Our National Government

The outline of the government of the United States is laid out in the Constitution. The government was formed in 1789, making the United States one of the world's first, if not the first, modern national constitutional republic. 224 years is a long time to garner an opinion, so what do I think?

Our government is suppose to trusted by the people. However a majority of Americans believe that the government is a threat to their personal rights and freedoms. Fewer and fewer Americans have a favorable view of the federal government, and public anger towards the government is as high as ever. I think it's a good thing for people to be skeptical of their government. It warrants questions and concerns and is a healthy way of asking ourselves what is best for us. It's the decision making portion ( three branches ) I believe that most people typically have concern with. As is indicated by American's negative view of congress over the years.

There are 9 federal agencies that are viewed favorably by 60% or more of the public ( CDC, NASA, Defense Dept, EPA etc. ) I think that when it comes to the part of government that doesn't require a decision or law to be made, Americans tend to favor it more so. With the exception of the NSA in recent months.

The way people should feel about our government should be compared to a love-hate relationship. There are many things our government does that angers us, but there are many things that we do enjoy that is ultimately funded by them ( or funded by us however you look at it ). I couldn't imagine living in a country without people like NASA and space exploration or the EPA to protect human health and the environment. Life would suck without our national government. 

The Debate of Gun Control

Mr. Corpus' take on gun control is one I can relate with quite well. Gun control in the United States is poor, and as acts of gun related violence increases this also increases the amount of guns sold. I'm certain that everyone could agree that guns should not be sold to felons, and the mentally ill. The question Mr. Corpus' asks is, "...are these government officials really making the proper and necessary laws to keep gun violence to a minimum?" In the aftermath of a tragic event involving gun violence, gun sales are greatly affected ( Sandy Hook ), however, gun sales do not directly correlate with gun violence. The background checks that we go through are very efficient at doing what they are designed to do, and that's to ensure guns do not find themselves in the hands of documented non-law abiding citizens. Criminals however, do not always have a criminal record. In the case of the Navy Yard shooting, a man who is well versed in weapons would pass any background check and with the military ID would have been trusted to purchase/handle any firearm of his choosing.

I think to say "Gun laws are too lax, we need to make them stricter" is an easy thing to say. What more can possibly be done to make them stricter? Should a person have to be mentally evaluated and interviewed by a licensed therapist in order to purchase a firearm? Or perhaps be evaluated in order to receive a CHL or other type of license to purchase a firearm which in turn would be required to purchase a gun? But even hypothetically speaking if all of these stipulations were in place you could still name instances of tragic gun violence in the past that would have occurred regardless. The fact of the matter is, criminals ( documented or not ) will act upon any intent they have regardless of a law. Because that's what criminals do. It is the task of law enforcement and only in certain contexts the task of the citizens to handle these types of people. The thought of using violence to curb violence is obviously not a popular one. However, it is our founding fathers who agreed to this, and even used in the past.

Personally I feel the gun laws are fine where they are and they do not need to be made more strict or more relaxed. Making it one way or another would either turn us into a gun violence ridden country or turned into one giant police state(which nobody wants). But whether you like it or not, gun violence is enforced by law enforcement and YOU. Unless of course someone is willing and able to revise the Constitution of the United States. When it comes to gun control, knowledge and preparation is key.

LAX shooting reignites debate over TSA workers' role in security 

    The recent shooting that took the life of a Transportation Security Administration official has sparked a debate on whether or not airport screeners should be given firearms as well as arresting powers in order to protect people in the wake of last weeks tragedy. These officers have been entrusted to protect our checkpoints and by not arming them are we not giving them all of the necessary tools to do their job? Which is to protect and ensure safety at security checkpoints. With the ever growing phenomenon of public shootings this debate is relevant as ever.

    Despite their appearance and title, the TSA are not federal officers. With a workforce of more than 45,000 people across the country, the idea of arming these individuals in the immediate aftermath of an event like what happened in LAX seems like a fair argument. But when you think about it, that's a lot of guns, and a lot of training would have to come with that. Arming TSA officials would only make the matter worse in the long run.

   While the events that happened can warrant a discussion one thing that must happen, other than arming 45k people, is to review and evaluate policies with both the airport police ( who are armed ) as well as TSA officials. At most international airports, hundreds and hundreds of armed police officers are roaming around at any given time. Arming that however many more people, I believe, will not prevent a similar incident from happening. Regardless of the unfortunate fatality, the events that happened at LAX were rather efficient. As soon as the shooter opened fire, the response mechanism was kicked into gear and the shooter neutralized.

   This event was good in a sense that the TSA can reevaluate their policies and procedures but any change would be time-consuming and distracting to officers and their mission: finding people and items that present threats to aircraft.

NSA must prove value of phone program

    Edward Snowden is an exiled American computer specialist and former CIA employee and NSA contractor who disclosed classified details of several top-secret United States and British government mass surveillance programs to the press. Since his emergence in June, Americans have learned a lot about how our government is keeping tabs on us all. For seven years, the National Security Agency has been collecting detailed phone data on hundreds of millions of Americans not suspected of anything. The NSA has harvested millions of e-mail and instant messaging contact lists. Though the program is targeted at foreigners, it sweeps in many ordinary Americans. They are also building a 1 million square-foot fortress in Utah to hold a massive collection of data. 

    The question our author is asking is; Is searching for a needle in the haystack in order to connect all the dots the best way to approach this? The problem is that we're not simply talking about hay or dots but millions of Americans and their private information being on tap for whenever the government feels it is needed. Our own lawmakers knew very little about what was going on. The author goes on to say also, that if this technology and practice were around could we have rewrote history prior to 9/11? During that time we did have lots of data, but did not have the means or capacity to share this vital information among fellow agencies. The author seems to be giving us a choice and has a neutral feel to it because at the end he adds "Choosing between privacy rights and security from terrorism is difficult. But before Americans are forced to make that choice, the government ought to demonstrate that this intrusive program has extraordinary value. So far, the administration hasn't even come close." We can truly see both sides of the spectrum in this conundrum of privacy vs. national security.

Just one more thing about Rick Perry’s future...

http://www.statesman.com/weblogs/grapeshot/2013/jul/09/just-one-more-thing-about-rick-perrys-future/

 

     The question of whether or not Rick Perry takes another shot at the White House is still up in the air. But after a sub-par performance in 2012 against considerably weak candidates does he stand a chance against an even more well versed competition in 2016? The frequently mentioned list of possible 2016 Republican candidates includes Marco Rubio, Chris Christi, Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, Bobby Jindal and, in the Republican version of the role Barack Obama played in the 2008 Democratic primary, Ted Cruz. A much harder hitting cast than Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain and Rick Santorum in 2012. Christie and Bush however are distrusted by the majority of the Republican base, and Cruz appears to appeal across all bases. I can see that Republicans who might run in 2016 seem to be stronger candidates but each will have their own weaknesses. One person has to win the nomination obviously and who knows it very well may be a Republican candidate. However, the opponents that Perry would likely face may not be as strong as some are saying. As for the Democrats it seems Hillary Clinton is their only likely option. The author says that Rick Perry will likely not win the Republican nomination but says he has a chance.  

    I don't know anything about Jody Seaborn, the author of this article, but I am going to assume since he believes Perry would still have a chance even after his piss-poor performance in 2012 that he is in fact, an idiot. I assume Seaborn is a Republican living in Austin therefore, outnumbered greatly. He failed to bring up some of the events that prevented Rick Perry from being a powerful candidate including his poor ability of public speaking without making himself appear to be a complete jackass. Also, he blamed his disastrous presidential campaign on having undiagnosed sleep apnea. He's been governing the third largest state for over ten years with undiagnosed sleep apnea and now all the sudden when you have to answer questions this is a problem? We can assume his dog ate his homework as well. 

Iran Says No To Nuclear Weapons

Iran's president Rouhani: We will never develop nuclear weapons  

   Iran's nuclear program began in the 1950's with the help of the United States in a push for Nuclear peace around the world. In 2011 their program was under scrutiny for having undertaken research and experiments geared to developing a nuclear weapons capability prior to 2003 under the rule of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In a move clearly directed at nuclear peace Hassan Rouhani has declared that Iran “under no circumstances would seek any weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, nor will we ever.” The head of Tehran's nuclear program said Rouhani has a "more full-fledged...desire" to come to an agreement on nukes than the prior government, in stark contrast to the anti-Semitic vitriol of Ahmedinejad.

    This act of peace and political stability is an important one. In a time where the world seems to always be on the edge of war and the thought of nuclear warfare always looming in the back of our minds an affirmative stance on nuclear weapons by a more reasonable president is one that provides comfort to us and a region with a longstanding history of corruption and threatening rhetoric. U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz sounded a note of caution. "The proof will be in the pudding," he said. "The words have to be followed by concrete action."

Iran's president Rouhani: We will never develop nuclear weapons

Where Do I Fit?

I am a Post-Modern along with 13% of the public, so I am told.