tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-79674498779617461102024-02-20T01:52:28.750-08:00On The Move with Mack WorleyOn The Move With Mack Worley discusses politics, news, emergency <br>preparedness, activism, history and other educational topics.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03268999915138930307noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7967449877961746110.post-57650384822806444042016-06-11T00:51:00.001-07:002016-06-12T13:29:21.284-07:00I Don't Want To Fight The Government<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/d0/2e/90/d02e90f95cd14f6effd9ccc6976cde6c.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/d0/2e/90/d02e90f95cd14f6effd9ccc6976cde6c.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>A letter to anyone calling for <span style="color: red;">REVOLUTION!</span></b></div>
<br />
<br />
I don't want to fight the government...<br />
<br />
...but I will stand against anyone who tries to trample on the rights of others or myself. The oath I swore to the Constitution does not expire. I firmly believe that the Bill of Rights is mankind's greatest intellectual achievement.<br />
<br />
The concepts of self-governance, property rights, etc. were completely new ideas a few hundred years ago. The Bill of Rights acknowledged the laws of nature and forbade the government from violating natural rights, because the government's power originates from the people, not from the elite.<br />
<br />
As a result of unleashing the fury of human effort based on incentive, which governments throughout history have repressed, we saw an explosion in technological advancement and millions of people were lifted out of poverty; unlike any system of governance had ever accomplished before.<br />
<br />
In order to protect this human experiment in self-governance, we must do as anyone conducting an experiment would do... Pay attention. We are responsible for being informed, educated and engaged with our government at all levels. If our government is beginning to violate our rights, because we have fallen asleep at the wheel, then how would revolution be the answer to that? We have a completely uninformed population on what freedom really means.<br />
<br />
How likely is it that an uninformed populace will somehow find it's way back to the ideas of self-ownership after a revolution? Do you really want to take that chance? What's more likely to happen will be for the United States to spiral into socialism and then maybe worse (ever heard of fascism?).<br />
<br />
If the Bill of Rights got derailed, the world would go dark. Very dark. It would be like in the Middle Ages, after the fall of Rome, where people could look at giant monuments that were made hundreds of years before and know that people no longer could build like that. Those ideas were lost to the dustbin of history. People could actually look at those monuments and know that the past was better than the present. That, again, is why I am not in favor of revolution.<br />
<br />
We've got to be willing to engage. We've got to get educated and teach others. We must stand together when our government steps out of line and hold their feet to the fire when they do. This is how we preserve liberty, not through revolution. Furthermore, non-violent struggle is vastly more effective at pushing back against oppressive regimes. We ought not risk liberty for a shortcut to our problems.<br />
<br />
Liberty was won by the blood of our forefathers. We have to preserve these ideas, not just for us, but for our posterity. Let us not let it slip away.<br />
<br />
In Liberty,<br />
<br />
Mack Worley IIIAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03268999915138930307noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7967449877961746110.post-22487650144703163782016-05-21T18:57:00.002-07:002016-05-21T19:10:50.996-07:00Rebuttal to Republican Trump Trauma<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="fm339" data-offset-key="7gurm-0-0" style="background-color: white;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: #4b4f56; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; text-align: center; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifcUwlgrqO30J5C0o4Br3hzkttvjLi3L-Rzu93G1Ueywqki8fpIZloDdOghMcI5aecjbXn6E2J56gTyZidxCIaGu59nuvt_zvTL0Dac-v8JWO_nIzVrA2Z5aQhefDOoIXzZ71IzYizQHBI/s1600/13221710_1249222065102847_6196208634949258785_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifcUwlgrqO30J5C0o4Br3hzkttvjLi3L-Rzu93G1Ueywqki8fpIZloDdOghMcI5aecjbXn6E2J56gTyZidxCIaGu59nuvt_zvTL0Dac-v8JWO_nIzVrA2Z5aQhefDOoIXzZ71IzYizQHBI/s320/13221710_1249222065102847_6196208634949258785_n.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="7gurm-0-0" style="color: #4b4f56; direction: ltr; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; position: relative; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<span data-offset-key="7gurm-0-0"><br /></span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="7gurm-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;">
<span style="color: #4b4f56; font-family: "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; white-space: pre-wrap;">I'm getting fed up with the amount of water carrying and bullying that I am seeing from Republicans who say "a vote for a third party is a vote for the democrats." </span></span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="7gurm-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;">
<span style="color: #4b4f56; font-family: "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="7gurm-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;">
<span style="color: #4b4f56; font-family: "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; white-space: pre-wrap;">First, Republicans do not own my vote, I do. They have to earn it and they've failed to do that once again. I'm not voting against my principles for the republican party anymore. I do not see a difference between these parties. Both want to march us off the cliff.</span></span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="7gurm-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;">
<span style="color: #4b4f56; font-family: "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="7gurm-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;">
<span style="color: #4b4f56; font-family: "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; white-space: pre-wrap;">Second, Republicans are overlooking the fact that Donald Trump is pro-big government, pro-tariffs, pro-universal healthcare, pro-amnesty, pro-eminent domain for private financial gain, pro-censorship of speech, pro-buying politicians, pro-employing illegals and more. </span></span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="7gurm-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;">
<span style="color: #4b4f56; font-family: "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="7gurm-0-0" style="direction: ltr; position: relative;">
<span style="color: #4b4f56; font-family: "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; white-space: pre-wrap;">If they want to ignore the obvious and abandon their principles because they are afraid of Hillary, that's fine, but I won't choose between one New York progressive and another New York progressive. </span></span><span style="color: #4b4f56; font-family: "helvetica" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; white-space: pre-wrap;">I just think that its odd for someone to accuse me of helping the democrats by voting for a libertarian while my accuser is voting for a progressive.
How do you expect to win if you never vote for your own ideology? Strategic Voting is planning to fail.
#NeverTrump #NeverHillary #AlwaysConstitution #Libertarian</span></div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03268999915138930307noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7967449877961746110.post-81245883330753530132016-04-14T20:01:00.004-07:002016-04-14T20:01:51.742-07:00Say NO to Plastic Bag Bans!<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2011/10/cj1c0d.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2011/10/cj1c0d.jpg" height="235" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">It is true that manufacturing "lightweight plastic bags consumes about 4.5 times more energy in its manufacture than reusable green bags" (NTEPA, n.d., para. 7); however, that is only part of the picture. According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, "traditional plastic bags recover the largest percentage of energy. They also leave behind the smallest amount of municipal solid waste" (Villarrea, 2012, para. 4). In contrast, paper bags produce the most waste and reusable shopping bags are not without their problems as well.</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">According to a University of Arizona and Loma Linda University study conducted in 2011, "only 3% of shoppers with multi-use bags said they regularly washed them. The same study found bacteria in 99% of bags tested; half carried coliform bacteria while 8% carried E. coli, an indicator of fecal contamination" (Newkirk, 2014, para. 4), which can obviously be health hazard. This situation is exacerbated further when we consider that many shopping bags remain in hot cars during summer days where the bags act as an incubator for nasty bacteria left behind from raw meats.</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">Additionally, we have already seen the economic toll that plastic bag bans cause. A study conducted by the National Center for Policy Analysis discovered that in Los Angeles County "commerce in incorporated businesses has been dealt a significant blow in the year following the bag ban" (CAPITOL CONFIDENTIAL, 2012, para. 3). We have even seen a spike in unemployment numbers in places that have enacted plastic bag bans.</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">Unfortunately, recycling plastic bags right now can be troublesome, because "at some facilities, plastic bags snarl the conveyer belts" (Turk & Bensel, 2014, Ch. 9.5), but as technology progresses that may not be the case. Recycling technology is constantly improving and this circumstance may be due for a change. It's also true that plastic bags can harm animals if improperly disposed of, but that is the case with many waste products and the environmental impact of plastic bags is minimal.</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">If I were in charge, in order to deal with this problem I would encourage entrepreneurs to invest in new recycling technology that can help us process plastic bags better. In the meantime, I would make the case for compostable plastic bags, which I believe to be a good alternative to traditional bags. They are just as convenient for shoppers, plus they biodegrade just like food waste. However, I would not, under any circumstance, enforce a bag ban by decree. I would leave these decisions where they should be left, which is between the consumer and the business. If people don't want to use plastic bags because of concerns about the environment, then I suspect that they will not use them. Either way, I don't believe it is wise policy to interfere with the free market, especially when it will be "harmful to local economies and not environmentally justified" (CAPITOL CONFIDENTIAL, 2012, para. 11).</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">References:</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">CAPITOL CONFIDENTIAL. (2012). Study: Plastic Bag Bans Have Harsh Economic, Environmental Impact - Breitbart. Retrieved from http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2012/08/18/new-study-details-harsh-economic-and-environmental-impact-of-plastic-bag-bans/</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">Newkirk, B. (2014). Eww, reusable grocery bags' germs can make you sick. Retrieved April 14, 2016, from http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/06/reusable-grocery-bag-germs/4341739/</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">NTEPA. (n.d.). Environmental Impacts. Retrieved April 14, 2016, from http://www.ntepa.nt.gov.au/waste-pollution/plastic-bag-ban/enviroimpacts</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">Turk, J., & Bensel, T. (2014). Contemporary environmental issues (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">Villarrea, P. (2012). A Survey on the Economic Effects of Los Angeles County's Plastic Bag Ban. Retrieved April 14, 2016, from http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st340?pg=4</span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03268999915138930307noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7967449877961746110.post-46005698127071415282016-04-07T20:01:00.002-07:002016-04-07T20:07:20.443-07:00Climate Change & Data Manipulation<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVeyU8l7oJlZ_SRa6q8fF9ffeq9GofnajMbnFf1qHVjOYhC_0LurBBz7yPV_l0KN1gJRcH_OSC9GmPB0h-FFRGwNRVLlB95Ns2gx4bgm4cwjJGZEVrQhkYXvYuPJ5hXvNFQ8hqlDWyrpDt/s1600/climate-change_1509200c.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVeyU8l7oJlZ_SRa6q8fF9ffeq9GofnajMbnFf1qHVjOYhC_0LurBBz7yPV_l0KN1gJRcH_OSC9GmPB0h-FFRGwNRVLlB95Ns2gx4bgm4cwjJGZEVrQhkYXvYuPJ5hXvNFQ8hqlDWyrpDt/s320/climate-change_1509200c.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;"><b><u>Climate Change & Data Manipulation</u></b></span></div>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">What law can we pass that can change the weather? To think that our laws have this power is very egotistical of us. The evidence that climate change is man made is based on the theory that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is causing the Earth's temperature to rise by trapping heat; however, there is no working formula that exists that can tell us how many parts per million of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere will increase the Earth's temperature by one point. This is because they do not know and are apparently taking some rather large logical leaps that we are just expected to go along with.</span><br />
<br style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">The theory of man made climate change stands in direct opposition to the scientific method. Even though "95 percent of climate models predicting global temperature rises have been wrong" (Bastasch, 2014, para. 1) and the data is later altered to meet predictions, we are still expected to believe that, on this issue, the science is settled, which is clearly not the case. Additionally, we now have evidence that the US government has engaged in "wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record... This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time" (Booker, 2015, para. 8). Furthermore, proponents of man made climate change continue to get caught misrepresenting how many scientists actually believe that human behavior is the cause of climate change. Their latest claim is that "ninety-seven percent of scientists concur and agree that there is global warming and anthropogenic impact" (Tuttle, 2015, para. 1); however, these numbers are being manipulated to make it appear as though there is a consensus on this issue when there is not. </span><br />
<br style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">According to Vladimir Putin's (The President of Russia) former senior economic adviser, Andrey Illarionov, "We found that, while climate change does exist, it is cyclical, and the anthropogenic role is very limited... the evidence presented for the need to ‘fight’ global warming was rather unfounded" (Bastasch, 2015, para. 6).</span><br />
<br style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">So, what specific policies can the US government enact to reduce its impact on global climate change? They can encourage objective research without a political bias. They can quit manipulating climate data and misrepresenting how many people in the scientific community support the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Other than that, the US government has no business trying to pass laws that would stifle economic growth, increase taxes, massively increase the role of government, redistribute American wealth around the world and change our very way of life -- all in an effort to control the weather and because of a theory that has yet to be proven.</span><br />
<br style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">References:</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">Bastasch, M. (2014). Report: 95 percent of global warming models are wrong. Retrieved from http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/11/report-95-percent-of-global-warming-models-are-wrong/</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">Bastasch, M. (2015). Guess What Vladimir Putin Thinks About Global Warming. Retrieved from http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/29/russias-putin-says-global-warming-is-a-fraud/</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">Booker, C. (2015). The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">Tuttle, I. (2015). The 97 Percent Solution. Retrieved from http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle</span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03268999915138930307noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7967449877961746110.post-22186247101346669122015-05-21T20:33:00.002-07:002015-05-21T20:33:20.706-07:00The Feminization of Poverty<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCeu2IUN9LDzoIVj_jhdcGkSw0uY-IIJ8MytNViVLsw8ND9dCPn4oZuIIicktpsJzG87GS6HhLStnufOd4rnqzOHAdGCh5qryrfPkUhT2B7HhMdhdFll8sJJhkpd2TDUAe1N98tL7-RQVH/s1600/140924_panhandle_big.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="179" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCeu2IUN9LDzoIVj_jhdcGkSw0uY-IIJ8MytNViVLsw8ND9dCPn4oZuIIicktpsJzG87GS6HhLStnufOd4rnqzOHAdGCh5qryrfPkUhT2B7HhMdhdFll8sJJhkpd2TDUAe1N98tL7-RQVH/s320/140924_panhandle_big.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Hello Mack Pack!<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I just wanted to share a post with you from a discussion group in class that I'm taking in college. Let me know what you think!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
------</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">Hello class! This week I chose to discuss option A: the feminization of poverty. The author did not specifically say what they meant by that phrase, so I can only infer what they meant based on on the phrase itself and the paragraphs that followed. Based on what I read, I think they meant that poverty is becoming more and more of a female issue. What I mean by that is the female population below the poverty line is growing at a rate faster than any other segment of the population. As a result, poverty is becoming feminized. According to our book: "over 55% of all people living in poverty in the United States were female" (Crapo, 2013, Ch. 9.4), which only proves the point that poverty is an issue that mostly affects women. </span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">The cause of this very likely due to the fact that mothers tend to get custody of children in divorces/separations resulting in a single parent household led by a woman. There are many other factors at play here, but as far as I can tell, this appears to be a major factor in the rate of poverty among women. Some other issues that may exacerbate the financial troubles of females is that women may choose to take time off of work to birth and raise children, which might stifle their income. Additionally, many single mothers become dependent on the public welfare system, causing them to avoid increasing their income from working because they may lose out on one or more social service programs if their income raises. This situation can cause individuals to become permanent impoverished and fearful that they will lose their benefits. </span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">These serious problems are, in my humble opinion, a result of our growing welfare state that continues to keep able bodied Americans in a perpetual state of poverty. I believe some people need help and we should help them; however, I have always liked a quote from Ben Franklin when discussing charity: </span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;" /><blockquote style="background-color: white; border: none; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;">
"I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." (Franklin, n.d.)</blockquote>
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">Reference:</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">Crapo, R. H. (2013). Cultural anthropology[Electronic version]. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">Franklin, B. (n.d.). A quote by Benjamin Franklin. Retrieved May 22, 2015, from http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/23892-i-am-for-doing-good-to-the-poor-but-i-think</span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03268999915138930307noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7967449877961746110.post-86350020581777835422015-04-21T22:45:00.001-07:002015-04-21T22:53:08.495-07:00Alternatives to Military Force: The Fabian Strategy<div align="center" class="xmsonormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzWQAJIuuhAKz4jebn47ygmx17KugoUr81yX2Xye97-qZEDwQ_GVa6qyNaehQrcIT5VOqHZulAaTRLTRw4C5YZjCREc0k0WO1Fm3b2rIK1V8vRQhzmaqmWFxHOOtXO4hbiE-jMq-AafOW3/s1600/86.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="line-height: 200%; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzWQAJIuuhAKz4jebn47ygmx17KugoUr81yX2Xye97-qZEDwQ_GVa6qyNaehQrcIT5VOqHZulAaTRLTRw4C5YZjCREc0k0WO1Fm3b2rIK1V8vRQhzmaqmWFxHOOtXO4hbiE-jMq-AafOW3/s1600/86.jpg" height="113" width="320" /></a></div>
<h3 style="line-height: 200%; text-align: center;">
<span style="line-height: 200%;"><u>Alternatives to Military Force: The Fabian Strategy</u></span></h3>
<div align="center" class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: center;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: left;">
<span style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;"> What is the purpose of war? According to Carl von Clausewitz,
author of the book </span><i style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;">On War</i><span style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: 0.5in;">, the
institution of war, itself, is a political tool and a means to political ends
(Clausewitz, 2012). In other words, war is a tool that societies use to
accomplish political goals. For example, in the concept of total war, the objective
is to destroy the enemy by any means possible, but that may lead to mass
causalities inflicted upon civilian populations, which is why civilized
societies avoid conducting warfare is this manner. The purpose of conflict in
modern times has shifted to preventing the loss of life and protecting national
interests; however, tactics developed and implemented must adapt to the current
threats in order to be effective at accomplishing the desired outcome. There is
a common saying in the military that “generals always prepare to fight the last
war” and this means that, all too often, generals do not change their tactics
when entering a new and different style of warfare, usually to their detriment.
In relation to the War on Terror, military force abroad is the most commonly
accepted way to prevent terrorism; however, there are alternatives, which may
be more effective at keeping American interests safe and deterring threats to
the homeland, if implemented properly.</span></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: .5in;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: .5in;">
It is important to note that there are many alternatives to
armed conflict or military force. Some of these alternatives are more effective
than others and usually their effectiveness is dependent upon the desired
outcome and the threat faced. We’ve all heard the old saying, “there is more
than one way to skin a cat.” In terms reaching political goals, this old adage
is true; however, even though some tactics may eventually accomplish the desired
task, there may be other tactics that are much more effective and less costly.
For example, some alternatives to military force are non-violent struggle,
heart and mind campaigns and economic sanctions.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: .5in;">
Concerning the threat of terrorism, the above mentioned
alternatives to military force are largely ineffective at producing a desirable
outcome. A non-violent struggle is better suited for targeting large regimes
and would likely not be very effective at combating terrorism. Regarding the
use of a hearts and minds campaign, this could produce results if it managed to
win over a local population that was on the fence about what side of a conflict
to support; however, when dealing with radical terrorists, it is unlikely that
a public relations campaign will have much effect on their resolve. Radical
terrorists have likely already made up their minds and will be less susceptible
to this kind of action. Economic sanctions are essentially useless when
combating the threat of terrorism, because sanctions are meant to economically
punish nations. Unless sanctions are being used to target state sponsors of
terrorism, they are not an option, and even in this case they have major
limitations. With this in mind, responses to threats must be catered to each
specific threat and strategy must be developed to reach the desired objectives.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: .5in;">
National security threats are ever changing; terrorist
continue to develop new tactics and it is becoming more difficult to respond
effectively to the threat they pose via military force than it used to be.
According to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson there are
individuals living in the United States with connections to the Islamic State
who wish to commit acts of terror on US soil (Richter, 2015, para. 1). This
information is even more concerning when combined with the fact that there were
"445,000 illegal entries into the United States across our southern border
in Fiscal Year 2010. The Border Patrol has reported that, out of those 445,000,
about 45,000 are immigrants coming from countries other than Mexico"
(Lanham, 2011, para. 4). In today's world, it would seem unwise to fight wars
abroad, at the cost of American blood and fortune, while leaving the homeland
completely vulnerable to attack. If this many illegal entries can be conducted
in a single year, how difficult would it be for a terrorist to come to America?
In addition to that, how difficult would it be for them to bring a weapon of
mass destruction with them? Out of the more than 100 or so nations that these
immigrants originate from, at least four are state sponsors of terrorism
(Lanham, 2011, para. 4).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: .5in;">
The threats that America faces at home are real and
legitimate. The urgency to secure the border has never been more critical to
national security than it is right now. In a speech given by John McCain on
foreign policy and national security in 1998, he said, “Proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction is probably the most serious international problem
confronting America's leaders” (McCain, 1998, para. 16). Though his speech may
be a bit dated, this point is still extremely relevant. As more governments
gain access to weapons of mass destruction (WMD) the risk that one of these
weapons will fall into terrorist hands grows exponentially. That risk is
aggregated even more with that fact that some of these governments trying to
obtain WMDs are state sponsors of terrorism. For example, “Iran has been deemed
as a state sponsor of terrorism since January 19, 1984 by the US Department of
State” (State Sponsors of Terrorism, 2015) and has been actively pursuing
nuclear technology. Though they lack a delivery method such as intercontinental
ballistic missiles, they can easily use the insecurity of America’s borders to
sneak a weapon capable of producing a nuclear yield into the country. The
effects of such an attack on US soil would be devastating.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: .5in;">
Those in favor of the War on Terror suggest that it is
better for America to combat terrorism overseas than it is for the nation to
combat it at home. This school of thought is appealing, especially on an
emotional level, as a citizen living in the homeland; however, it is a
generalization about the nature of conflict and does not account for the ever
evolving landscape of the modern battlefield. As a civilized society, America
abides by certain rules of war. Those rules limit the kind of military response
that can/should be conducted against terrorism. For example, if a known terror
cell is operating in a specific city, America cannot simply carpet bomb the
entire city, because there will certainly be many civilian causalities.
Terrorist know this limitation and they use it to their advantage. Combat in
Iraq and Afghanistan has become an unconventional guerilla war. Insurgents hide
in plain sight and use the War on Terror as a recruiting tool, their
organizations gain legitimacy and popularity from every battle, and they
succeed in spreading terror when their attacks on the American military are
reported on in news cycles around the world. Terrorists do not have rules
limiting the kind of warfare they can conduct, so fighting them in this manner
plays to their advantage. Additionally, conducting warfare overseas does
nothing to eliminate threats to American interests at home. Simply put, it just
creates another front to fight and/or get attack on.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: .5in;">
When determining what strategy to use against an enemy, the
very first task is to determine exactly what objectives one wishes to
accomplish. As a civilized society, America purports to conduct war as a means
to prevent human suffering, loss of life and to protect its national interests.
Different threats will require different strategies in order to accomplish
those objectives; however, when discussing with the threat that America faces
due to terrorism one thing is clear: America is failing to accomplish these
goals. As a result of this failure terrorism is on the rise, the Middle East
has been destabilized, and the threats to American interests from terrorists
are at, what appears to be, an all-time high.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: .5in;">
With that said, how exactly has War on Terror failed to
accomplish these goals? First, it has failed to prevent the loss of life and is
actually responsible for causing far greater suffering, death and destruction
than terrorists could have ever hoped to inflict themselves. For example, on
September 11th, 2001, "2,792 Americans were killed in the largest terror
attack in U.S. history" (Powers, n.d., para. 18). According to the Global
Terrorism Database, since 2003, there have been 25 American deaths from terror
attacks on US soil (Global Terrorism Database, 2015). Conversely, "4,683
brave Americans have died in Iraq and Afghanistan since the launch of Operation
Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan) on October 7, 2001 and Operation Iraqi Freedom,
which began with the invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003" (Powers, n.d.
para. 2). Additionally, in a study conducted by “university researchers in the
United States, Canada and Baghdad in cooperation with the Iraqi Ministry of
Health, approximately 500,000 people have died, not only from violent deaths,
but other avoidable deaths linked to the invasion, insurgencies and subsequent
social breakdown since the Iraqi invasion began in 2003” (Gordts, 2014, para.
3).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: .5in;">
Secondly, the War on Terror has not made the American
homeland any safer from terrorist threats and it has significantly drained
American coffers. As of March 2015, "the United States has spent
approximately $1.6 trillion fighting the War on Terror" (Cost of National
Security, 2015). That money could have been used to secure the border and
upgrade the power infrastructure to withstand an electromagnetic pulse (EMP),
which is a side effect of a nuclear yield or dirty bomb and would devastate the
country. Congressional studies estimate "that two-thirds of the [U.S.] population
would die of starvation, disease, exposure or violence related to social
breakdown in the first twelve months alone" after an EMP terror attack (Register,
2015, para. 4).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%;">
Fortunately, there are options that
have yet to be attempted in order to accomplish the goals of saving lives and
securing American interests. One of those options is securing the nation’s
borders. Based off information provided in HR 1299, the Secure Border Act, “only
thirty-two percent of America’s northern border and forty-four percent of its
southwest border are under operational control or have acceptable levels of
security” (Miller's legislation focuses on development of comprehensive plan
for border security, 2012). A second option of combating that threats that terrorism
poses and has yet to be attempted is hardening the American power grid to
withstand electromagnetic pulses. Doing this action will eliminate the threat
that an EMP poses to two-thirds of the American population, preventing
countless American deaths, immense suffering and securing national interests.
Lastly, once the border is secured, increased scrutiny should be conducted on
immigrants attempting to come into America as well as on those who are already
here on temporary visas. Controlling who is allowed to come into the country is
a key component of national security. All of these endeavors will be costly,
but it is doubtful that it will be as costly as a never-ending War on Terror.
Each of these actions will bear real and verifiable fruit, which Americans will
continue to reap for generations.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%;">
A tactic such as this has actually
been used before throughout history. It was first used in ancient Rome during
the Second Punic War to outlast and overcome a Cartheginian threat to the
homeland. It was named the Fabian Strategy, after its creator Quintus Fabius
Maximus. The Roman army had suffered great losses at the hands of Carthage’s
most skillful general, Hannibal, and it had become clear that direct
confrontation would not be the most efficient way to end the conflict. Fabius “advocated
a policy of attrition and delay - to dog Hannibal round Italy, but never engage
him. This policy turned out to be very successful, frustrating Hannibal at
every turn and preventing him landing a knock-out blow” (Jones, 1998, para 1). The
Fabian Strategy called for “a campaign that conserves strength by keeping clear
of battles, relying instead on harassing and exhausting the enemy through
attrition, steadily undermining morale” (Freedmen, 2003, para 3). The Romans
harvested their crops, lit fire to their fields and withdrew to their walled
cities. Due to the fact that Hannibal lacked to proper siege equipment to take
on a Roman city, his army eventually ran out of supplies and he was forced to
return to Carthage. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: .5in;">
If one were to draw parallels from the Second Punic War to
the War on Terror, it would be clear that this same strategy could be used to
undermine the war fighting capability of terrorist organizations who wish to do
harm to the United States. It does not make logical sense to continue fighting
an enemy on their own terms, while also ignoring the serious threats caused by
a wide open border. The reason America is at war with terrorists overseas is
because the homeland was attacked. With that in mind, doesn’t it make more
sense to shore up defenses at home in order to prevent another attack, rather
than to create another battle front to be attack on?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: .5in;">
As mentioned before, no strategy is perfect for every
situation and care must be taken to adopt the right strategy for the
circumstance; this strategy is no different and does have its limitations. One
major limitation of adopting a Fabian Strategy in the War on Terror is that
America would be forced to take a less proactive approach regarding military
intervention in the Middle East. This could result in problems for America’s
allies and a loss of control in the area. Additionally, it is possible that rival
countries, such as Russia, could obtain a foothold in the Middle East if
America were to abandon the region entirely, but is that really a problem?
Russia has already tried invading Afghanistan once and it didn’t work out very
well for them. Even if they were able to stabilize the region and gain control,
they would simply be accomplishing the same objectives that America claims to
seek for the Middle East. The real question the American people need to ask
themselves is, with $17 trillion of national debt, can they afford to be the
world’s police?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%;">
According to Sun Tzu, author of <i>The Art of War</i> and arguably the greatest
general of all time, “to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme
excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance
without fighting” (Tzu, 2003, Ch. 3, para 2). Military force is not always the
most effective answer to national security threats. Regarding the War on
Terror, by bringing the war to the terrorists (fighting them abroad) America
has made it easier for its enemies to inflict casualties. In this case, a
better alternative to military force would be to deny terrorists the ability to
inflict casualties by securing American interests. This can be done through
tighter immigration screening processes, securing the United States border and
upgrading the power grid to withstand an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack.
The cost of this endeavor will be significant; however, it can be paid for by
diverting the budget spent on the War on Terror abroad. By choosing to deny
terrorists the ability to inflict casualties, instead of making it easier for
them, lives will be spared and that is the ultimate goal of conflict in a
civilized society.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%;">
<br /></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%;">
<o:p> </o:p><span style="line-height: 200%;">References:</span></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%;">
Clausewitz,
C. (2012). On War. Champaign, Ill.: CreateSpace Independent <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%; margin-left: .5in;">
Publishing Platform.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%;">
Cost of
National Security. (2015). Retrieved from <a href="https://www.nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/">https://www.nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%;">
Freedman,
L. (2003, Mar 28). Patience as well as power is the key to coalition victory.
The <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%; margin-left: .5in;">
Times Retrieved from <a href="http://search.proquest.com/docview/318834574?accountid=32521">http://search.proquest.com/docview/318834574?accountid=32521</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%;">
Global
Terrorism Database. (2015). Retrieved from <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%; margin-left: .5in;">
<a href="http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Results.aspx?chart=fatalities&casualties_type=f&casualties_max=&start_yearonly=1970&end_yearonly=2010&dtp2=all&country=217">http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Results.aspx?chart=fatalities&casualties_type=f&casualties_max=&start_yearonly=1970&end_yearonly=2010&dtp2=all&country=217</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%;">
Gordts, E.
(2014, January 1). Iraq death toll reaches 500,000 since start of U.S.-led
invasion, new <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%; margin-left: .5in;">
study says. Retrieved from <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/15/iraq-death-toll_n_4102855.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/15/iraq-death-toll_n_4102855.html</a><span class="MsoHyperlink"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%;">
Jones, P.
(1998, Jun 27). Ancient & modern. The Spectator, 280, 14. Retrieved from <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%; margin-left: .5in;">
<a href="http://search.proquest.com/docview/201224007?accountid=32521">http://search.proquest.com/docview/201224007?accountid=32521</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%;">
McCain, J.
(1998). Foreign policy and national security: Terrorism and american values.
Vital <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%; margin-left: .5in;">
Speeches of the Day, 65(1), 4-7. Retrieved from <a href="http://search.proquest.com/docview/221545145?accountid=32521">http://search.proquest.com/docview/221545145?accountid=32521</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%;">
Miller's
legislation focuses on development of comprehensive plan for border security.
(2012). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%; margin-left: .5in;">
Lanham: Federal Information & News Dispatch, Inc.
Retrieved from <a href="http://search.proquest.com/docview/1017854534?accountid=32521">http://search.proquest.com/docview/1017854534?accountid=32521</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%;">
Obama
intelligence chief: Porous southern border poses national security threat.
(2011). Lanham: <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%; margin-left: .5in;">
Federal Information & News Dispatch, Inc. Retrieved
from <a href="http://search.proquest.com/docview/856457967?accountid=32521">http://search.proquest.com/docview/856457967?accountid=32521</a><span class="MsoHyperlink"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%;">
Powers, R.
(n.d.). Iraq and Afghanistan casualty statistics. Retrieved March 27, 2015,
from <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%; margin-left: .5in;">
<a href="http://usmilitary.about.com/od/terrorism/a/iraqdeath1000.htm">http://usmilitary.about.com/od/terrorism/a/iraqdeath1000.htm</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%;">
Register,
C. (2015, April 1). Former FERC Chief Jon Wellinghoff speaks out on grid
security and <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%; margin-left: .5in;">
distributed generation. Retrieved from <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/chipregister1/2015/02/03/former-ferc-chief-jon-wellinghoff-speaks-out-on-grid-security-and-distributed-generation/">http://www.forbes.com/sites/chipregister1/2015/02/03/former-ferc-chief-jon-wellinghoff-speaks-out-on-grid-security-and-distributed-generation/</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%;">
Richter, G.
(2015, February 8). Homeland Security Chief Johnson: Terrorist sleeper cells in
US <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%; margin-left: .5in;">
now. Retrieved from <a href="http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/jeh-johnson-homeland-security-chief/2015/02/08/id/623459/">http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/jeh-johnson-homeland-security-chief/2015/02/08/id/623459/</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%;">
State
Sponsors of Terrorism. (n.d.). Retrieved from <a href="http://www.state.gov/j/ct/list/c14151.htm">http://www.state.gov/j/ct/list/c14151.htm</a><span class="MsoHyperlink"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%;">
Tzu, S.,
& Giles, L. (2003). Attack By Stratagem. In The Art of War. New York, NY:
Barnes & <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%; margin-left: .5in;">
Noble Books.</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03268999915138930307noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7967449877961746110.post-732559057316691582015-04-20T01:28:00.001-07:002015-04-20T01:30:37.703-07:00Mack's Appearance on The Johnny Rocket Launchpad: Episode #53<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="270" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/LoSlS4OPe4I" width="480"></iframe></div>
<br />
This is Part 1 of 3 from my guest appearance on "The Johnny Rocket Launchpad." If you haven't already subscribed to their channel, please do so here: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGXqsYZRIjem3SaP1F8yIfw">https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGXqsYZRIjem3SaP1F8yIfw</a><br />
<br />
Johnny Rocket Launchpad Episode Description:<br />
This week we talk about,"The Great American Experiment" The Constitution! This week, we welcome Mack Worley III, the host of: "On The Move Show" . We talk about: the Early History of The United States, the Founders Intent, Judicial Review, Executive Powers, The Second Amendment, and Common Core.<br />
<br />
Mack is a retired United States Air Force veteran, a YouTube channel operator, a Political Talk Show Host of "On The Move Show", an activists, a blogger, a prep-per, a Conservative Libertarian, a patriot and a husband.<br />
<br />
According to Mack, he is just a normal guy. He is a full time student, which keeps him very busy during the week. At night and during weekend he operates a YouTube channel (http://www.youtube.com/onthemoveshow) and a podcast on Spreaker.<br />
<br />
He wants to be clear, He doesn't want to be anyone's leader. He hopes to inspire people to stand up for their rights and become their own leaders. He would consider it a huge success if he managed to inspire one person to start a YouTube channel and do what he is doing, only better! He started his YouTube channel and Podcast, because he can no longer remain silent or disengaged from US and global politics anymore. Everyday he sees our freedoms under attack and he is afraid for our country. He is afraid he will look back and wish that he had at least tried to do something. He is afraid that one day he will wake up and no longer recognize our country. He is afraid that he will be the last generation to enjoy the freedoms so many have fought and died for. He loves his country and he would bleed on the flag to make sure those stripes stay red!<br />
<br />
Our Band of the week : Klover Jane<br />
<br />
Klover Jane grabs you by the shirt and roars into your soul. They’re an adrenaline-blast of pure Rock-N-Roll; with mouth watering guitar riff’s, a bone-invading rhythm and the lyrical juice of unapologetic truth and smooth wail of the vocals.<br />
<br />
The band returns in 2015 with their unique brand of 100% American Rock n' Roll and are set to take the summer concert stage by storm. Armed with the new CD 'Sacred' released through the Mental Itch Music Group on Dec 2nd 2014 , KLOVER JANE is back to rock for the fans! Don't miss out on a single minute of the action. And stay current with everything KLOVER JANE at www.kloverjane.netAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03268999915138930307noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7967449877961746110.post-65974963989484416432015-02-24T23:50:00.000-08:002015-02-24T23:50:29.092-08:00Petition: Stop The FCC From Taking Over The Internet! Say NO!!!<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://d3nts9ldz687bn.cloudfront.net/2416.5419-220.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://d3nts9ldz687bn.cloudfront.net/2416.5419-220.png" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Mack Pack,<br />
<br />
This is a call to arms! Net neutrality is coming and it will change the face of the internet, for the worse, forever. Our government is essentially trying to nationalize the internet as a public utility and take it over. This does not mean the internet will be free, it means it will be under the control of the government. It will also make our Internet speeds as slow as in Europe (<a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obamas-regs-will-make-internet-slow-as-in-europe-warn-fcc-fec-commissioners/article/2560567" target="_blank">Bedard</a>). Those are two very BIG reasons to say no!<br />
<br />
Sign the petition to stop Net Neutrality:<br />
<a href="http://action.politicalmedia.com/17314/constitutionally-say-no-to-fcc-internet-takeover/?ifr=820">http://action.politicalmedia.com/17314/constitutionally-say-no-to-fcc-internet-takeover/?ifr=820</a><br />
<br />
We don't have much time left either. They are about to vote on this thing on Friday! What makes matters worse is we can't even see what they are voting on until AFTER they vote on it!<br />
<br />
The government is not good at providing services. Just look at the Department of Motor Vehicles, the Post Office, Social Security and Obamacare. Do you really want to trust the United States government to not only provide you with excellent internet speeds, but to not use their newly found power to crush any descent. They did it with the IRS! This is usurpation of power!<br />
<br />
Please sign the petition:<br />
<a href="http://action.politicalmedia.com/17314/constitutionally-say-no-to-fcc-internet-takeover/?ifr=820">http://action.politicalmedia.com/17314/constitutionally-say-no-to-fcc-internet-takeover/?ifr=820</a><br />
<br />
Don't allow the government to destroy the first amendment by allowing them to control speech on the internet as they do on the radio! Will they suddenly start deciding who's opinions matter and who's don't? Will they start telling us bloggers don't qualify for "freedom of the press" rights? We all of course have this absolute right and it doesn't belong to "the media."<br />
<br />
In Liberty,<br />
<br />
Mack Worley III<br />
<br />
Sources:<br />
Bedard, P. (2015). Obama's regs will make Internet slow as in Europe, warn FCC, FEC commissioners | WashingtonExaminer.com. Retrieved February 25, 2015, from <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obamas-regs-will-make-internet-slow-as-in-europe-warn-fcc-fec-commissioners/article/2560567">http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obamas-regs-will-make-internet-slow-as-in-europe-warn-fcc-fec-commissioners/article/2560567</a>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03268999915138930307noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7967449877961746110.post-36761728585639855172015-02-06T14:27:00.001-08:002015-02-06T14:29:54.547-08:00CALL TO ACTION: Sheriff Richard Mack Needs Our Help!<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_acDmAueO0boHIewtzrff4Vq5rTOiN0AK4p8XL-jlMzjMQGionNXT4R7fh-AX0okNUxqIb5lEYdhX7KC7Q1q1YmVXsjIgacwdhLKb61CERsqXRj6iU3iaeNf6GOFioYQvhNpuaDKP6-H1/s1600/3104755_1422324059.1263_funddescription.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_acDmAueO0boHIewtzrff4Vq5rTOiN0AK4p8XL-jlMzjMQGionNXT4R7fh-AX0okNUxqIb5lEYdhX7KC7Q1q1YmVXsjIgacwdhLKb61CERsqXRj6iU3iaeNf6GOFioYQvhNpuaDKP6-H1/s1600/3104755_1422324059.1263_funddescription.jpg" height="213" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Mack Pack,<br />
<br />
This is a call to action! Many of you know Sheriff Richard Mack. We were fortunate enough to have him join us on our podcast in the past. Well, I'll get right to it, Sheriff Mack needs our help. He had a heart attack in January and he does not have health insurance. As you can imagine the bills are piling up. Here is a link to an article that has the whole story: <a href="http://oathkeepers.org/oktester/sheriff-mack-recovering-from-heart-attack-prayers-and-help-requested/">http://oathkeepers.org/oktester/sheriff-mack-recovering-from-heart-attack-prayers-and-help-requested/</a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvQKetAPrT5JudSoU366o45QHyT7wPA6f8wgl3L3SvwQMOWz5GjX9fGiCzDQxnlYMVVxySgY4XFXmtVGQMPQzDSL7wQ853YjwhmWABurxHXUoQDkOCWVt8pkK0b9M1CTDHpbXTd_VLonAc/s1600/3104755_1422051392.3745.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvQKetAPrT5JudSoU366o45QHyT7wPA6f8wgl3L3SvwQMOWz5GjX9fGiCzDQxnlYMVVxySgY4XFXmtVGQMPQzDSL7wQ853YjwhmWABurxHXUoQDkOCWVt8pkK0b9M1CTDHpbXTd_VLonAc/s1600/3104755_1422051392.3745.jpg" height="213" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
If you want to donate to help Sheriff Mack there are several ways to do that:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>You can go to <a href="http://www.gofundme.com/helpsheriffmack">http://www.gofundme.com/helpsheriffmack</a></li>
</ul>
<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>You can deposit directly to his bank account</li>
<ul>
<li>Bank: Wells Fargo </li>
<li>Name on Account: Richard Mack </li>
<li>Routing Number: 122105278 </li>
<li>Account Number: 2816818385</li>
</ul>
</ul>
<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Or you can mail him a card/check:</li>
<ul>
<li>Richard Mack, CSPOA, P.O. Box 567, Higley, Arizona 85236</li>
</ul>
</ul>
<br />
I believe that it is critical that we take care of our own, especially someone who has been as influential in the liberty movement as Sheriff Mack. If you have no money to send, send your thoughts and/or prayers. I'm sure anything you can do will be greatly appreciated.<br />
<br />
In Liberty,<br />
<br />
Mack Worley IIIAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03268999915138930307noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7967449877961746110.post-25127629641660318322015-01-24T13:09:00.000-08:002015-01-24T13:25:54.676-08:00Is The Death Penalty Constitutional? Should We Use It?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqUGRFN8rTh4u0SOhyphenhyphenk3RokJsVJ1ddgRwK5hSG7tX2LCwb-E4znZEHSiOGOPr0vNIpRvYFgybIsHxuauT2jqrgSQhSHWhQYTg5nn7C9a1AthxlDvQeNS9NOx3QjJ5Yed2TVK6VEQMTyfSq/s1600/imrs.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqUGRFN8rTh4u0SOhyphenhyphenk3RokJsVJ1ddgRwK5hSG7tX2LCwb-E4znZEHSiOGOPr0vNIpRvYFgybIsHxuauT2jqrgSQhSHWhQYTg5nn7C9a1AthxlDvQeNS9NOx3QjJ5Yed2TVK6VEQMTyfSq/s1600/imrs.jpg" height="203" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
In the 1972 Supreme Court case, Furman v. Georgia, the 5-4 court ruled that "a death row inmate's chances of being executed were completely random, and the death penalty thus served no deterrent effect" (Ivers, 2013, ch 9.3, para 13). Many argue that death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution which states: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" (Eighth Amendment, n.d.), but the court has never expressly ruled that, in all cases, the death penalty violates the "cruel and unusual" standard.<br />
<br />
Do I believe that the death penalty is a cruel and unusual punishment? I believe it is definitely cruel to kill another human being. How could it not be? I wouldn't call it unusual though. People have been killing people since the beginning of time and governments have been killing people since there were governments. So, yes it is cruel, but it is definitely not unusual.<br />
<br />
This leads us to ask the following questions: Does the Constitution protect against cruelty or just cruelty that is unusual? Does the Constitution protect against unusual punishment or unusual punishment that is cruel? It would seem that it protects against punishments that are both, simultaneously, cruel and unusual and not just one or the other.<br />
<br />
Another argument made against the death penalty's constitutionality is that it violates the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, specially the section that states that no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (The Bill of Rights: A Transcription, n.d.). However, according to scholars who believe the death penalty is constitutional, "life, just like liberty and property, can be taken as long as an individual has been afforded the due process of law" (Ivers, 2013, ch 9.3, para 1).<br />
<br />
With this in mind, I believe the death penalty is constitutional; however, I disagree with its use. If we, as a society, believe murder is abhorrent, what sense does it make to kill people who murder? It may not be unconstitutional, but it surely is hypocritical and shows our savage nature rather than an enlightened one. The death penalty is not about justice, in my opinion, but rather, an eye for an eye. That is not the way a civilized society conducts itself.<br />
<br />
However, there is another, even more significant, reason that YOU should be against the death penalty. The fact is that the government can and does make mistakes. How many innocent people have been executed for crimes they never committed? One is too many and there is no way to ensure that mistakes will never be made.<br />
<br />
For this reason, I am against the death penalty for any and all crimes. If we want to really deter criminals from committing heinous crimes, we should stop letting them out of jail if there is a chance that they could go back to a life of crime. We claim that when our prisoners get out of jail that they have paid their debt to society, but in reality, have they really? In many case, they have simply served their time or in some cases got released early due to over crowding. I believe that if we stopped crowding our prisons with non-violent felons, who have committed victimless crimes and started holding the violent felons until they are legitimately no longer a danger to society, we would be much better served.<br />
<br />
This is coming from someone who used to fully believe in the death penalty and has since changed his mind. It is easy to be callous and cold hearted about those who are accused of terrible crimes, but we cannot allow our quest for vengeance to result in innocent blood being spilled. As mentioned before, even the courts have determined that the death penalty "served no deterrent effect". Why are we still allowing this archaic, hypocritical and unjust practice to continue?<br />
<br />
References:<br />
Ivers, G. (2013). Constitutional law: An introduction. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.<br />
Eighth Amendment. (n.d.). Retrieved January 23, 2015, from<br />
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/eighth_amendment<br />
The Bill of Rights: A Transcription. (n.d.). Retrieved January 23, 2015, from<br />
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html<br />
<br />
Check us out at:<br />
website: <a href="http://www.onthemoveshow.com/">http://www.OnTheMoveShow.com</a><br />
podcast: <a href="http://www.spreaker.com/onthemoveshow">http://www.spreaker.com/onthemoveshow</a><br />
facebook: <a href="http://www.facebook.com/OnTheMoveShow">http://www.facebook.com/OnTheMoveShow</a><br />
twitter: <a href="http://www.twitter.com/OnTheMoveShow">http://www.twitter.com/OnTheMoveShow</a><br />
youtube: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/OnTheMoveShow">http://www.youtube.com/OnTheMoveShow</a><br />
blog: <a href="http://onthemoveshow.blogspot.com/">http://OnTheMoveShow.blogspot.com/</a><br />
<br />
On The Move With Mack Worley's stores:<br />
<a href="http://www.cafepress.com/OnTheMoveShow">http://www.CafePress.com/OnTheMoveShow</a><br />
<a href="http://astore.amazon.com/OnTheMoveShow-20">http://astore.amazon.com/OnTheMoveShow-20</a><br />
<br />
Know Your Rights! Assert Your Rights! Get On The Move!Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03268999915138930307noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7967449877961746110.post-72244040999125843452015-01-16T10:58:00.004-08:002015-01-16T10:58:56.463-08:00Voter ID Laws and Voter Fraud<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Voter ID laws have been a hot topic lately. Republicans argue that these laws are meant to prevent voting fraud. Democrats argue that they are meant to discourage low income voters, who typically vote for democrats, from turning out at the polls. Let's cut to the heart of the matter, who stands to gain from non-citizens voting in American elections? It's not the American people. It's not the Republicans. It's the Democrats! With a platform very favorable to illegal immigrants and the support for a welfare state, the Democrats all but have a guarantee that illegals voting in American elections will vote for them.</span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Think voter fraud isn't a real issue? Think again! "In 2005, the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that up to 3 percent of the 30,000 individuals called for jury duty from voter registration rolls over a two year period in just one U.S. district court were not citizens" (Hyde, 2008). For those of you who are keeping score, that is 900 illegal votes in just ONE district. So much for it not being a real issue. Let's also be clear, that is just one statistic and that is just what we know about. It is obvious that if we have discovered that it is happening there must be many cases that we haven't even discovered yet.</span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">In an article written by political hack Andrew Cohen in </span><em style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">The Atlantic</em><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"> he said, "evidence of fraud is scant" (Cohen, 2012). If you have read this far, I challenge to you type "voter fraud caught" in Google. It will become abundantly clear that voter fraud is a real issue. Now, onto the point of why ID should be required to vote. First, if ANY fraud happens then the entire outcome of an election should be considered fruit of a poisonous tree. Secondly, is it really that difficult to get an ID? Do you have an ID? I bet you do. I bet that you cannot name 5 people who don't have an ID. Furthermore, the government can easily provide free ID to those who cannot afford them. I would be willing to have my tax money go to that if it meant ensuring that no fraud in elections happened. Have you ever heard of the right to travel? Well you need an ID to drive. How about the right to bear arms? You need an ID for a background check. When it comes to the right to vote, why on earth would we not require an ID, when we know that one of the requirements to vote is citizenship? We can't even check the status to ensure our elections are not tainted by fraud? This school of thought is outrageous! The only reason why Democrats oppose voter ID laws is because they stand to gain from voter fraud. Plain and simple.</span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">The positive effect of voter ID laws is obvious -- our elections will be safer from fraud. The negative effect of voter ID laws are limited, but let's discuss them. Some citizens who don't have IDs or just forgot to bring their IDs will be turned away from the polls and taxes may increase to pay for IDs for those who cannot afford them. I believe that the positive far outweighs the negative. All Americans stand to gain from fraud-free elections and it's time we stopped buying into the political games that the Democrats have been playing.</span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">References:</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Hyde, K. (2008, Oct 27). Fraught with fraud. The New American, 24, 18-20. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/218087860?accountid=32521</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Cohen, A. (2012, March 16). How Voter ID Laws Are Being Used to Disenfranchise Minorities and the Poor. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/how-voter-id-laws-are-being-used-to-disenfranchise-minorities-and-the-poor/254572/</span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03268999915138930307noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7967449877961746110.post-61217515251906817072015-01-13T17:07:00.001-08:002015-01-13T17:07:06.879-08:00The Commerce Clause<div align="center" class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: center;">
<u>The Commerce Clause<o:p></o:p></u></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%;">
The use of the commerce clause by
the federal government has been highly disputed and interpreted differently by
many scholars. What we see today is a far cry from our country upon its
inception in 1776, but we still have the same debate that was had in those
days: Do we want to allow the federal government to be centralized and powerful
or should it be limited in scope and influence? The commerce clause of the
United Sates Constitution has been one of the primary culprits responsible for
the federal governments expanded powers. This essay will discuss the text of
the commerce clause, how it has been used to expand the federal government’s
influence on various aspects of American life and business, the case for the
expansion of power and the case against the expansion of power.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%;">
In the United States Constitution
the commerce clause reads as follows: “The Congress shall have Power... To
regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with
the Indian tribes” (Ivers, 2013). Let’s examine this sentence and determine
what exactly it means. It states that Congress shall have these powers, which
is referring, of course, to the federal Congress. The powers include regulating
commerce between foreign nations, the states and with the Indian tribes, but
what does that mean? Perhaps we should be asking what the definition of the
word commerce means? The definition of commerce is “an interchange of goods or
commodities, especially on a large scale between different countries (foreign
commerce) or between different parts of the same country (domestic commerce)
trade; business” (Dictionary, n.d.). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: .5in;">
When discussing the definition of commerce it is important
to note that during the Constitutional Convention James Madison took extensive
notes on the proceedings. According to Mr. Madison’s notes, “in no instance is
the term "commerce" clearly used to refer to "any gainful
activity" or anything broader than trade” (Barnett, 2001). Why is this
important? The reason is because the commerce clause we see today is used as
justification for the federal government’s involvement in situations that
cannot sanely be described as trade. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: .5in;">
For example, in the Gonzales v. Raich Supreme Court case
the United States federal government, using the Drug Enforcement Agency, seized
and destroyed six marijuana plants owned by a Californian citizen; however, California’s
Compassionate Use Act authorized marijuana use for medicinal purposes and
allowed for patients to grow a limited amount of marijuana to that end. The
Drug Enforcement Agency used the Controlled Substances Act as justification for
their raid and the case went to the Supreme Court. The court decided that even
though the marijuana was grown for personal use and was never intended to be
traded, sold or travel across state lines that the federal government still had
the authority to regulate the commodity based on the powers given to it by the
commerce clause and using established precedent. The court deemed that “Congress’
power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic “class
of activities” that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce is firmly
established” (Gonzales v. Raich, 2004). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: .5in;">
According to the court, Congress had the power to regulate
interstate commerce that was not interstate nor, by definition, commerce!
However, it is not the first time this had happened, in fact, they were
following a precedent which was established in the Wickard v. Filburn Supreme
Court case. Most of us have never heard of this case, but it is responsible
expanding the limits of the federal government’s regulatory powers under the
commerce clause. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: .5in;">
This case came about in the wake of the New Deal, in 1941,
when Congress amended the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which put a cap on how
much wheat that farmers could produce. If that cap was exceeded the farmers
would be subject to a penalty or tax. Roscoe Filburn was an Ohio farmer who owned
a small farm which produced wheat. Some of the wheat was meant for feeding his
livestock and some was meant for selling on the market. The case was heard by
the Supreme Court and Filburn argued the federal government had no right to
tell him what he could and could not grow on his own land for personal use. The
federal government argued that though Filburn’s personal use may seem like a
trivial amount of wheat, if farmers around the country were allowed to do the
same thing, it would essentially make the cap established by the Agricultural
Adjustment Act useless. The cap was established to help control the prices in
the American wheat market. “The Court established that Congress can regulate
purely intrastate activity that is not itself “commercial,” i.e., not produced
for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would
undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity” (Gonzales
v. Raich, 2004).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: .5in;">
Now that we have addressed some of the historically
relevant cases considering the commerce clause as well as the definition of
commerce itself, let’s discuss the cases for and against the use to the
commerce clause. The case for the commerce clause, would be a similar case that
was made during the Constitutional Convention by the Federalists. They wanted a
strong, centralized federal government that would be capable of dealing with
any problem that the nation faced. For example, the New Deal set forth a
tsunami of regulations by the federal government which attempted to put
Americans to work and instill confidence in the American people concerning
industry. Every aspect of American life and business was touched by these new
regulations. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: .5in;">
As for the reasons why the federal government’s use of the
commerce clause can be supported, we can simply look at the creation of the
United States. There was a lot turmoil when America was using the Articles of
Confederation and much of that turmoil arose from interstate commerce. States
were imposing tariffs on goods produced from other states and creating
hostilities between each other. It looked as though America was going to tear
itself apart. The Federalists argued that a strong, centralized federal
government would be the glue that held the country together. In fact, James
Madison, who originally was a Federalist, but eventually changed sides and
became an Anti-Federalist said in a letter to Thomas Jefferson: “[m]ost of our
political evils may be traced to our commercial ones” (Ivers, 2013). That was
the reason the commerce clause was inserted into the Constitution. It was meant
to create stability and resolve these disputes.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: .5in;">
On the other hand, let’s remember what kind of government
our founders were beholden to prior to the revolution. It was a strong,
centralized federal government that used its power to impose its will on the
American colonists. The Anti-Federalists were very concerned about creating the
same kind of tyranny that they had just fought a bloody war to escape. When
discussing the commerce clause it is important to ask ourselves the question:
what would the Anti-Federalists have to say about how the federal government
uses this innocuous blurb of the Constitution? It’s easy to argue the point
that the Supreme Court itself would be on the side of the Federalists. It’s
equally easy to argue the same for Congress and the President, but what would
those who opposed centralized federal power have to say about the commerce
clause's use today? <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: .5in;">
I believe that the Anti-Federalists would be shocked at how
the Supreme Court has interpreted the clause. The court has taken an extremely
liberal interpretation of the clause to mean that Congress has the power to
literally regulate anything and everything. These powers were not expressly
given to Congress in the Constitution and to make matters worse, the power of
the Supreme Court to be the ultimate arbiter of all things Constitutional was
not given to them by the Constitution either. They gave that power to
themselves! Our government now regulates everything from what we can put into
our bodies to how much water a toilet can hold. They can tell us what we can
grow for our own personal consumption. Our current model of federalism where
states and the federal government share power is growing disproportionately in
the federal government's favor. States are losing the ability to govern
themselves without the long arm of the federal government reaching in to
enforce its will and I fear that this trend will only worsen as time goes on.
What I believe is the most poignant argument to be made against the way the
federal government uses the commerce clause is the mere definition itself. The
government is now exceeding its powers based on definition alone. If commerce
is trade, as defined during the Constitutional Convention, then the federal
government has absolutely no justification to tell us what we can do with goods
for personal consumption.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: .5in;">
In conclusion, the Supreme Court is responsible for the way
the commerce clause has been used by the federal government. The Wickard v.
Filburn case create the precedent for the way the Supreme Court interprets the
case to this day. Based on that precedent the federal government was given
broad regulatory power to control business, industry and the way many Americans
live their lives. No one can know for sure what the founder’s intent was with
the creation of the commerce clause, but the debate for and against a strong
federal government will continue to rage on.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%;">
<o:p> </o:p><span style="line-height: 200%;"> </span></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%;">
References:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%;">
Ivers, G.
(2013). Constitutional law: An introduction. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint
Education, Inc.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%;">
Commerce.
(n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved January 12, 2015, from
Dictionary.com website: <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/commerce">http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/commerce</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="Standard" style="line-height: 200%;">
GONZALES
V. RAICH. (2004, November 29). Retrieved January 13, 2015, from
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZS.html/<o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03268999915138930307noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7967449877961746110.post-700090828734545972015-01-08T20:24:00.002-08:002015-01-08T20:24:27.633-08:00Marijuana and The Commerce Clause<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">The Commerce Clause reads: "The Congress shall have Power... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes" (Ivers, 2013). It's important to note that in James Madison's (Father of the Constitution) notes on the Constitutional Convention, "in no instance is the term "commerce" clearly used to refer to "any gainful activity" or anything broader than trade" (Barnett, 2001). With that said, let's look at the ninth and tenth amendment of the Bill of Rights: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" (Ninth Amendment, n.d.) and "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people" (Tenth Amendment, n.d.).</span><br style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">When addressing the federal government's ban on marijuana it's important to keep these points in mind. Commerce meant trade, either with foreign nations, among the states and with the Indian tribes. It didn't mean gainful activity, such as selling marijuana within a State. This is absolutely outside the bounds of the federal government's authority to regulate. If a State wants to allow marijuana to be purchased, sold and possessed, it is that State's Tenth Amendment right. If marijuana is being produced and sold within a State and not nationally, then the Federal government has no right whatsoever to be involved in the process.</span><br style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Additionally, when analyzing the Gonzales v. Raich case, not only was there absolutely NO interstate trade of the marijuana in question, it was grown for medicinal use by the defendant. There was no commerce involved. The Commerce Clause does not give the Federal government the authority to restrict what plants Americans can grow, what medicine they can produce for themselves or use. The seizure by the DEA of this woman's marijuana was an overreach of federal power and arguably a violation of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. </span><br style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Lastly, the American system of government was established as a grand experiment. Each state was an individual experiment in government that would fail or succeed on their own. The successful states would be emulated by the other states and the ones who failed would serve as an example to the others of what not to do. A major benefit of this experiment is that failures are contained on a state level, leaving the other states intact. We have 50 such experiments spread across this great nation. When we allow the Federal government to regulate every state, our experiment will succeed or fail nationally. It is a lot more risky to have National programs, because if they fail the pain is spread around equally, there is no safe haven. I often use the example of lab rats. If you were a scientist conducting an experiment, would you use one lab rat or fifty? The answer is obvious.</span><br style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">References:</span><br style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Ivers, G. (2013). Constitutional law: An introduction. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.</span><br style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Barnett, R. (2001, January 1). THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE. Retrieved January 9, 2015, from http://www.bu.edu/rbarnett/Original.htm</span><br style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Ninth Amendment. (n.d.). Retrieved January 9, 2015, from http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/ninth_amendment</span><br style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Tenth Amendment. (n.d.). Retrieved January 9, 2015, from http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/tenth_amendment</span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03268999915138930307noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7967449877961746110.post-70022421499303780892015-01-08T19:18:00.002-08:002015-01-08T19:18:58.152-08:00The Patriot Act<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Does the Patriot Act violate civil rights and liberties? That is like asking me if I want a jet pack! Of course it does and of course I do! For example, Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, author of the Patriot Act, has "said the intelligence community had misused those powers by collecting telephone records on all Americans, and claimed it was time "to put their metadata program out of business" (Roberts, 2013). The government is data mining our information without a warrant. That is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution which states: </span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br />
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: none; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;">
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." (Fourth Amendment, n.d.)<br /></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">The fact that the government is conducting bulk searches and seizures without warrants is by itself the definition of unconstitutional. In my humble opinion, any member of Congress who voted for this legislation and any law enforcement agent that has used this legislation has violated their oath to the Constitution. In a recent US Supreme Court case about police searching cell phones of citizens that they arrest without a warrant, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said, "The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought" (Barnes, 2014). The court made it clear that if the police wanted to conduct a search or seizure that must obtain a warrant. </span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">There are obvious parallels between this case and the unwarranted bulk searches conducted from the Patriot Act. The constitutionally implied right to privacy contained within the Fourth Amendment are being grossly violated by the Patriot Act for the sake of security, but the sacrifice is too much! As Benjamin Franklin once said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" (Wittes, 2013).</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">References:</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Roberts, D. (2013). Patriot Act author prepares bill to put NSA bulk collection 'out of business' - Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner. Retrieved January 9, 2015, from http://sensenbrenner.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=355532</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Fourth Amendment. (n.d.). Retrieved January 9, 2015, from http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Barnes, R. (2014, June 25). Supreme Court says police must get warrants for most cellphone searches. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/supreme-court-police-must-get-warrants-for-most-cellphone-searches/2014/06/25/e2ff1326-fc6b-11e3-8176-f2c941cf35f1_story.html</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Wittes, B. (2013, June 12). Would Ben Franklin Trade Liberty for Wiretapping? Retrieved January 9, 2015, from http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2013/06/11-ben-franklin-liberty-wiretapping-security</span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03268999915138930307noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7967449877961746110.post-27541075130864414802014-12-18T16:33:00.000-08:002014-12-18T16:33:00.097-08:00The Military Industrial Complex | The Iron Triangle ModelThe iron triangle model, at its essence, is the collaboration between Congress, special interest groups (such as lobbyists) and bureaucracies. Essentially what this means is that special interests groups will lobby Congress to pass friendly regulations or conduct certain actions that will benefit the bureaucracy that is being lobbied for. One example of an iron triangle is the military industrial complex or in other words, the weapon and military technology companies that benefit from increased US military spending. "It's really about the conjunction between the military itself, the weapons contractors, and in some degree the Congress. And it deals with how they kind of work in tandem" (Huey-Burns, 2011) and each has something to gain from this relationship. "In 1961, Eisenhower warned of a "scientific-technological elite" that would dominate public policy, and of a "military-industrial complex" that would claim "our toil, resources, and livelihood" (Newton, 2010).<br />
<br />
Military technology companies are not the only ones to profit from this relationship, lobbyists profit immeasurably as well. The more success that is achieved from lobbying Congress, the more lobbyists that are hired. It may seem obvious that companies that produce weapons or military technology and lobbyists have a lot to gain from increased military spending, but what does Congress have to gain? There are many benefits for a Congress person to support the military industrial complex. For one, they may receive financial incentives such as campaign donations from these companies for their support. Also, they may be seen as supporting the troops if they vote in favor of increased military spending. Additionally, "parts of the F-22 are built in more than 40 states" (Jonsson, 2009), and with that in mind, they may be viewed as bringing jobs to their constituency by doing so. In 2009, when the Pentagon said that it was planning on putting a "cap production of America's top-of-the-line fighter at 187 aircraft" (Jonsson, 2009) many unionized workers were very upset about the possibility of losing their jobs.<br />
<br />
When Congress takes action on behalf of their own interests, not that of their constituency, to the benefit of private companies we should all be concerned. With a national debt over $18 trillion it would not seem wise to continue military spending just for the purpose of creating jobs. In recent years, the Republican party has been a major proponent of military spending; however, the primary beneficiary of these jobs are union contractors who are generally democrat voters. It is a strange dynamic that has been created, but it is doubtful that it will change anytime soon. There is a lot of pressure on Congress to keep spending money on military technology, but it should concern everyone when their Congress men and women become financially beholden to outside interests.<br />
<br />
References:<br />
Huey-Burns, C. (2011, January). The modern military-industrial complex. U.S. News & World Report, 1. Retrieved from ProQuest (Search All) database, in the Ashford University Library.<br />
Newton, J. (2010, Dec 20). IKE'S SPEECH. The New Yorker, 86, 42. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/821301027?accountid=32521<br />
Jonsson, P. (2009, Apr 08). You can't kill F-22, georgians tell gates. The Christian Science Monitor Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/405577441?accountid=32521Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03268999915138930307noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7967449877961746110.post-84198640989614950542014-12-18T16:32:00.000-08:002014-12-18T16:32:00.805-08:00The Electoral College DebateThe founding fathers of the US Constitution had many concerns about the election of the President through direct democracy; however, there were debates on both sides. Those debates have continued today. Many Americans still do not understand how the Electoral College works and think it is unfair and undemocratic. The selection of the Electoral College is done in one of two ways: either state legislatures choose members or they are chosen by a popular vote by the citizens within a state. There are "538 people from all 50 states and Washington, D.C., called electors. According to the Constitution, they are responsible for electing the President and Vice President. The winner needs a majority - 270 - of the 538 electoral votes" (ELECTORAL COLLEGE 101, 2008).<br />
<br />
"Support for changing election rules in the United States has been gaining momentum since the contested 2000 presidential election, which was followed by a lengthy legal battle in Florida that ultimately ended with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore" (Karp & Tolbert, 2010). The controversy about the 2000 election was primarily due to the fact that Gore won the popular vote by approximately 500,000 votes, but Bush won the electoral vote. This has lead to many calls for the abolition of the Electoral College altogether. There has also been calls to make changes to the electoral system that would alter the way it functions, while avoiding its dissolution. For example, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. has proposed a "National Bonus Plan" that would give the winners of the popular vote in each state and the District of Columbia an extra two electoral votes. This would increase the total number of electoral votes by 102. Schlesinger argues that this would eliminate "the most undemocratic feature of the Electoral College, the tremendous weight given to small states" (Bates, 2004). An example of the advantages that small population states receive from the Electoral College is illustrated perfectly with the state of Wyoming. Wyoming has three electoral votes: one based on population and two from their senators. This is the bare minimum of elector votes that each state receives. They may receive more based on population levels. "California, with a population over fifty times as large as Wyoming, has only a little more than eighteen times as many electoral votes. This means that a vote in Wyoming counts about three times more than a vote in California" (Bates, 2004).<br />
<br />
Some who argue against the Electoral College claim that no other democratic country in the world uses an Electoral College to elect Presidents and that it goes against the concept of democracy. Others say that it gives smaller states too big an advantage in elections. There are also those who point out that it causes Presidential candidates to only focus their attention in swing states, which leads to states that will likely vote for or against a candidate getting mostly ignored. This means that voters of those states which are heavily in favor of one candidate or another have less opportunity to get in front of all the candidates, because they don't visit those states often.<br />
<br />
On the other side of the debate, "conservatives, respecting both tradition and the rights of states, have historically supported maintaining the form of electing Presidents crafted by the Founding Fathers" (Gizzi, 2011). Additionally, the Electoral College is seen as a buffer between the presidency and mob rule. Many founders were concerned about an ill-informed populace voting a tyrant into power. Many in the revolutionary era were concerned that a "man on a white horse" would emerge in a time of crisis, supported by the people, and would seize power. These fears were not without merit, if one looks at the history of the Roman empire. Julius Caesar usurped power and became the first Roman emperor, backed by public support, resulting in the end of the Roman republic. The founders feared a repeat of this historical event and the Electoral College was a measure that they established to prevent such a thing from happening in America. Another argument for the continued use of the Electoral College is the concern that a few small, but densely populated areas may silence the voices of the many lower population states in presidential elections.<br />
<br />
The Electoral College's affect on the leadership capacity of a President, within the bounds of the Constitution, are nonexistent. The President was never meant to be elected directly by the people. This bulwark acts as a hedge against tyrants and thus a President who possess actual leadership skills may lead through persuasion, debate and ideas. This author's personal judgement is that the Electoral College should remain, primarily to ensure that dense population centers do not have power over the rest of the country and because it has worked for us this far with only a few hiccups that were settled. To look at the way other countries do things is a blunder that America should not make. There is now and never has been a country like America. No other country in the world holds individual liberty as dearly as we do and it would be a mistake to emulate countries that do not possess our values. Furthermore, America has always lead from the front with bold, new ideas about government. It would be a mistake to deviate from this path. We look to our Constitution and history for guidance, not the rest of the world.<br />
<br />
<br />
References:<br />
ELECTORAL COLLEGE 101. (2008, Nov 03). New York Times Upfront, 141, 6-7. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/207594578?accountid=32521<br />
Karp, J. A., & Tolbert, C. J. (2010). Support for nationalizing presidential elections. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 40(4), 771-793. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/761342185?accountid=32521<br />
Bates, Nathaniel. (2004) What Are the Arguments Made in Favor--And Against--the Electoral College? Retrieved December 18, 2014, from http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/8163<br />
Gizzi, J. (2011, May 30). GOP leaders united in defense of electoral college. Human Events, 67, 5. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/887106555?accountid=32521Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03268999915138930307noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7967449877961746110.post-82243745366247606492014-12-15T20:42:00.001-08:002014-12-15T20:42:32.466-08:00A Brief Argument Against Obamacare | The Unconstitutional Law<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: center;">
<u style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">A
Brief Argument Against Obamacare</span></u></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">In
the last few years America has seen an expansion of federal powers due to the
emersion of the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare. The debate
continues to rage on, but there are many issues with merit that must be addressed
regarding the law’s constitutionality. This essay will attempt to shed light on
these constitutional issues while providing a brief history of Obamacare,
discussing federal powers, individual rights, the importance of state
governance and the US Constitution.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Proponents
of Obamacare tout its accomplishments. As Paul John Scott wrote in his article
titled <i>Obamacare: A Hater's Guide</i>, “The
vast majority of Americans are finally insured against disaster: The percentage
of people with no coverage fell by a quarter, from 18 percent to 13 percent,
partly because you now must have insurance or pay a penalty” (Scott, 2014).
This 5% reduction in people without health insurance coverage is considered a
positive outcome of Obamacare; however, there is another side of this debate. Many
Americans cannot afford the cost of their new healthcare plans. When discussing
how many patients have been affected by Obamacare’s steep premiums and even
steeper deductibles Dr. Flippo Masciarelli, chief physician at the Denton,
Texas Community Care Center said, “There are quite a few, and I saw another one
today, where their deductibles are so elevated that they can't afford them"
(Angle, 2014). On ObamacareFacts.com, one citizen reported: “My insurance went
up $400 per month and my deductible went from $2500 per year to $12,000. I now
have a $6000 medical bill to pay. This plan is a disaster and is financially
crushing my family” (Obamacare Facts, 2014).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">The
entire purpose of insurance is to protect the insured from financial
catastrophe. Due to insurance premiums doubling and tripling what customers
were originally paying, coupled with the massive deductible increases,
Obamacare itself has become a financial catastrophe. This leads us to the
debate over individual rights. Americans in lower income brackets qualify for
subsidies, which will help cover the high cost of their healthcare plan, but
where does this money come from? Answer: Americans who do not qualify for
subsidies! Obamacare has essentially mandated every single American to buy a
product and those who do not buy the product are penalized financially. This
penalty has been interpreted by the United States Supreme Court as a tax and we
will get to the issues that arise from this ruling, but first, let us discuss
the constitutionality of the federal government forcing someone to buy a
product. There is nowhere in the Constitution that expressly gives Congress or
the President the authority to force American citizens to buy health insurance
or any other product for that matter. So where does Congress claim to get the authority
for their actions? The general welfare clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the US
Constitution, which gives Congress the power to provide for the general welfare
of the United States. However, during the debates over this clause James
Madison made several arguments that:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin-left: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">“the
power to tax and spend did not confer upon Congress the right to do whatever it
thought to be in the best interest of the nation, but only to further the ends
specifically enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution, a position supported by
Thomas Jefferson.” (Heritage.org, 2014)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;"> As there is nowhere else in the Constitution that gives
Congress the power to mandate every American citizen to buy a product or else
be penalized, James Madison, who is known as the father of the Constitution,
would likely disagree with using the general welfare clause in such a manner. It
is also important to note that a program such as Obamcare, which is essentially
an experiment in healthcare reform, would be better off left to the States. This
is because “America always is more likely to have a few wise state governments
than a wise federal government” (Will, 2007). When the federal government
begins conducting experiments in governance on a national level, we are more
inclined to fail on a national level. Think about how scientists conduct
experiments in a laboratory. Do they use just one lab rat? Answer: Of course
not! They use many lab rats to ensure success of the experiment. If they get
positive results with one test subject, they try to copy the conditions that
lead to the success. If the federal government allowed the states to govern
themselves as they saw fit, the states that were failing would look to the
states that are succeeding and emulate them. Containing experiments at the
state level instead of the national level would also ensure that negative
effects from governmental failures would not be felt nationwide.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">However,
the entire premise of Obamacare is arguably immoral. The concept of taking
money from one segment of society, through increased health insurance premiums,
with a product that is congressionally mandated for one to buy and then giving
that money to another segment of society to use for their healthcare insurance
creates an ethical dilemma. By all accounts, this could and rightfully should
be considered state sanctioned theft. The citizens who are paying for lower
income subsidies have absolutely no option to opt out. They either pay more for
their insurance or they pay a penalty. In either case their money goes to
someone else’s health insurance. When someone takes something from a person
without their permission that is called stealing. When the threat of force is
used in conjunction then that it is called robbery. There can be no better way
to describe Obamacare’s funding mechanisms.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;"> Let us now turn our focus to the history of Obamacare’s
passage. “On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act into law” (Obamacare Facts, 2014). It was passed into law
without a single Republican vote. According to the Galen Institute, “more than
42 significant changes already have been made to ObamaCare: at least 24 that
President Obama has made unilaterally, 16 that Congress has passed and the
president has signed, and 2 by the Supreme Court” (Galen Institute, 2014). As a
result there are at least two central constitutional concerns regarding
Obamacare based on these changes alone.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;"> Firstly, the President of the United States does not have
the authority to change laws, create laws or nullify laws. His job is to
enforce the laws. President Obama’s actions have violated his oath of office to
uphold the Constitution. His actions are an affront to the separation of powers
enumerated in the Constitution in order to obtain checks and balances. An
all-powerful President was of paramount concern during the Constitutional
Convention and these checks and balances were established as a method to
prevent one person from amassing too much power.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;"> Secondly, as was mentioned before, the United States
Supreme Court violated the Constitution when they made their ruling on
Obamacare. When they ruled that the federal government has the power to lay
taxes, they decided to change the wording of the law, from penalty to tax. This
is completely unconstitutional. The Judicial Branch has no power or authority
granted in the Constitution to change laws. If the law, as it was written, was
unconstitutional, the Supreme Court was constitutionally required to rule against
the law and in doing so, Obamacare would have been sent back to Congress.
Instead, they opted to unconstitutionally change the law in violation of their
oaths of office and creating even more controversy.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;"> Additionally, another constitutional conundrum has been
the source of debate. This issue stems from where a law pertaining to taxes
must originate. The Constitution mandates that all bills pertaining to taxes
must originate in the House of Representatives. This is because they were
originally the house of Congress most answerable to the people prior to the
ratification of the seventeenth amendment, which gave citizens the ability to
vote for their senators. As originally adopted the Constitution gave the state
legislatures the responsibility to elect their state’s senators. The problem
with Obamacare is that it originated in the Senate. According to George F. Will
in an article on <i>The Washington Post</i>,
“the ACA — was indisputably a revenue measure and unquestionably did not
originate in the House” (Will, 2014). This is yet another clear violation of
the Constitution and puts even more doubt over Obamacare’s legitimacy.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;"> In summary, Obamacare originated in the Senate, but was
constitutionally required to originate in the House of Representatives. It has
been changed unconstitutionally by both the President and the Supreme Court. It
perverts the intention of the general welfare clause and it is arguably outside
the scope and authority given to Congress by the US Constitution. The
Constitution does not expressly give Congress the power to force American
citizens to purchase a product. The passage of this unjust law has essentially created
state sanctioned strong arm robbery in the form of higher insurance premiums
and penalties/taxes. There is no doubt that Obamacare has violated the
Constitution on numerous occasions; however, it has also created real ethical
questions about what the US government can force American citizens to do. It
ultimately comes down to the federal government’s implied powers vs. individual
rights and this author hopes that the rights of individuals will prevail.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;"> </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"> </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;"> </span><b style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><u>References:</u></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">John Scott, P. (2014).
Obamacare: A Hater's Guide. Men's Health, 29(10), 113-118. Retrieved from
EBSCOhost database.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Angle, J. (2014,
November 4). Some ObamaCare patients with high deductibles turning to community
care centers. Retrieved from </span><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/04/some-obamacare-patients-with-high-deductibles-turning-to-community-care-centers/"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/04/some-obamacare-patients-with-high-deductibles-turning-to-community-care-centers/</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Obamacare Facts. (2014).
ObamaCare Stories: Real Life Stories on ObamaCare. Retrieved from </span><a href="http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-stories/"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-stories/</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Heritage.org (2014). The
Heritage Guide to The Constitution. Retrieved from </span><a href="http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/34/spending-clause"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/34/spending-clause</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Galen Institute. 42
Changes to ObamaCare...So Far. (2014, November 6). Retrieved from </span><a href="http://www.galen.org/newsletters/changes-to-obamacare-so-far/"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">http://www.galen.org/newsletters/changes-to-obamacare-so-far/</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Will, G. (May 2, 2014).
George F. Will: The next Affordable Care Act challenge. Retrieved from </span><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-f-will-the-next-affordable-care-act-challenge/2014/05/02/c0150da8-d159-11e3-a6b1-45c4dffb85a6_story.html"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-f-will-the-next-affordable-care-act-challenge/2014/05/02/c0150da8-d159-11e3-a6b1-45c4dffb85a6_story.html</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Will, G. F. (2007, Dec
09). Getting past 'no child'. The Washington Post Retrieved from </span><a href="http://search.proquest.com/docview/410179847?accountid=32521"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">http://search.proquest.com/docview/410179847?accountid=32521</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03268999915138930307noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7967449877961746110.post-53636168064240879452014-12-11T17:53:00.001-08:002014-12-11T17:53:21.758-08:00BIG Business, BIG Government Republican Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">My representative in the House of Representatives is Jaime Herrera Beutler. Rep. Beutler is a Republican, a member of the House Committee on Appropriations and the House Committee on Small Business. She has voted down the Republican party line 91% of the time and has abstained from voting entirely 28% of the time (OpenCongress, 2014). In the 2013-2014 election cycle, she received approximately $1,741,301 in fundraising donations for her campaign. Those donations consisted of small individual contributions (18%), large individual contributions (49%) and Political Action Campaign contributions (33%). Many of these individual donations appear to be from corporations (Open Secrets, 2014).</span><br style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">It may be obvious to state, but "donors can throw around a lot of weight in elections" (Mayhew, 2011). A representative usually looks after their campaign contributors first and foremost. This is because monetary support to these representatives comes at a price. Big donors expect and demand that the representative take an active role in looking out for their interests. Rep. Beutler will obviously be subject to these corporate forces during her tenure as an elected representative. Rep. Beutler's position is highly contested, because she is a Republican is a very blue state; even members of the Republican party have been running against her.</span><br style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">"To win an election, a House candidate has to raise an average of $1.3 million in campaign funds- that's $2,500 every working day for an entire two-year term" (Tikkun, 2008). I would argue that her corporate donations make her less likely to concern herself with the public interest and more likely to pay back her donors. A good way to illustrate our current political situation would be to say, "we, as citizens, have handed special interests the remote control, forcing our potential leaders to grovel before PAC leaders and lobbyists to raise the funds needed to win elections" (Tikkun, 2008). Additionally, Rep. Beutler supported the National Defense Authorization Act, which allows American citizens to be indefinitely detained, imprisoned and even assassinated without being charged/convicted of a crime. It's doubtful that the average citizen in Rep. Beutler's district would agree with these tactics being used against American citizens. With that said, it is unlikely that Rep. Beutler could be considered in step with her constituency.</span><br style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">As previously mentioned Rep. Beutler has voted with Republicans 91% of the time. Considering the fact that she is in a historically Democrat district, it is doubtful that her constituency would agree with her actions; although, she may justify herself by proclaiming that her mere election was the constituency demanding a depart from Democratic policy. In either case, continuing to vote down any party line is a ruinous path to take. Each representative must continue to analyze how the laws will affect their specific community and it is unlikely that what is good for one community will be good for all.</span><br style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Lastly, and most importantly, Rep. Beutler has abstained from voting 28% of the time! This number is outrageous! More than a quarter of the time Rep. Beutler comes to work, she fails to do her job. Does she not have an opinion on these matters? Is she afraid of how she will look? Or does she simply not have mental capacity to participate in a vote 28% of the time? It is unfathomable that a representative that fails to do their job more than a quarter of the time could be considered an effective member of Congress. If this were the private sector, any such person that had similar performance would be fired. Only time will tell if Rep. Beutler will see the same results, but she definitely appears to warrant them.</span><br style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">References:</span><br style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">OpenCongress (2014). Retrieved from http://www.opencongress.org</span><br style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Open Secrets (2014). Retrieved from https://www.opensecrets.org</span><br style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Mayhew, D. R. (2011). Constituency representation in congress: The view from capitol hill. Political Science Quarterly, 126(3), 510-511. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/902757682?accountid=32521</span><br style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Should outsiders' money influence elections? (2008, Nov). Tikkun, 23, 6. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/212214593?accountid=32521</span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03268999915138930307noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7967449877961746110.post-67669988391104150342014-12-11T16:11:00.001-08:002014-12-11T16:11:18.045-08:00An Argument Against Federal Involvement In Education<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">After reading the history of the Constitutional Convention and understanding the debates that took place between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists one thing becomes crystal clear, there were many compromises that had to be made in order to ratify the Constitution. It's important to illustrate one compromise, in particular, when discussing centralized federal power within the constitutional framework of federalism and that compromise is the Bill of Rights. The Federalists argued that creating a Bill of Rights would imply that the federal government would have more powers than what the Constitution granted. The Anti-Federalist argued that State Constitutions had Bill of Rights and that the federal government should be no exception. Ultimately, a Bill of Rights was agreed upon; however, it's important to note that even the Federalist, who were in favor of a strong centralized government, did not support the concept of implied federal powers. Their very argument against the Bill of Rights proved that.</span><br style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">"American federalism has two concepts: 1.) the national and state governments share power 2.) both levels of government receive power from the people" (A Quick Study of American Federalism [Video], 2012). Neither federal nor state governments are entirely subordinate to each other... at least that was the intention. Instead, they each posses their own specific powers and hold some overlapping powers. Today; however, this is simply not the case. The federal government has expanded its power using what it justifies as implied governmental powers. The two biggest culprits of this federal expansionism are arguably the commerce clause and article 1, section 8 of the US Constitution which gives Congress the power to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. The federal government has decided that the United State's general welfare is best served by their involvement in education. As a result of this new interpretation of the federal government's implied powers "in 1965, Pres. Lyndon Johnson signed the Elementary and secondary Education Act as a part of his War on Poverty initiative" (Lips & Marshall, 2007).</span><br style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">There are some major problems with the federal government getting involved in education, but this author believes that those issues were best illustrated by George F. Will in his article in </span><i style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">The Washington Post</i><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">:</span><br style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br />
<blockquote style="border: none; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;">
"First, most new ideas are dubious, so the federalization of policy increases the probability of continentwide mistakes. Second, education is susceptible to pedagogic fads and social engineering fantasies -- schools of education incubate them -- so it is prone to producing continental regrets. Third, America always is more likely to have a few wise state governments than a wise federal government." (Will, 2007)<br /></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">There have been decades worth of statistics proving that our education system is mediocre at best, but we spend billions of dollars per year and keep getting the same lack luster results. The federalization of the American education system is obviously not working as planned. However, the lack of results has not prevented the federal government from using coercive federalism to entice states to comply with a uniformed national standard in order to received funding for education, highways, etc. The ironic part is that citizen's of the states are getting enticed with their tax money that they have sent to the federal government.</span><br style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">The idea of how to standardize educational results is still being developed. It is uncertain what the correct and most beneficial or result oriented way to determine how successful a school or educational system is. This topic is still highly debate to this day. Some people support standardized testing and others believe that we must teach for the love of learning and not to pass a test. This author is in agreement with George F. Will in regards to the complicated nature of educational reform. It would seem that we are in the process of a national experiment that will either succeed or fail miserably on a national level. It would likely be wise to remove the federal involvement in the education system and allow state governments to educate as they see fit. This will result in some states finding the best way to provide education through experimentation. If states fail to produce adequate results, the failure will be contained on a state level. The states that succeed in their experiment will likely have their system copied by other states who want similar results.</span><br style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">This process increases American chances for success and puts the power back in the hands of the states, which is where it rightfully belongs. The federal government has no business micromanaging every aspect of the country and them doing so has been proven time and time again to detrimentally affect US interests. Everything the federal government gets its hands on becomes more complicated, wasteful and less effective. Even the Federalist disagreed with implied powers and it's time we address the real issue of our ever expanding federal government.</span><br style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">References:</span><br style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">(2012). A Quick Study of American Federalism [Video]. Retrieved from https://sites.google.com/site/socaljimfederalism/home</span><br style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Lips, D., Feinberg, E., & Marshall, J. A. (2007, 03). Charting a course toward better education. USA Today, 135, 70-73. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/214602102?accountid=32521</span><br style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Will, G. F. (2007, Dec 09). Getting past 'no child'. The Washington Post Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/410179847?accountid=32521</span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03268999915138930307noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7967449877961746110.post-83195021414287209292014-12-08T18:07:00.002-08:002014-12-08T18:09:21.577-08:00More Attacks On The Second Amendment In AcademiaGreetings Mack Pack,<br />
<br />
I continue to be shocked at the staggering lack of logic I find within my required college reading material. If I somehow make it out of this unscathed it will be a miracle. I keep finding myself screaming at my computer monitor as a read completely biased material coming out of REQUIRED and TESTABLE textbooks. Take at look at this:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Or consider the Second Amendment, which states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The anti-Federalists who sought to include this amendment considered it to be crucial to the integrity of state sovereignty. <b>It is not clear that they thought that the people necessarily had the right to purchase or possess guns. Rather, an amendment that applies to the national government means that the national government cannot interfere with the right of the people to bear arms as members of their state's militia, which is effectively the state's army.</b> In other words, the Second Amendment, as it applies to the national government, means that the national government cannot disarm the states. This idea cuts to the core of state sovereignty, a key element of which is an army. But this was also critical for another reason. Recall that the Virginia Plan would have allowed the national government to use military force against noncompliant states. When states can maintain their own respective armies, it becomes much more difficult for the national government to do so." (Levin-Waldman, 2012)</blockquote>
<br />
Who does this author believe was in the militia? The people! Farmers, carpenters and able bodied men within a community were part of the militia. Where did they get their weapons from? Were they issued to them? In many cases these weapons were their own personal firearms.<br />
<br />
Even if we take this author's argument at face value, that only the militia is authorized the right to keep and bear arms, which has been shot down in the courts, but let's forget that for a second... Even if we believe this non-sense, if the militia consists of <b>the people</b>, the everyday citizen, then giving the militia the right to keep and bear arms would be giving <b>the people</b> the right to keep and bear arms, would it not?<br />
<br />
In Liberty,<br />
<br />
Mack<br />
<br />
References:<br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><span style="background-color: white;">Levin-Waldman, O. M. (2012). American government. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.</span></span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03268999915138930307noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7967449877961746110.post-83481727275565146672014-12-08T17:10:00.002-08:002014-12-08T17:12:10.515-08:00How Colleges Teach Students To Be LiberalsHello everyone,<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I've been doing some college reading and I ran across this passage in my textbook:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The Bill of Rights consists of ten amendments that establish many of the rights and civil liberties we now take for granted. These amendments deal with freedom of speech and religion, <b><u>the so-called right to bear arms</u></b>, the right to jury trials, the right to due process, the right to compensation if property is seized for a public purpose, the right to privacy insofar as it bars an illegal search of one's premises and possessions, and states' rights." (Levin-Waldman, 2012)</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Did you notice that no other rights have "so-called" next to it? Meaning that the author was trying to elude that this may not be a right. This is how colleges try to indoctrinate young minds into becoming liberals. I see this more and more everyday and even the instructors are liberals who have a strong liberal bias in discussion groups. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I'm fed up with the Left re-writing our history books and poisoning the minds of America's youth. This is despicable!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I don't see "so-called" anywhere in the 2nd Amendment. Do you?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
References:</div>
<div>
Levin-Waldman, O. M. (2012). American government. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03268999915138930307noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7967449877961746110.post-45791703330444102212014-12-04T20:04:00.000-08:002014-12-04T20:04:46.436-08:00A Balanced Budget Amendment | American Government<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">America is addicted to debt. "Our national debt has gone from roughly $5 trillion in 1997 to over $14 trillion today. That’s more than $45,000 for every man, woman, and child in America" (Hatch, 2011). That was back in 2011, now we are exceeding $17 trillion! A proposed answer to this problem is the Balanced Budget Amendment. If passed, the amendment would require the federal government to operate within its means. The government would not have the authority to spend more than than it earns through tax revenue. The amendment's proponents, myself being one of them, say that our level of spending is unsustainable and we are likely to have a financial collapse if we continue our current spending habits. The opponents of this amendment say that it is not the fault of the Constitution, but the fault of the American public for electing inept representatives. As Scott Lily wrote in his article titled </span><em style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">A Balanced Budget Amendment Would Be a Dangerous Distraction:</em><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"> </span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br />
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: none; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;">
"The craftsmanship of our forefathers at Philadelphia seems to come under attack every time modern politicians screw up. Rather than accepting responsibility for electing incompetent leaders, it is easier to blame the Constitution. If we could only come up with a formula by which public policy could be predetermined by constitutional amendments, we would be free to elect whatever scoundrels and incompetents we chose." (Lily, 2011)</blockquote>
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Personally, I am a Conservative Libertarian. I use this philosophy to guide my political opinions by looking at certain cornerstones that I believe in. One of those beliefs is that centralized governmental power should be extremely limited, even tied down. No other political belief surpasses this one to me, they may be equally important, but never more so. Typically, I am very hesitant to support Constitutional amendments. I, like Lily, believe that our Founders knew what they were doing when the penned the Constitution. It is very well written and I certainly don't consider myself the intellectual better of any of its authors. So why would I support a Constitutional Amendment for a balanced budget?</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Firstly, I don't believe that our Founders would have even been able to fathom $17 trillion dollars in debt, let alone that this kind of unfathomable debt would one day be ours. They would have had no idea that our representatives would continue to kick the can down the road and continue to raise and re-raise the debt ceiling. As Lily stated, this is absolutely the fault of the American voter; however, our inept and cowardly representatives are also to blame. Secondly, the more red tape and hoops that the government has to jump through, the better! I would never support an amendment that limited the freedom or rights of the individual, businesses or state governments, but an amendment that puts even more limitations on the federal government is something that I can truly get behind! </span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">As far as the likelihood of this amendment getting passed... I am hopeful, but it will only happen when the American people wake up from their delusions. We cannot spend ourselves out of debt! When our President says that raising the debt ceiling will not result in our debt increasing, we have to call him out and vote him out! We cannot continue to elect representatives who treat us like imbeciles and lie to our faces. We must start electing representatives that will honor and obey the Constitution and serve the interest of the American people and not their own. This is truly the only answer; however, it is a bit of a conundrum. If we had those kind of leaders, if the American people were actually awake, we wouldn't need this amendment. However, unless that happens, this amendment will not have much of a chance.</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Lastly, our federal government was never meant to have so much power. It has become a leviathan that dominates every aspect of American life. The fears of our founders have been fulfilled. States no longer have a voice in the government, thanks to the 17th Amendment. The Environmental Protection Agency regulates individuals, businesses and states everywhere in the country, never mind the fact that these regulations originate, in most cases, from an Executive agency and not Congress. We no longer own property, we merely rent it from the government like surfs to a king. We are over taxed and under represented, the very thing our founders went to war over. Our government is spending us into slavery and our children and their children will be paying for our apathy for generations. In conclusion, the less authority and power the federal government has and the more bogged down they are with red tape will serve as a hedge against the tyrannical tendencies that this government has displayed.</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"> </span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">References:</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Hatch, O. (2011, April 25). Balanced budget amendment needed to fix national debt crisis. U.S. News. Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/04/25/balanced-budget-amendmentneeded-to-fix-national-debt-crisis.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-size: 13px;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">Lilly, S. (2011, April 22). A balanced budget amendment would be a dangerous distraction. U.S. News. Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/04/25/a-balanced-budget-amendmentwould-be-a-dangerous-distraction.</span></span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03268999915138930307noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7967449877961746110.post-20309668465967462382014-12-04T18:33:00.002-08:002014-12-04T18:33:19.186-08:00Checks and Balances | American Government<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">The purpose of this essay will be to discuss the concept of a divided government within the confines of the separation of powers outlined in the United States Constitution. In order to begin, we must understand why the Founders of the Constitution instituted these checks and balances in the first place. America had just overthrown an oppressive government with massive centralize power and authority, after years of costly war (both in lives and money). The Founders wanted to ensure that no single person or branch of government would ever become capable of recreating the tyranny in which they had just escaped. The best way to ensure that each branch of government's powers would not become oppressive was to establish checks and balances of power that allowed other branches of government to slow or completely halt opposing branch actions. As James Madison wrote, "[a]mbition must be made to counter ambition" (John, 2011), which I believe he meant that it would be in the best interest of all branches of government to limit the powers of the each other. For example, as a member of Congress it behooves a person to keep the other branches of government limited in scope and power, because if they were to grow more powerful, their power could then exceed your own. I believe that Madison was speaking about individuals doing what is in their own best interest, which is all that one can really expect another to do.</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Each branch of government has clearly identified powers and authority identified and granted by the Constitution. To name a few, Congress has the power of the purse, can write laws and declare war. The President has the power to sign a bill sent from Congress into the law, is the commander in-chief of the armed forces and can veto bills written by Congress. The judiciary has the power nullify laws, determine the Constitutionality of laws and prosecute/punish individuals in violation of laws. As Daniel P. Franklin wrote in </span><em style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Policy Point-Counterpoint: Is Divided Government Good For The United States, </em><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">"The separation of powers design built into the U.S. Constitution guarantees a level of inefficiency in government that is breathtaking at times, especially in an era of divided government" (Franklin, 2011). With that said, what is the political landscape that we have seen as a result of these checks and balances? The political party system, which has arguably been the single most dividing force in American politics.</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">But is government division a bad thing or a good thing? I would argue is is not only good, but it is necessary to ensure liberty. This is because the checks and balances are only effective against tyranny if there is division within the government. For example, if the President wanted to become an Emperor and Congress wrote a law or amended the Constitution in such a way to make it possible, then we would go from a Republican form of government to an Empire essentially overnight. Now, obviously this situation is extreme, but it illustrates the point of how division in government is used to prevent such a thing. In the real world, it would likely not be in Congress' best interest to relinquish their power to an all powerful executive, which means that it is less likely to happen.</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">The bottom line is that was more important to ensure that the federal government did not become the leviathan that we had just struggled to free ourselves from than to expedite the governing process. Our Founders were very concerned about the natural tendency of governments to centralize and grow in power. They did everything they could to ensure the longevity of the Republic, but the rest is up to us!</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">References:</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">John, C. (2011). DIVIDED WE FALL: THE CASE AGAINST DIVIDED GOVERNMENT. International Social Science Review, 86(3/4), 166-174.</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Franklin, D. P. (2011). POLICY POINT-COUNTERPOINT: IS DIVIDED GOVERNMENT GOOD FOR THE UNITED STATES?. International Social Science Review, 86(3/4), 160-162.</span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03268999915138930307noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7967449877961746110.post-45039279477265668032014-12-01T20:52:00.000-08:002014-12-01T20:52:30.543-08:00An Argument Against Affirmative Action | Introduction to Ethics & Social Responsibility<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; text-align: center;">
<u style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">An
Argument Against Affirmative Action</span></u></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> The purpose of
this essay will be to make an effective argument against the practice of
affirmative action using ethical theories, perspectives and logical arguments.
This essay will analyze how a Utilitarian, a Deontologist, a Virtue Ethicist a
Relativist and an Ethical Egoist would argue against the use of affirmative
action. A case will be made by illustrating why this practice is irrefutably
unethical and discriminatory.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> Affirmative
action is often used to give minorities an advantage when applying for jobs,
colleges or other organizations. In some cases, extra points are given on test
results and in other cases companies are financially incentivized to be
racially diverse. The result of these practices enables candidates, who may be
less qualified to fill a position, to be chosen in order to achieve minority
quotas. Affirmative action was enacted to push back against racism after
segregation was deemed unconstitutional in order to get employers and the government
to employ minorities; however, it is wrought with issues. As Peter H. Schuck
stated in <i>Assessing Affirmative Action</i>:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">“The framers of the
14th Amendment may have countenanced affirmative action favoring former slaves
and perhaps their descendants, but they would never have approved of today’s
affirmative-action programs, in which most of the potential beneficiaries are
immigrants or descendants of immigrants. But regardless of whether such
programs are constitutional or not, they are undesirable public policy, indeed
perverse in practice.” (Schuck, 2014)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<u><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The Utilitarian<o:p></o:p></span></u></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> In order to
understand how an ethical theory or perspective would deal with affirmative
action, one must first understand the theory or perspective. Utilitarianism is
known as a consequential ethical theory, which simply means that it focuses on the
expected outcome of an act, rather than the morality of the act itself or the
agent involved in the act. The Utilitarian might endorse using the motto, “the
ends justify the means”. The most basic premise of Utilitarianism is that the
agent should choose the course of action that will create the maximum amount of
happiness or utility and reduce suffering for the maximum amount of people
possible. Another way to describe this philosophy is one should choose the act
that produces the best results for the greatest number of individuals while
creating the least amount of harm. As John Stuart Mill, the father of
Utilitarianism, said in his book <i>“Utilitarianism”</i>,
“The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest
Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to
promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness”
(Mill, 2001). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">As noted by Mill, Utilitarianism takes into
account actions that produce the reverse of happiness, otherwise known as
suffering or harm, but any harm created can be outweighed, if sufficient
utility is created as a result. For example, if the life of one person were to
be taken in order to save the lives of 2 or more individuals, the Utilitarian could
suggest that it is the right course of action. This is because more utility was
created than harm.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">When applying the ethical theory of
Utilitarianism to affirmative action, there can be many ways that a Utilitarian
can approach the subject. For the purpose of this essay the focus will be on why
a Utilitarian might be against the practice of affirmative action. One can
simply start with “The Greatest Happiness Principle” to unravel this conundrum.
After analyzing the practice of affirmative action, the Utilitarian could see
that more utility is created, for the greater society, when minorities are not
given special or preferential treatment over the majority. The act of giving
special treatment toward minorities creates more suffering or harm for more
people than it helps. The logic behind this argument is rather simple; there
are more individuals in a majority than in a minority, in fact, that is their
very definitions.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The practice of affirmative action stands in
stark contrast to the ethical theory of Utilitarianism. If anything, the
Utilitarian might see more utility created when special treatment is given to a
majority. This is because more utility is created for more people than is
harmed by this practice. However, a moral and just person can obviously see how
unjust that practice would be.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<u><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Deontology<o:p></o:p></span></u></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> The ethical
theory of Deontology asserts that there are universal laws in which a moral or
just person simply should not violate. Unlike Utilitarianism, Deontology does
not look at the consequences of an action, but rather the morality of an act
itself. A Deontologist would ask, “Is this act moral or just and/or does this
act follow the golden rule?” The golden rule simply states that one should do
unto others, as they wish others would do unto themselves. The name Deontology
comes from the Greek word “Deon”, which means duty. The Deontologist believes
that it is a moral agent’s duty to treat others as the agent would like to be
treated; with respect and dignity. In other words, the ethical theory of Deontology
primarily focuses on what a rational moral agent is obligated to do (I.E.
duty), rather than the consequences of the act.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">“Whatever else it
does, a moral theory will tell us what our moral obligations are. Since if we
have a moral obligation to act in a certain way, it follows that we have a
reason to act in that way, this entails that a moral theory will tell us what
some of our reasons for action are.” (Hooker, 2012)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> When applying
Deontology to the practice of affirmative action, a Deontologist might think
that it is unethical or unjust to give any group of people special or
preferential treatment. It would violate the golden rule to discriminate
against the majority and give the minority an advantage over everyone else in
society. It would not follow the golden rule to discriminate against anyone,
even if they are in the majority. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The Deontologist would not be concerned about
the consequences of eliminating the practice of affirmative action; only that
discrimination is an immoral act, even if it benefits others. It wouldn’t
matter how much utility affirmative action created for minorities, or society
in general, the Deontologist would be against the act of discrimination. The
Deontologist would not consider the amount of suffering, possibly created, from
eliminating the practice of affirmative action, only that the institution,
itself, is morally wrong. Additionally, the Deontologist would not be concerned
with any possible consequences for themselves, such as looking bad politically
or losing votes (if the Deontologist is a politician). They would only be
concerned that discrimination in all forms is immoral. With that in mind, the
Deontologist could argue against affirmative action due to discriminatory
practices based on race. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<u><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Virtue Ethics<o:p></o:p></span></u></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> Aristotle has
been given credit for creating the theory of Virtue Ethics. The ethical theory
of Virtue Ethics is much different from other theories. Unlike Deontology, Virtue
Ethics does not analyze the morality of an action. Unlike Utilitarianism and
Ethical Egoism, Virtue Ethics does not analyze the consequence or outcome of an
action. Conversely, Virtue Ethics emphasizes the character of the agent
performing the action. This ethical theory attempts to seek what makes a
rational moral agent virtuous as an individual. It outlines that a virtuous
person will have certain character qualities, in the proper proportion and in
harmony with all other qualities. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">“What kind of virtues
does Aristotle have in mind? He specifies a number of virtues, some of which
have already been mentioned, including courage, generosity, honesty, pride, and
modesty. He also mentions one that is perhaps less common, temperance, or being
moderate in one's appetites and desires” (Mosser, 2013). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The Virtue Ethicist would consider if an
agent’s actions display these virtues in harmony with one another or if there
is one or more qualities that are in excess or deficient. According to this
theory, the virtuous person should have these qualities in the proper balance.
As Lawler and Salzman wrote in <i>Virtue
Ethics: Natural And Christian:<o:p></o:p></i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: .5in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">“As character state or
habit, virtue not only explains why a person acts this way on this particular
occasion but also why the person can be relied on to act this way always or,
given human frailty, at least most of the time. Immediately, then, we can
isolate three dimensions of a virtue: it is a character state, habit, or
disposition; it involves a judgment of truth and choice of action; and it lies
in a mean between excess and defect” (Lawler/Salzman, 2013)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">When applying Virtue Ethics to the practice of
affirmative action, the Virtue Ethicist would have to determine if this
practice represented a harmony of the above qualities or a deficiency of one
more qualities. It is arguable that affirmative action is, in essence,
discrimination based on race. With that in mind, the Virtue Ethicists might
think that a person who participates in racial discrimination would be
deficient in one or more of these qualities of virtue. Discrimination, in all
forms, is not a virtuous character quality. As a result, the Virtue Ethicist
might be against affirmative action, because to participate in a discriminatory
institution, such as affirmative action, would be to endorse unvirtuous
qualities.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<u><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Relativism<o:p></o:p></span></u></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> The ethical
perspective of Relativism dictates that individuals and/or societies should not
be judged based upon anyone’s standards, but the society that is being judged.
Relativists believe that there is no such thing as an absolute rule or law.
This seems to be a rather good philosophy for those who wish to agree to
disagree, rather than casting judgment. It is worth noting that if a Relativist
believes there is no such thing as an absolute truth, then this statement
contradicts itself. How could one believe absolutely that there is no absolute
truth? It is a conundrum.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> In regards to
how a Relativist would consider the institution of affirmative action there are
many possibilities; however, there is a major stumbling block that cannot be
overcome when applying this theory. Relativism prevents judging society. If a
society is racist and minorities are being discriminated against, the
Relativist might think that it is improper to judge that society. With that in
mind, it is impossible for a Relativist to be in support of societal change.
One can easily argue that societal change is the goal of affirmative action and
by this logic the Relativist would have to be against it.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<u><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Ethical Egoism<o:p></o:p></span></u></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> The ethical
perspective of Ethical Egoism argues that its agents should do what they deem
is in their own best interest or creates the most utility for themselves. There
are similarities between Ethical Egoism and Utilitarianism in that they are
both consequential ethical theories, meaning that they both considered the
outcome of an action, rather than the act itself. “It might be said, following
Feldman (1978, 82), that egoism is individualistic consequentialism, whereas
utilitarianism is universalistic consequentialism” (Burgess-Jackson, 2013). Opponents of Ethical Egoism have long argued
that it is a selfish theory, which they argue makes it completely unethical.
However, the Ethical Egoist could argue that self-interest, rather than selfishness
is the driving force of individuals and that one cannot simply be expected to
labor for others their entire life with no concern for their own interests. It
is arguable that most people, whether intentionally or unintentionally, act as
an Ethical Egoists in their everyday lives by making decisions that they feel
will result in a preferable outcome for themselves. The Ethical Egoist could
argue that this is not selfish, but common sense and self-evident.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> When applying
Ethical Egoism to affirmative action, there are many ways that an Egoist may
determine what is in their own best interest, but for now, a look from an
employer’s point of view will allow the best insight into this ethical
perspective. When an employer begins the hiring process, they likely hope to
find the best person for the job that they wish to have filled. This would
imply that they are, perhaps, looking for a myriad of qualities in a potential
candidate. Some qualities they may look for in a person are experience,
qualification, education, work ethic, employment history, attitude and
professionalism. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">It would behoove the employer to hire the
candidate that best meets these prerequisites, but while utilizing the practice
of affirmative action, the employer may not be able to pick the best candidate
for the job. The employer may be forced to pick a less qualified candidate in
order to meet an arbitrary minority quota or because a person was automatically
given more points than everyone else at the beginning of a test. This less
qualified candidate could require more training, might be less productive,
could cost the company money or, worse, put lives in jeopardy depending on the
job.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Due to the conflicts of self-interest, the
Ethical Egoist could see that it is not in their best interest to practice
affirmative action. The Egoist would determine that they would be better off
hiring the best candidate for the job and not allowing affirmative action to
determine who they hire. This might cause the Ethical Egoist to oppose
affirmative action, not because of its discriminatory practices, but because it
creates more harm for the Egoists than utility. It becomes a burden to bear
rather than a helpful tool for the employer.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> In closing, the
practice of affirmative action is morally wrong and completely unjust. It
essentially creates a privileged few who have opportunities handed to them that
are not based on merit, but skin color, race and ethnic background. It defies
logic to conclude that the answer to the discrimination of a minority due to racism
is to discriminate against the majority. How can one oppose racisms against a
group of people and then simultaneously support racism in favor of that group? Discrimination
in all forms is abhorrent and immoral. Based on this principle alone, a moral
person could not condone the practice of affirmative action. After breaking
down the above theories and perspectives, an ethical theorist could come to the
same conclusion and disapprove of affirmative action. This essay has
illustrated how every discussed ethical theory could produce a negative
reaction in response to the institution of affirmative action. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> In this
author’s opinion affirmative action is tantamount to soft bigotry! Affirmative
action assumes that its recipients could not succeed without such special
treatment. It assumes that minorities
are unable to succeed on their own merit and due to such inferiorities must be
given an advantage over the majority. This kind of thought is not only false,
but despicable in nature. Minorities should be insulted by these false
insinuations and demand that this institution be forever purged from society.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><u>References:</u><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. London, GBR:
ElecBook, 2001. Retrieved from ProQuest ebrary.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Hooker, Brad, ed. Ratio
Special Issues : Developing Deontology : New Essays in Ethical Theory. Hoboken,
NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, 2012. ProQuest ebrary.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Burgess-Jackson, K.
(2013). Taking Egoism Seriously. Ethical Theory & Moral Practice. Retrieved
from EBSCOhost database<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Schuck, P. H. (2014).
Assessing Affirmative Action. National Affairs, 2076-96. Retrieved from EBSCOhost
database<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">Mosser, K. (2013).
Ethics and social responsibility (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint
Education, Inc.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 200%;">LAWLER, M. G., &
SALZMAN, T. A. (2013). VIRTUE ETHICS: NATURAL AND CHRISTIAN. Theological
Studies. Retrieved from EBSCOhost database<o:p></o:p></span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03268999915138930307noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7967449877961746110.post-75936360695986203792014-11-22T16:59:00.000-08:002014-11-22T16:59:26.053-08:00Empower The Citizens And Nothing Is Impossible | Introduction to Ethics & Social Responsibility Discussion Group<div class="tr_bq">
Hello Mack Pack!</div>
<br />
I have another discussion group post that I wanted to share with you. Here were my instructions:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">The purpose of this discussion is to offer you the opportunity to debate the issue of food justice and food deserts. Food deserts are a significant issue in poorer neighborhoods in the United States. In many of these neighborhoods, the only access to food is through a local convenience store or a fast food restaurant. This severely limits the options for the poor to have access to fresh and wholesome food and has been evidenced as a key reason for the obesity epidemic in the United States. This issue is encompassed in the overarching topic of food justice, which highlights the issue of food deserts as well as public access to genetically modified foods, organic foods, and the issues of equal access for positive food options in light of public health and social inequality. Prepare and post a response to the following prompt:</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">Read the Hilmers article assigned this week. Assume that your town is a food desert and you would like to do something about it. Prepare an evidenced argument to present to your local town council that outlines an idea to offer healthy food options to your town. Use at least one ethical theory or perspective to support the moral or ethical reasoning for why this program should be implemented.</span></blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
I always look for a way to avoid government involvement and I wanted to use this as an opportunity to show to my classmates that the government is NOT the first resort for all problems. I wanted to illustrate that empowered citizens are capable of solving community problems for themselves. Let me know what you think? Here is my post:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">Thank you for allowing me to present my argument today for what we, as a town, can do to offer healthy food options. As Angela Hilmers illustrated in the "American Journal of Public Health, "People living in low-income neighborhoods were 2.3 times as likely as residents of affluent neighborhoods to have fast-food outlets within 5-10 min walk" (Hilmers, 2012). With this in mind, we stand at the crossroads of an important decision. Do we continue to allow our town to offer only unhealthy choices of food or is there something that we can do about it?</span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">We are currently living in what is known as a "food desert", which means that we are geographically located in such a way that fresh fruits, vegetables and other healthy foods are not only more expensive than more affluent areas, but less available. The result has been a rapid increase of obesity and diabetes in, not just our children, but the entire community. Compared to other areas, where healthy options are more available, our community's overall health is suffering.</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"></span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">But what can we do? Do we create a law outlawing fast food? No! For the answer to less available healthy options of food, is not to eliminate the options that we have. There are many ways to go about increasing the availability to fresh fruits and vegetables that do not involve the government creating new laws outlawing unhealthy food or even providing healthy food choices for the community. </span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">I ask that the town council find a place for our community to grow our own gardens. Our land is fertile! We have empty lots scattered around town that could be used as a way for us to help ourselves. Instead of relying on others to provide for us, we can provide for ourselves. Being that the property is public land, owned by all, this would be well within the councils power to allocate these areas for this purpose. </span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"></span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">Additionally, I ask that the council please help to provide information to the rest of the community at the local drivers license department on how to grow a garden. By providing this information at the licensing department, we avoid costly marketing, which would of course, be imposed on the taxpayer, but ensures that many people within our community will have access to this information at minimum upon renewal and issue of drivers licenses. This information will put the power back into the hands of the citizens and they can decide what is best for themselves. Lastly, I ask that the council start a community garden donation bank; a place that those of us in the community who wish to donate seeds, fertilizers, soil and gardening equipment to others who cannot afford their to buy their own. I feel all three of these actions are imperative in order for our community to turn around our downward health trends.</span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"></span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">I think we can agree that what you put into you body is a deeply personal issue that can only be made by the individual. I feel this common sense approach will allow those of us who wish to have healthier food choices to take control over our lives, while not forcing others to change a way of life they may wish to keep. I urge the council to act upon this request in the most expedient fashion possible. Thank you for your time. </span><br style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;" /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"></span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">References:</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">Hilmers, A., Hilmers, D. C., & Dave, J. (2012). Neighborhood disparities in access to healthy foods and their effects on environmental justice. American Journal of Public Health, 102(9), 1644-1654. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2012.300865</span></blockquote>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03268999915138930307noreply@blogger.com0