Monday Matters - Anti Gun Control

The following is another opinion piece on Gun control, but this time with an alternate view point.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/17/opinion/granderson-gun-control-fail/

Another mass murder. The shooter ( Note: who of course there is tons of info about now) was apparently a shy man who even practiced Buddhism and meditated at times. Gun control advocates attempt to connect this story with the sandy-hook mass shooting along with most gun-violence victims. They attempt to categorize all these incidents together and make the common enemy the lack of gun regulation. Gun Control is harsh in Chicago, gun shops are even illegal, but there is gun violence the plenty. Not all gun violence deaths are the same. The reason gun violence happens, is not because it's guns, but various factors such as poverty, mental health and failing education. So combat those issues, don't combat guns.

This is part of the argument: "Last month the nation breathed a sigh of relief after Antoinette Tuff, a bookkeeper in an elementary school in suburban Atlanta, prevented a man with an AK-47-type weapon and nearly 500 rounds of ammunition from hurting anyone."

(^^Why do you need 500 rounds and an AK? What, are you preparing for the zombie apocalypse? Or maybe the so much more viable governmental takeover that's just bound to happen.)

The strategy of combating the relevance of the second amendment and "playing on the nation's emotions" hasn't worked. So combat the issues that make gun violence happen, not the actual guns. 

Because guns don't kill people, people kill people. 

Monday Matters: NEW - Guns

The controversial topic I have chosen to follow is Gun Laws in the United States of America.

Push harder for gun-law changes

- Scot Lehigh

- Boston Globe

The shooting at the Washington military base was surprising, yet foreseeable. Mass shootings have became a staple in America, and the question now is simply where will the next one be, and how bad will it be?

More than 600,000 Americans have died since 1995 from gun violence. It should be noted however that half the annual gun deaths are suicidal, but still the numbers are quite remarkable.

The answer of course should start with the implementation of new laws. Background checks of the recipient for the sale of guns through all forms of distribution. Bills like the Manchin-Toomey bill detail this. "Expanded background checks" already have a majority support in the Senate, (as they should) the problem is  though "that such a bill doesn’t yet have the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster".

One gun-law advocate states in reference to the needed laws: “We can’t confidently predict the date, but it will happen when the American public brings its voice to bear,”

The law does however need to be expanded, so it can reject men likely to commit atrocities like the Washington shooting, by denying them purchase on the means of some check on mental stability. This check could be done my requiring the customer to have ability insurance.

Gun Laws have to continued to be pushed, it is imperative.

Monday Matters: Synthesize

By following the columnist Ross Douthat from the N.Y. times and summarising his posts for some weeks, I think I am now in a position to be able to synthesize his posts into a statement on how he views society.

I would say Douthat has a right-wing perspective on society. Although, it is not particularly strong right. He appears to be Conservative, which is alluded to in his article "Obamacare, Failing Ahead of Schedule" where in reference to the conservatives not wanting a total Obamacare meltdown, he states, "They’re hoping, as I’m hoping..." and then goes to state what they are hoping for. He essentially group himself with conservatives here, showing his alignment to the right. But yet, he is not deep right. In that same article he states that while "Republican politicians may be salivating over a potential Obamacare crisis", conservatives and himself are not. So he is right-wing, but a more sane, collected right-wing than most republicans.

I would say Douthat has a decently positive outlook on society. I say decently only because their is no evidence to warrant a either positive or negative outlook verdict. 


Image that contradicts his view: 

Monday Matters: Analysis

In all four of the columns from Ross Douthat that I have followed, he has addressed the Obamacare debate.

Douthat takes a opinion that is both subjective and objective,  sometimes he barely interjects his own opinion, other times it is very present. In one article, my second one following Douthat titled "Obamacare, Failing Ahead of Schedule", he opts to simply report for the majority of the piece and rarely gives his own insight. His only real opinion first comes in doing some speculating about what could happen in the future, but by the end he does arrive at a thesis of sorts. In another of the articles that I followed from him, alternately, his opinion is front and center. In the article Douthat is more forthcoming with his opinion. The aritcle is titled "But What if Obamacare Works?", and through evidence in the titles of the pieces, it can be seen the variance in opinion injection in the pieces. In this second post Douthat has a strong opinion.

Links:

Obamacare, Failing Ahead of Schedule
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/20/opinion/sunday/douthat-obamacare-failing-ahead-of-schedule.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
But What if Obamacare Works?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/27/opinion/sunday/douthat-but-what-if-obamacare-works.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Monady Matters: Columnist.4

But What if Obamacare Works?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/27/opinion/sunday/douthat-but-what-if-obamacare-works.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

It is likely that the issue with Obamacare's website, healthcare.gov, will be resolved by around thanksgiving, and Obamacare will actually be able to be put into full-on action. Obamacare insurance will be seen in terms of three "mores": it will be more expensive, more subsidized and more comprehensive. Obamacare is more expensive apparently: Comparing some prices, it can be seen that before two specific deals cost 100 and 300 dollars respectively. But now, with Obamacare, they cost 224 and 537 dollars. And that's only the starter prices. Outrage. However, these prices are not telling the whole story. Subsidies are part of the plan, and they seriously lower the prices. For perspective, with a salary of $30,000 for the two deals, the cost would fall to $115, and well, zero. However the problem does exist, the more subsidies factor out. If Obamacare's website is fixed, it will  be interesting to see how the people react for who life pre-obamacare was better.

Now, after studying Obamacare through Douthat's column, it has become clear that all of this is ridiculously complex and it is challenging to be completely informed on the whole deal, but my question would still be is Obamacare really that bad?

Monday Matters: Columnist .2

Obamacare, Failing Ahead of Schedule
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/20/opinion/sunday/douthat-obamacare-failing-ahead-of-schedule.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Claim:
Obamacare has gotten off to a rough start.
The issue is none of the one's predicted, but rather that the medium, the website, doesn't work well (odd, considering, the internet is supposed to be Obama's administration's domain).
If this doesn't get fixed, the system will collapse.

Support:
The system will collapse because "The system’s sustainability depends on getting enough healthy people to sign up" if not enough people sign up insurers “will have to raise everyone’s premiums"   and then "the Rising premiums prompt people to drop out, causing premiums to increase even more.” This has been deemed a "death spiral".
The issue is on both ends of the system: the front, where people are supposed to shop for plans, and the back, where insurers are supposed to process applications.
The white house can't work too slow to fix the problem, otherwise it will collapse.

Question:
How likely is it to actually be a disaster?

Monday matters: Columnist

I decided to follow Ross Douthat from the New York Times.


http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/26/could-a-republican-health-care-reform-ever-happen/?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0

Could a Republican Health Care Reform Ever Happen?

Claim:

There is no good reason to oppose health care.
The Congressional republicans oppose it, because they don't want to pay, nor do they want their voters to pay, and they find comfort in the illusion of this 'free-market' that would be brought to shambles health care was introduced.

Support:

No, because only chance is February 2017, because Obama care needs to be implemented for a few years, so that the right-of-center alternatives will no longer look "risky and disruptive".

By then Obama Care will have already proved itself and things won't be as unclear.

This may be optimistic, because problems could arise, but unlikely.

Question:
What are the proposals better than the current Obama-care?

Monday Matters III.

http://www.davegranlund.com/cartoons/2011/11/03/syria-and-protesters/

This image is a political cartoon, concerning Syria. While the picture's initial purpose is to be humorous, as most political cartoons are, the real purpose of it is to send a message. The message of this cartoon, in a pretty basic explanation, is to make the viewer feel that what the Syrian president Assad is doing is wrong. This is done through a basic appeal to logos. The cartoon depicts the how the president pledged to relax his policy on protesters, and did essentially nothing. Because before he had a giant iron fist, and after, well, he has a still pretty giant iron fist. The cartoon makes the viewer feel that this is obviously not right, because Assad effectively did nothing to stop his repressive habits, despite pledging that he would.
The cartoon also appeals to pathos. It's obviously not right for Assad to rule with an iron fist, especially so, when the iron fist is so unproportionally gigantic.

Monday Matters II.

Here is a link to an editorial from The Chicago Tribune, concerning the American intervention in Syria: 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-coalition-20130908,0,109388.story

Summary:
While the bush administration choice go to war was undoubtedly a mistake, certain aspects were
done right, in reference on how to go to war:

- Clear mission stated
- Explained the purpose of the war repeatedly
- Concrete measures to obtain objective undertaken

Obama has not done these, and he has not been decisive enough in his moves:
 - Delayed response to reports of chemical weapons
- Originally said, America would go to war on his own authority, then took it to Congress
- No concrete mission, or gameplan.
Also, Obama's  original "red line" threat was badly thought out and a mistake.

Monday Matters I.

I chose a article on the American intervention in Syria. The piece, which is an opinion piece is from the New York Times, and written by Thomas L. Friedman.

The link to the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/04/opinion/friedman-arm-and-shame.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

Claim: America has to intervene in Syria, however the current planned course of action is the wrong approach. America needs to implement a "Arm and Shame" tactic.

The "Arm and Shame" tactic entails arming the Syrian rebels, and "shaming" the Syrian president Assad and his supporters.

Evidence:

• America will not suffer criticism, nor look weak.
• Bombing would most likely lead to collateral damage, swinging the spotlight from the poison gas killings.
• The rebels will be able to better protect themselves.
• The influence of anti-jihadist and anti-Assad groups will be increased.
• Iran may release a nuclear bomb, in response to the American bombing.
• This tactic will gain following, hopefully garnering a world response

Question:
Why exactly is America the only state capable of undertaking the problem?
Couldn't arming the rebels, create a situation similar to that of the one with Bin-Laden? He too was armed by the Americans and look how that went...