Response to Handguns for 18 Year Olds

I had read a post titled Handguns for 18 Year Olds from my colleague Yan Xiong's blog. The article she had gotten was from the New York Times and was written by an anonymous author who strongly opposed allowing the age to carry a concealed weapon to be 18. Of course, the NRA supports this issue due to the fact that it would increase their profits, but they completely undermine the fact that it could cause a lot of fatal events.This law also challenges the Texas law of having to be at least 21 to carry a concealed weapon.

In her post Ms. Xiong agrees with the author and states that if this law is carried through it would increase crime rates, destroy our youth's future, and create an increasing number of unsafe environments. She supports her opinion by stating the fact that most 18 year olds are not very mature and do not think about their actions. Considering this fact, she can assume that these young people may try to resolve a stupid conflict or misunderstanding by blowing someone's head off.

I agree with both the author and Ms. Xiong. I think back to my high school senior class and I couldn't imagine what some of the kids i graduated with would do with a concealed weapon. Going to school would be, to say the least, scary. As a whole, I think she is also correct when she says that allowing people under 21 to carry handguns would create more crime and unsafe environments. Considering the fact that a lot of people who are over 21 are probably not responsible enough to carry a concealed weapon, I do not believe that lowering the age could do any good.

Ron Paul: TSA Has Gone too Far

In the article Ron Paul: TSA Has Gone too Far, Represenative Ron Paul makes an argument against the TSA's new rule of airports cracking down on their security. Since we are at such high risk, a pat down before being able to get on a plane consists of checking around the breast area in women and checking in the groin area for men and women both. Ron Paul makes the argument that this violates not only our rights, but our liberties. At first, people were being some what passive about the new law, finally people are starting to take a stand and expressing their annoyance with the new security precautions. Paul states that if the government is going to violate our rights and liberties in the airport, there might as well be cameras put into everyone's house to ensure that husbands aren't beating their wives and children as well.

I personally see both sides of the argument. I do agree that such an intense pat down at airport security is extremely uncomfortable, but at the same time, all it takes is one person to bring something on a plane and it's done for. I think they should make some other means of electronic scanner that can do a more thorough scan when you walk through it. It would be more efficient and it would make the people against the new TSA rule happy. With all the technology we have nowadays i don't see why we couldn't make something like this work. I do agree that we need to crack down on security, but within reasonable terms.

Response to "Solar Power Pass"

In Mr. Gosman's "Solar Power Pass," he describes the new plan the Obama Administration is proposing for alternative energy. He states how the project will cost roughly six billion dollars, but will generate up to a thousand jobs to help build the plant and keep approximately three hundred steady jobs to run the plant. Aside from the project being extremely pricey, it will also wipe out eight thousand acres of land that will need to be funded for wildlife that will lose their home.

"Mirrors" will be set up to reflect the sun towards little tubes that contain water. The reflection frmo the sun will cause the water to boil and produce steam. Then a turbine will be used to convert it to electricity. Mr. Gosman agrees that, although it will cost a fortune, it will be a good investment and generate a lot of jobs.

I completely agree with his argument. I think the fact that it costs so much will be worth it considering it will provide energy for two million homes and provide jobs for a thousand people. Like he said, the sun will be around for a lot longer than coal and other non renewable sources so why not make good use out of it?

Doctor Sues Obama Over Health-Care Law

Under a new rule in the Health Care Law, doctors will not be allowed to own hospitals. There are only 260 hospitals in the United States that are owned by doctors and a statistics say that physician owned hospitals are cheaper, have better outcomes, provide more charity care, and pay taxes.  Dr. Michael Russell, the owner of the Spine and Joint Hospital in Tyler, Texas is sueing the Obama Administration and claims this law will limit the hospital’s ability to “expand and compete.”  This particular hospital in Tyler, Texas was ranked number one in Texas for spinal surgery.

Critics of the physician owned hospitals argue that there are more down sides to these hospitals than upsides. These hospitals are known for making their hospital appealing by providing a sense of comfort, such as serving wine and gourmet meals.  It is said that 30% of these hospitals, although owned by doctors, rarely ever have a doctor on site and many don’t even have an emergency department. Basically the physician owned hospitals are more like a “quick care” facility rather than an actual legit hospital.

I understand both sides of the issue. I agree that if the doctor owned hospitals have better outcomes and provide a lot of charity care then they should be allowed to continue to operate. On the other hand, I don’t think they should be called hospitals if they don’t even have an emergency room. If they could come to a compromise on the issue I think it would be better than completely shutting them down. Maybe if the doctor owned hospitals had guidelines set by the Department of Health and Human Services that required having a doctor on the site at all times and were required to have some sort of emergency room it could an easy improvement made to the business. If these standards were not followed, the hospitals would have to label themselves as quick care facilities. I think that these issues can easily be worked out.   

“O’Donnell Mangles The Constitution, Can’t Name One Recent Court Decision She Disagrees With

In the article “O’Donnell Mangles The Constitution, Can’t Name One Recent Court Decision She Disagrees With,” Christine O’Donnell, the Republican nominee from Delaware, is having a debate with her opponent, Chris Coons. The author of the blog states that GOP candidates claim that if things like Medicare, social security, unemployment insurance, and being a member of the UN are not acceptable to the Republicans, they think it should be unconstitutional. The debate starts out talking about the 9/11 mosque that may or may not be built down by Ground Zero.  Somehow the debate ends up in O’Donnell making a fool out of herself and expressing her ignorance. On the video provided in the blog, an interviewer, also in the debate, asked O’Donnell which Supreme Court cases she disagreed with and she stated that she couldn’t come up with something off the top of her head. Basically the blogger argues that she is extremely ignorant and should not be a representative for Delaware considering the fact that she couldn’t even name Roe v. Wade, the most known Supreme Court case. The last statement that the writer makes is that the Republicans across the country continue to select people who haven’t the first idea about the Constitution.

I agree with the author of the blog to an extent. It all goes back to the fact that the public needs to be involved and informed. If our citizens were more informed they wouldn’t be electing people who shouldn’t be in office. I don’t believe that the only people who are uninformed are Republicans. I think that the political illiteracy goes both ways. I agree that Christine O’Donnell probably needs to start by reading up on the Supreme Court cases from past and present court cases.

Why Gun Bans Still Don't Work

In John Lott’s article, “Why Gun Bans Still Don’t Work,” he refers to the recent shooting that happened at UT. Lott states that the shooting could possibly have been avoided if the gun ban on campus was not enforced. He explains that when the gun bans were enforced in cities such as Chicago and D.C., murder rates of the two cities sky rocketed.  After the Supreme Court abolished the gunlock and handgun ban in D.C., the murder rate declined by 23%, which is about three times more than the national murder rate decline as well as cities with roughly the same population. One thing that is often debated is that if citizens are able to carry concealed hand guns they will use them inappropriately out of fear when not necessary.  Lott  explains that a very minimal percent of citizens who actually go through the process to obtain a permit have the permits taken away at any time and are generally very law abiding. Lott has found that statistically, from 1977-1999, public shooting rates have dropped in the United States by 60% after the passage of the right-to-carry laws. Death and injury rates resulting from public shootings have also decreased by 78%. Public places that have gun free restrictions are the most typical areas for shootings.

For the most part, I agree with Lott in his argument about gun bans being ineffective. The statistics that he provided about the public shooting and murder rates are legitimate and you can't argue with them. I don’t believe that allowing guns in every public place will solve the country’s problems as far as deaths by weapons go. However, I do think that if more law abiding people carried them legally it would serve as immense protection against criminals who carry them illegally. I think that this would discourage criminals from using them as much because more people would have an effective way of protecting themselves. All together I think this is a pretty strong argument and I have to say I agree with most of it.

Obama Proposes $210 Billion for New Jobs

In the article "Obama Proposes $210 Billion for New Jobs", it explains the attempt to win over the economically struggling voters. President Obama declared, in his speech on Wednesday, that he was going to set aside $210 billion to help create new jobs in the construction and environmental industries. Many wonder where this money is supposed to come from.

Obama explained that the extra funding for these jobs would come from ending the war in Iraq, raising taxes on citizens with higher income, cutting tax breaks for corporations, and taxing carbon pollution. The largest part of the funding will go to create 5 million green collar jobs which are jobs to develop more environmentally friendly energy sources. The other half of the funding will be given to the National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to build more highways, bridges, and airports.

I think this is a legitimate article because we were just recently talking about Roosevelt’s New Deal in class the other day. There are a lot of similarities between the New Deal and Obama’s new proposition. People working under the New Deal did things like paving roads, creating public parks, and building homes. These tasks are similar to those that Obama proposes we do today. I think, if everything goes as planned, this could help boost our employment rates and do a lot of positive things for our struggling economy.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23148959/