation of the 2012 debate has received many tough reviews. Even before the Presidential debate ended Wednesday night, the social media Twitter was ablaze with criticism of Lehrer's performance. A review of Lehrer by USA Today says that, "Lehrer lost control, early and often. But just as clearly, he had a goal beyond presiding over a tightly structure debate-- which was to stay out of the way as much as possible and make the candidates run the debate themselves" (To read more of USA Today's review of Jim Lehrer click here). As stated by USA Today, Jim Lehrer was very insistent upon letting the candidates speak and staying out of the flow of the debate. Lehrer even says a moderator should be like a "baseball umpire, get out of the way and let the candidates speak" (The Washington Times). However, many believe this moderating philosophy left the debate wandering from surface point to surface point. So what do you think of Jim Lehrer's performance? If Jim Lehrer were not the moderator, would the debate have played out differently or more focused? Would the candidates had said anything differently or had said anything more?

The Many Projects of Michael Mergen

This past week, our American Studies class embarked on a day filled with adventure in Hyde Park and downtown Chicago. The trip began at Osaka Garden, a Japanese garden, in Hyde Park and continued with a trip to Court Theatere's Jitney play. The day ended with a visit to Colombia College's Museum of Contemporary Photography, which was very captivating. The museum featured the exhibit "Peripheral Views: States of America" which consisted of many diverse photographs that bring to light the issues of class, race, and power in the United States of America.( To read more about the exhibit click here) There were many different photographs ranging from pictures of classic board games like CandyLand to abandoned streets. The artist the intrigued me the most was Michael Mergen and his photographs of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. I thought it was very interesting to see the many different locations and situations of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue across the country and it was even more interesting that the White Houe was not included within the photographs he took.

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Tyron, PA

These photographs prompted me to research more about Michael Mergen, and I was very happy to look at his other photography projects. His other projects Vote, Naturalization, and Deliberate all convey the same themes as 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. These projects take picture of the voting stations, immigration rooms, and jury deliberation rooms around the country to demonstrate the collision of private and public, consumer and citizen and the inappropriate relationship between space and voting. The photographs he takes are very thought provoking and opened my horizons on how different many places are around the United States are. Before this exhibit at the Museum of Contemporary Photography, I never thought about the relationship between voting and personal, private space, government and normal civilization, and the many themes that Michael Mergen brings forward in his photographs.

A Photo from Michael Mergen's project Vote. Early Voting in Las Vegas, NV

]

Eleven Years and Fifty-Two Terrorist Plots Later

      Last Friday, September 14th, only three days after the Eleventh anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, an eighteen year old Adel Daoud drove a green Jeep Cherokee in front of a Chicago bar. In the car was a device that he believed to be a bomb as he walked away into an alley. However, the bomb was inert and had been planted by FBI agents (More details about this attempted terrorist attack click here). This Daoud plot marked the fifty-second terrorist attack since the unforgettable events on September 11^th, 2001. Since these attacks, there have been many security provisions that have restricted everything from sharp objects to no more than three ounces of liquids on planes. These newer and stricter rules have provided travelers and highly populated cities with more security and have captured many terrorist. However, the United States has paid big money for foiling many of these terrorist plots. The United States has spent more than $7.6 trillion on defense and homeland security since September 11th, 2001 and a total of $635.9 billion on total homeland security spending. The money spent on homeland security has proven to be worth it to this day, with no major terrorist attack since 9/11. However, can all of this money spent on security and against terrorism stop every terrorist plot and attack in the future?  

The Great White Hope?

        The beginning of the 20^th century, African American boxer Jack Johnson became the first heavyweight champion. As a result, the fight promoters searched for a “great white hope” who could restore the championship to the whites. According to a Republican GOP political strategist, Republicans are looking for their own “Great White Hope” in this year’s presidential elections. In an article from the New York Magazine, a Republican strategists claims that, "This is the last time anyone will try to do this” (Chait). "This" being the last ever white vote election, which will take place this upcoming November.  A white vote election is the total dependence on white votes to win the the presidential election. Ever since the 1992 presidential election, white voters have declined as a portion of the electorate, causing the 2012 election to be the last white vote election. Recent studies of demographics have shown that Romney needs to win sixty-one percent of the seventy-five percent accounted for white voters, and Romney's camp is focused on winning these votes. However, this is a very tough winning formula and strategy for Romney, leaving him no margin for error. For Barack Obama to win a second term, he must win eighty-percents of minority voters and forty-percent of whites(Brownstein). (To read more about the demographic specific statistics click here). This could be more manageable for Obama because of the more minority potential voters in this election, but only if these minority voters turn out and vote.  

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/images/presidential-vote-by-race.jpg

       Although these demographic statistics allow presidential candidates to form different strategies to win more votes, does it polarize whites and minorities?  Does it push candidates to change the real belief system to come up with a platform that appeals to the target demographic? So, should racial polling data affect politicians’ political platforms?

Where is the Corn?

The delicious smell of a homemade BBQ fills my nose as I grab as much food as I can get my hands on. A cheeseburger, some baked beans, a little salad and fruit….but where is the corn? This past summer, an unusually hot and dry season struck the Midwest and much of the United States, resulting in a drought covering nearly sixty-percent of the US ("U.S Seasonal Drought Outlook." National Weather Service  ). This drought has hit many farmers and their crops very hard, especially corn. According to the National Weather Service, "51 percent of the corn crop was in poor or very poor condition across the 18 primary corn-producing states" (to read more drought statistics click here). The drought has devastated corn crops resulting in a shortage of corn and rising corn prices. For many avid corn eaters,  this has had negative impact on many meals that have been missing this tasty summer staple. However, many scientists are working towards bring farmers drought-tolerant corn seeds. 

Photograph by: JOHN SOMMERS II , REUTERS from Vancouver Sun

        Drought-tolerant corn seeds are a type of genetically modified organisms (GMO's) that could offer protection to many crops from hot and dry summers. The drought tolerant seeds would provide farmers with more security in their crops while also giving consumers more better quality corn crops. However, drought-tolerant seeds are not that simple. Genetically modified organisms use a foreign DNA and insert it inside the original DNA to give the food desirable traits. Some studies of GMO's have shown that the consumption of genetically modified foods has been linked to organ failure  Although these seeds will provide consumers with more corn crop, it will stir debate about the use of genetically modified organisms. The big debate over GMO's will continue if scientists proceed with their quest to perfect the science of drought-tolerant seeds. But will the surplus in corn be worth the risks of consuming genetically modified corn?