http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/21/news/colorado-marijuana-candy-food-ban/index.html?iid=SF_E_River
In Colorado, Marijuana is legal. With the legality of recreational Marijuana, a lot of pot-related products have emerged, prevalent among them being Marijuana-laced candy bars. Health officials have dealt with over twice last year's amount of Marijuana-related illnesses in pediatric care centers. They are urging the state to ban, or at least more clearly label, and make less accessible the pot products because kids are vulnerable to accidentally eating them.
This is another case of interest groups with different agendas conflicting. The businesses of the pot industry do not want excessive government intervention or prohibition of their products. Health officials, however, want the Marijuana products off the shelves, as a danger to children. This is an interesting case, as the legalization of pot is an experiment, and only in Washington is it also legal. It will be interesting to see the outcome, as the pot industry has brought in a lot of tax revenue in the past couple years, and the health officials have quite valid reasons to require better regulations, especially with Halloween approaching. Although the majority of Utahans would probably never vote to have legalized Marijuana, it would be a great tax generating source, and would save millions in police resources now used in convicting and arresting Marijuana users and distributors. It would also allow all Marijuana to be state--regulated, and give the ability to pass laws concerning its use and put restrictions on its sale and production, meaning less of market for illegal trade. It'll probably never happen, but it's just a thought.
Friday, October 24, 2014
Is the U.S. holding too much oil in reserve? (10-24-14)
http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/24/news/u-s-oil-reserve/index.html?iid=H_E_News
The United States has an enormous emergency stock pile of oil, enough to sustain the country for 106 days. Debate has risen as to whether we should tap into that particular supply, as the USA is producing more oil than ever before.
I think that the strategic reserve is undoubtedly vital in protection of America in case oil becomes more difficult to get. If we are producing more than ever before, why would we risk using some of our emergency stockpile of petroleum oil? Prices are going to slowly decrease anyway. There's a point that we we could lower prices even more, but there'd be serious consequences later in case of a shortage of or inability to get oil, like in 20011 we used some of the supply when there was war in Libya. It is far better to have a prepared nation than one that risks a fatal energy shortage in times of crisis. We talk in class about special interest groups, and this is one example, companies who use or sell oil certainly want a piece of the reserve, while others oppose it. It's great the USA is growing again in oil production and moving away from foreign oil dependence, but, lets not get too hasty and get rid of reserves now, we never know when another recession will hit.
The United States has an enormous emergency stock pile of oil, enough to sustain the country for 106 days. Debate has risen as to whether we should tap into that particular supply, as the USA is producing more oil than ever before.
I think that the strategic reserve is undoubtedly vital in protection of America in case oil becomes more difficult to get. If we are producing more than ever before, why would we risk using some of our emergency stockpile of petroleum oil? Prices are going to slowly decrease anyway. There's a point that we we could lower prices even more, but there'd be serious consequences later in case of a shortage of or inability to get oil, like in 20011 we used some of the supply when there was war in Libya. It is far better to have a prepared nation than one that risks a fatal energy shortage in times of crisis. We talk in class about special interest groups, and this is one example, companies who use or sell oil certainly want a piece of the reserve, while others oppose it. It's great the USA is growing again in oil production and moving away from foreign oil dependence, but, lets not get too hasty and get rid of reserves now, we never know when another recession will hit.
Slave labor in America today (10-24-14)
http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/21/pf/labor-trafficking/index.html?hpt=us_bn5
Basically, immigrants to the united states, whether illegal or legal, are being deceived and abused. Recruiters come to their home countries, offering promises of money, benefits, and perks. When the immigrants arrive to work, they are coerced into signing agreements they do not understand, making them pay huge sums of money as "recruitment fees," and effectively making them indebted, and forced to stay on for years and years.
This article is somewhat eye-opening to hardworking people being taken advantage of by American farmers and businesses. It's a disgusting thing that in our free society, we still have to deal with these kind of situations. The kicker is really that 70% of the immigrants were legal, and should have been, and should be protected. While fighting against illegal immigration so hard, I think we have overlooked a serious problem in America. No one living here should be so indebted to their employers to the point they can't get away. The ability to quit a job is a luxury we take for granted, even when we need the money to survive, we can still quit, but not everyone even has the option. Law enforcement needs to worry less about illegal immigrants, and focus more on the human injustices and abasement committed in widespread mockery of the laws of the land. The fact people give up so much to come here, and are so desperate to be in America, is one that deserves consideration. It should be easier to immigrate legally, and with registered citizens at work, they can be better protected, and not lost in the cracks, and illegal immigrants are still people, and even if they came across the border illegally, they deserve fair treatment too. This issue goes way deeper than meets the eye, mistreated workers are only the top of the ice burg in abuses committed against mainly Hispanic immigrants. The people who use these people and abuse them in such ways are going to have to pay.
Basically, immigrants to the united states, whether illegal or legal, are being deceived and abused. Recruiters come to their home countries, offering promises of money, benefits, and perks. When the immigrants arrive to work, they are coerced into signing agreements they do not understand, making them pay huge sums of money as "recruitment fees," and effectively making them indebted, and forced to stay on for years and years.
This article is somewhat eye-opening to hardworking people being taken advantage of by American farmers and businesses. It's a disgusting thing that in our free society, we still have to deal with these kind of situations. The kicker is really that 70% of the immigrants were legal, and should have been, and should be protected. While fighting against illegal immigration so hard, I think we have overlooked a serious problem in America. No one living here should be so indebted to their employers to the point they can't get away. The ability to quit a job is a luxury we take for granted, even when we need the money to survive, we can still quit, but not everyone even has the option. Law enforcement needs to worry less about illegal immigrants, and focus more on the human injustices and abasement committed in widespread mockery of the laws of the land. The fact people give up so much to come here, and are so desperate to be in America, is one that deserves consideration. It should be easier to immigrate legally, and with registered citizens at work, they can be better protected, and not lost in the cracks, and illegal immigrants are still people, and even if they came across the border illegally, they deserve fair treatment too. This issue goes way deeper than meets the eye, mistreated workers are only the top of the ice burg in abuses committed against mainly Hispanic immigrants. The people who use these people and abuse them in such ways are going to have to pay.
The parasite keeping millions in poverty (10-24-14)
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/21/world/africa/the-parasite-keeping-millions-in-poverty/index.html?hpt=wo
A small parasite in Africa is disabling people, inhibiting their ability to work, and to go to school. It's enough to cause families, already poor, to sink deeper into poverty, and to damage the kids' ability to get an education to get out of poverty. The consequences of this tiny parasite are far--reaching and catastrophic to millions of people in Africa. The thing is, it's easily curable, but most Africans do not have adequate medical treatment facilities.
This article is quite depressing, especially considering how great of health care we have, and how much a little, easily treatable parasite can destroy lives in impoverished nations. Not saying it takes enormous sums of money and an enormous influx in donated resources in order to help Africa, but we should help more than we are. These people live in poverty, they rely on their ability to farm to provide less than enough to live on. One little infection or sickness, or parasite, and their livelihoods are in jeopardy. We, as Americans, should make helping impoverished Africa a higher priority. The poorest of the poor in our country lives with far more wealth, comfort, protection, and hope than any of the poor families in Africa. We send doctors, we can send more. We can do better, and those people deserve better. When we are in an age of heated toilet seats, several-car families, and mass possession of electronics, no country should still be sitting in puny, rough shacks, barely able to eat, and where the most basic of diseases can debilitate an entire village, we, as Americans, need to put emphasis on helping out Africa more, and have the U.N. help too.
A small parasite in Africa is disabling people, inhibiting their ability to work, and to go to school. It's enough to cause families, already poor, to sink deeper into poverty, and to damage the kids' ability to get an education to get out of poverty. The consequences of this tiny parasite are far--reaching and catastrophic to millions of people in Africa. The thing is, it's easily curable, but most Africans do not have adequate medical treatment facilities.
This article is quite depressing, especially considering how great of health care we have, and how much a little, easily treatable parasite can destroy lives in impoverished nations. Not saying it takes enormous sums of money and an enormous influx in donated resources in order to help Africa, but we should help more than we are. These people live in poverty, they rely on their ability to farm to provide less than enough to live on. One little infection or sickness, or parasite, and their livelihoods are in jeopardy. We, as Americans, should make helping impoverished Africa a higher priority. The poorest of the poor in our country lives with far more wealth, comfort, protection, and hope than any of the poor families in Africa. We send doctors, we can send more. We can do better, and those people deserve better. When we are in an age of heated toilet seats, several-car families, and mass possession of electronics, no country should still be sitting in puny, rough shacks, barely able to eat, and where the most basic of diseases can debilitate an entire village, we, as Americans, need to put emphasis on helping out Africa more, and have the U.N. help too.
Thursday, October 23, 2014
Who shouts 'Ebola' in a crowded theater?
(10-23-14) https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=882484085261576332#editor/target=post;postID=8550389805139875592
Basically, a bunch of pranksters have decided it'd be funny to "cry wolf" so to speak, telling people "I have Ebola," yelling it in crowded environments, pretending to be legitimately sick. It clears a room, for sure, but the authorities and people in the situations are not impressed, to say the least.
The article, though seemingly insignificant, does speak to how we, as Americans, do give in to mass panic occasionally. Sure, Ebola is a dangerous, nasty, virus, but why aren't we freaking out and fearing diseases that are actually deadlier, kill more people every year, and are more infectious? Diseases that really need widely distributed vaccines, and effect thousands more people, diseases like the flu, malaria, and tuberculosis. Sure, they sound more common to the reader, but each is far more likely to be spread to someone than Ebola, and more likely to kill someone too. But, the media has its mass-story to publish, and the fear of Ebola that has spread is almost palpable at times. Ebola is a disgusting virus, no one wants to catch it, but, it is far more likely we get sick from influenza or another disease. The reaction people display is a bit ridiculous. The free press, and the media are extremely vital in the retention of democracy and in protection of rights, but, the media is always about finding the best story, typically regardless of what really needs to be said, and the media is biased--you have to look at lots of viewpoints to get the real story. What we need to worry about is not being scared to the point of mass panic, but rather the fact that all it takes is one small virus and a huge, embellishing media coverage collection to cause us to act in such fear. There has been talk that yelling Ebola in a public place, i.e. an airport, could be an act of terrorism. We shouldn't scare so easily, rather we need to worry about what actually poses a legitimate threat, and look up the facts and statistics before plunging ourselves into self-induced chaos.
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
Parents of Aurora shooting victim sue ammo sellers (9-17-14)
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/17/justice/colorado-theater-shooting-lawsuit/index.html?hpt=us_c2
The aurora movie theatre shooting two years ago is something both terrible and sad. James Holmes, a crazy, highly unstable guy-- armed to the teeth with over 4,000 rounds of ammo, bullet proof armor, several weapons, and explosives--went into a theatre, while the movie was playing, and brutally shot into the audience. 12 were killed, and dozens more wounded. He was apprehended by the police, and they had to remove explosive charges from all over his apartment in the days following. When I heard what had happened, it really struck home for me. I lived in Aurora, Colorado for twelve years, and I lived ten minutes from that theatre. It is a really disturbing thing that someone would go and do that, but even more disturbing to me, is that Holmes was able to shoot and injure or kill almost 60 people, in a crowded theatre, and the fact he had access to military grade weapons, armor, and explosives that helped him do it, and would've also been used to help him avoid arrest, and kill law enforcement officers along the way, had he not been taken into custody as soon as he was. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence filed a lawsuit recently on behalf of Sandy and Lonnie Phillips, whose daughter Jessica Ghawi was shot and killed in the attack. They are suing Lucky Gunner, the Sportman's Guide, BulletProofBodyArmorHQ.com and BTP Arms for negligently supplying Holmes.
The constitution has been argued about and debated over since its existence, and with the issue of gun rights and in the differing interpretations of the second amendment, the same controversy continues. The family suing the online guns and ammo retailers said in a statement, " A crazed, homicidal killer should not be able to amass a military arsenal, without showing his face or answering a single question, with the simple click of a mouse, . . . If businesses choose to sell military-grade equipment online, they must screen purchasers to prevent arming people like James Holmes." I do concede that hunters and gun enthusiasts should be able to have guns if they really do want them, if the purchase of these weapons are regulated. But, I do not believe the ability to have a gun should mean the ability to get one is an easy and convenient process, or that anyone except the military, maybe a very few extremely well monitored enthusiasts, and maybe law enforcement should even have access to military grade weapons, and certainly not with simple and convenient access. It has been said by critics of gun regulation that "guns don't cause shootings, individuals do." To this I agree, except for the fact that if the individual never had a gun in the first place, he never could have shot anyone. Putting a firearm in a person's hands gives them access to a weapon, and with the weapon, a way to kill people, in the eyes of the mentally unsound or distraught. I believe that civilians do have a right to purchase and use guns, but only within reasonable regulation. There is no easy solution, but I think that the businesses responsible for selling firearms should background check their customers at the very least, maybe even give psychological analysis, and there should be a mandatory waiting period for purchasing a firearm, to allow cool-off time for upset individuals, and to make the process more difficult, to make spontaneous acts of violence less probable. The fact is, Holmes was able to purchase weapons and ammo quite easily, if he hadn't been able get them as quickly, perhaps that night in Aurora would not have ended in such tragedy.
I do not think the general community would mind waiting a little longer for their firearms, especially considering if they have nothing to hide they would have nothing to fear, and would have access to their precious guns-- as long as they passed the background checks and mental stability tests-- and in the fact that communities would be safer. The fact is, regulating how firearms are bought and distributed shouldn't even be the issue, it should already be inherent, the fact is-- it isn't, the issue is why are weapons are so accessible?, it poses a real danger to communities. It shouldn't be, in my opinion, a fast and simple process to buy a gun. Sure, there are gun enthusiasts, who may mean no harm, and just want to collect guns, and they amass arsenals of ammo and weapons, all fine and good until their gun collection is stolen from. Or there are people who just really want a firearm to protect themselves. There are hunters who certainly need guns to hunt too. It may be an inconvenience, but it is much safer to have wait times and background checks, and everyone will still be able to have guns. I don't think we need to have military weapons though. They are, by design, created to kill a lot of people very quickly.Who really needs an assault rifle in a domestic setting?, who really needs military grade body armor? who buys sophisticated explosives merely for enjoyment? The people that do are either planning criminal activities, or trying to spark an insurrection, or very unstable, and, all it takes is one psychopath with a firearm, and there's a tragedy. I think the benefits of not allowing such weapons for civilians far outweigh the potentially catastrophic and harrowing risks. People advocate having high--powered weapons with large magazines as a defense against the government, however, a few assault rifles and private military grade arsenals aren't going to do much good if the government really wanted to attack its citizens--which is a ridiculous notion to begin with, by the way. Voting and participating in government, and being informed is the true defense against injustice; being complacent as a society is what causes government to not represent our interests.
The aurora movie theatre shooting two years ago is something both terrible and sad. James Holmes, a crazy, highly unstable guy-- armed to the teeth with over 4,000 rounds of ammo, bullet proof armor, several weapons, and explosives--went into a theatre, while the movie was playing, and brutally shot into the audience. 12 were killed, and dozens more wounded. He was apprehended by the police, and they had to remove explosive charges from all over his apartment in the days following. When I heard what had happened, it really struck home for me. I lived in Aurora, Colorado for twelve years, and I lived ten minutes from that theatre. It is a really disturbing thing that someone would go and do that, but even more disturbing to me, is that Holmes was able to shoot and injure or kill almost 60 people, in a crowded theatre, and the fact he had access to military grade weapons, armor, and explosives that helped him do it, and would've also been used to help him avoid arrest, and kill law enforcement officers along the way, had he not been taken into custody as soon as he was. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence filed a lawsuit recently on behalf of Sandy and Lonnie Phillips, whose daughter Jessica Ghawi was shot and killed in the attack. They are suing Lucky Gunner, the Sportman's Guide, BulletProofBodyArmorHQ.com and BTP Arms for negligently supplying Holmes.
The constitution has been argued about and debated over since its existence, and with the issue of gun rights and in the differing interpretations of the second amendment, the same controversy continues. The family suing the online guns and ammo retailers said in a statement, " A crazed, homicidal killer should not be able to amass a military arsenal, without showing his face or answering a single question, with the simple click of a mouse, . . . If businesses choose to sell military-grade equipment online, they must screen purchasers to prevent arming people like James Holmes." I do concede that hunters and gun enthusiasts should be able to have guns if they really do want them, if the purchase of these weapons are regulated. But, I do not believe the ability to have a gun should mean the ability to get one is an easy and convenient process, or that anyone except the military, maybe a very few extremely well monitored enthusiasts, and maybe law enforcement should even have access to military grade weapons, and certainly not with simple and convenient access. It has been said by critics of gun regulation that "guns don't cause shootings, individuals do." To this I agree, except for the fact that if the individual never had a gun in the first place, he never could have shot anyone. Putting a firearm in a person's hands gives them access to a weapon, and with the weapon, a way to kill people, in the eyes of the mentally unsound or distraught. I believe that civilians do have a right to purchase and use guns, but only within reasonable regulation. There is no easy solution, but I think that the businesses responsible for selling firearms should background check their customers at the very least, maybe even give psychological analysis, and there should be a mandatory waiting period for purchasing a firearm, to allow cool-off time for upset individuals, and to make the process more difficult, to make spontaneous acts of violence less probable. The fact is, Holmes was able to purchase weapons and ammo quite easily, if he hadn't been able get them as quickly, perhaps that night in Aurora would not have ended in such tragedy.
I do not think the general community would mind waiting a little longer for their firearms, especially considering if they have nothing to hide they would have nothing to fear, and would have access to their precious guns-- as long as they passed the background checks and mental stability tests-- and in the fact that communities would be safer. The fact is, regulating how firearms are bought and distributed shouldn't even be the issue, it should already be inherent, the fact is-- it isn't, the issue is why are weapons are so accessible?, it poses a real danger to communities. It shouldn't be, in my opinion, a fast and simple process to buy a gun. Sure, there are gun enthusiasts, who may mean no harm, and just want to collect guns, and they amass arsenals of ammo and weapons, all fine and good until their gun collection is stolen from. Or there are people who just really want a firearm to protect themselves. There are hunters who certainly need guns to hunt too. It may be an inconvenience, but it is much safer to have wait times and background checks, and everyone will still be able to have guns. I don't think we need to have military weapons though. They are, by design, created to kill a lot of people very quickly.Who really needs an assault rifle in a domestic setting?, who really needs military grade body armor? who buys sophisticated explosives merely for enjoyment? The people that do are either planning criminal activities, or trying to spark an insurrection, or very unstable, and, all it takes is one psychopath with a firearm, and there's a tragedy. I think the benefits of not allowing such weapons for civilians far outweigh the potentially catastrophic and harrowing risks. People advocate having high--powered weapons with large magazines as a defense against the government, however, a few assault rifles and private military grade arsenals aren't going to do much good if the government really wanted to attack its citizens--which is a ridiculous notion to begin with, by the way. Voting and participating in government, and being informed is the true defense against injustice; being complacent as a society is what causes government to not represent our interests.
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
Scathing report slams veterans' care but says no definite link to deaths (8-27-14)
A report of several Veteran's Care facilities in Phoenix, recently released, showed a quite upsetting trend of veterans not being treated, extremely lengthy wait times, and clerks meddling with official paperwork--hiding the dangerous realities of the lack of appropriate care. A shocking number of veterans died while waiting for treatment. There were "secret waiting lists" which hid the fact, and some veterans were put on waiting lists even with critical conditions. The "scheduling issues" are causing deaths and controversy. What is more disturbing is that Phoenix is not the only place with such issues, this trend is national.
To relate this article to class material, Locke speaks of the certain inalienable rights of man, among these are life, liberty, property, limb. The Veterans' Association is a government program. People give up certain liberties in order to have the safety, protection, and assistance that government provides in maintaining a thriving society. Locke argues that the duty of the government is to preserve these rights, and to act according to the will of the people, who give the government its authority to act. In this particular instance, the government has failed to preserve the rights to limb and life for these veterans seeking medical aide. Many veterans died who may not have, if they had faster care. Yes, there are other institutions from which they could receive care, however, this program was directly established for the benefit of veterans, and I believe that veterans do have a right to expect appropriate and prompt care from the program specifically in existence for the benefit of veterans. The real question is, would those veterans have died had they received prompter care?, or were they near death anyway, so would sooner scheduling not have helped? I do not think it is a coincidence that veterans died while waiting for care. The whole point of receiving care is to help with medical issues. For the Veterans' Association, this is a black mark on a program developed to provide assistance, for them to be so sluggish in the care of those who need help, and rely on them for it, they are not fulfilling their duty, to help and protect the people. Yes, it is hard to treat thousands upon thousands of aging veterans, but the response was entirely inappropriate considering the situation faced. The Veterans' Association's 16 billion overhaul was warranted. There needs to be serious reform in that particular governmental program.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)