Thursday, October 3, 2013
[VIDEO] Reactions from the Public
Reactions from the public about the government shutdown:
http://www.politico.com/multimedia/video/2013/10/government-shutdown-reactions.html
[QUESTION] Government Shutdown
Is the Republican or the Democratic Party more at fault for the government shutdown, and why? Do you believe they are equally at fault? Or is the President at fault?
[COMPARE/CONTRAST] The Washington Post vs. usa.gov
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/30/absolutely-everything-you-need-to-know-about-how-the-government-shutdown-will-work/
This article took on a colloquial tone, explaining what the government shutdown was and its effects on the economy and the public. It used a question and answer format. It focused on the causes of the shutdown, its relation to Obamacare, as well as general effects and predicted effects on the country.
http://www.usa.gov/shutdown.shtml
This source is more formal than that of the Washington Post. It did not talk about the causes of the government shutdown, but instead had specific details about which government services would and would not be affected by the shutdown. It did not mention the effects on the economy or the people; it simply listed what areas of the government would be affected.
Both articles are informative. They are also impartial, despite the Washington Post being more informal than USA.gov; neither expressed a bias towards the Democrats or the Republicans. Both talked about the consequences of the shutdown.
This article took on a colloquial tone, explaining what the government shutdown was and its effects on the economy and the public. It used a question and answer format. It focused on the causes of the shutdown, its relation to Obamacare, as well as general effects and predicted effects on the country.
http://www.usa.gov/shutdown.shtml
This source is more formal than that of the Washington Post. It did not talk about the causes of the government shutdown, but instead had specific details about which government services would and would not be affected by the shutdown. It did not mention the effects on the economy or the people; it simply listed what areas of the government would be affected.
Both articles are informative. They are also impartial, despite the Washington Post being more informal than USA.gov; neither expressed a bias towards the Democrats or the Republicans. Both talked about the consequences of the shutdown.
[SUMMARY] Government Shutdown
Congress has been attempting to come up with a budget for the new fiscal year, which began on October 1st (CNN). However, because of disagreements regarding the Affordable Care Act (also known as "Obamacare"), the budget was not passed by the midnight deadline and the government was shut down (Washington Post). The Republicans do not want the Affordable Care Act to be passed, but the Democrats do (USA Today). As a result, all government workers deemed "non-essential" are currently unpaid (CNN). National parks and museums have also been closed (USA Today). Congress, the President, the military, and workers who are directly related to public health and safety are considered "essential" and will continue to be paid (Washington Post). The shutdown will end once the President signs a bill to fund the government (Washington Post).
Sources:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/30/absolutely-everything-you-need-to-know-about-how-the-government-shutdown-will-work/
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/30/politics/government-shutdown-up-to-speed/index.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/29/questions-and-answers-about-the-shutdown/2888419/
Sources:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/30/absolutely-everything-you-need-to-know-about-how-the-government-shutdown-will-work/
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/30/politics/government-shutdown-up-to-speed/index.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/29/questions-and-answers-about-the-shutdown/2888419/
[OPINION] Dear Tea Party: Please Grow Up (and pass Obamacare!)
It's sad when a teenage girl is asking a group of adults to be more mature. Honestly, I fall into what is arguably the most mentally unstable demographic in this nation and even I can see this government shutdown is both ridiculous and unnecessary.
But I digress.
According to polls, the majority of the public blames the Republicans for the government shutdown. As a flaming liberal living in the New England area, I am inclined to agree. Their utter refusal to even attempt compromise with the Democrats regarding the Affordable Care Act is astounding.
While I generally disagree with the GOP, however, I also realize that it's actually a small sect of Republicans (the Tea Party) that is the main reason why Congress is stuck at this stalemate. Apparently, some of the Traditional Republicans are willing to agree with certain parts of Obamacare, but God forbid John Boehner try to make concessions with the Senate because if nothing else, the Tea Party has three things: extremist Right-wing views, obscene amounts of money, and equally obscene amounts of power. Which, as I'm sure most people realize, clearly makes them empathetic to the people who need Obamacare in order to afford healthcare. Obviously.
This brings me to my next point. Why aren't we passing the Affordable Care Act? I thought easily accessible healthcare was supposed to be a good thing.
Okay, the Republicans and the Tea Party do have a point in that making healthcare mandatory for all U.S. citizens would raise prices for those who can already pay for their healthcare. But let's think about the greater good here. There are people who are struggling to make ends meet every month. Are we going to force them to choose between having health insurance and being able to put food on the table every night?
And let's say the main provider of an underprivileged family gets sick, but can't get medication because they can't afford it. They stay home to recover, and return to work only to find out they've been laid off. Or say their child has a disease, but they can't treat it because that kind of advanced care is astronomically expensive. Maybe they don't even know what disease it is, because they can't get a diagnosis from a doctor. And we're willing to let that happen because some of us aren't willing to pay an extra buck?
Unless you're completely and utterly heartlessor a Tea Party Republican, I'm guessing the answer to most of the above would be no. And there is evidence in videos and polls that many people agree with the separate tenants of the Affordable Care Act, yet when asked if they support "Obamacare" they answer in the negative. Seems like the main reason they disagree is because it was proposed by the Democrats.
What does it say about the state of our country that something as simple as party lines are blinding people to the need of our fellow citizens? George Washington was right; political parties was the wrong way to go.
But I digress.
According to polls, the majority of the public blames the Republicans for the government shutdown. As a flaming liberal living in the New England area, I am inclined to agree. Their utter refusal to even attempt compromise with the Democrats regarding the Affordable Care Act is astounding.
While I generally disagree with the GOP, however, I also realize that it's actually a small sect of Republicans (the Tea Party) that is the main reason why Congress is stuck at this stalemate. Apparently, some of the Traditional Republicans are willing to agree with certain parts of Obamacare, but God forbid John Boehner try to make concessions with the Senate because if nothing else, the Tea Party has three things: extremist Right-wing views, obscene amounts of money, and equally obscene amounts of power. Which, as I'm sure most people realize, clearly makes them empathetic to the people who need Obamacare in order to afford healthcare. Obviously.
This brings me to my next point. Why aren't we passing the Affordable Care Act? I thought easily accessible healthcare was supposed to be a good thing.
Okay, the Republicans and the Tea Party do have a point in that making healthcare mandatory for all U.S. citizens would raise prices for those who can already pay for their healthcare. But let's think about the greater good here. There are people who are struggling to make ends meet every month. Are we going to force them to choose between having health insurance and being able to put food on the table every night?
And let's say the main provider of an underprivileged family gets sick, but can't get medication because they can't afford it. They stay home to recover, and return to work only to find out they've been laid off. Or say their child has a disease, but they can't treat it because that kind of advanced care is astronomically expensive. Maybe they don't even know what disease it is, because they can't get a diagnosis from a doctor. And we're willing to let that happen because some of us aren't willing to pay an extra buck?
Unless you're completely and utterly heartless
What does it say about the state of our country that something as simple as party lines are blinding people to the need of our fellow citizens? George Washington was right; political parties was the wrong way to go.
Thursday, September 19, 2013
[VIDEO] Navy Yard Shooting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnRlV_JRgCg
This is a video discussing the Navy Yard Shooting.
This is a video discussing the Navy Yard Shooting.
[QUESTION]: Aaron Alexis
Is the government system at fault for not having the proper background checks?
Also: what do you think should be the solution/reaction in order to prevent future shootings?
[COMPARE/CONTRAST] Navy Yard Shooting: NY Times vs. LA Times
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-washington-navy-yard-shootings-20130916,0,6137381.story
The LA Times article primarily focused on the facts of the issue. It talked about Alexis' previous misconduct and his mental instability; however, the tone was cut-and-dry and completely unsympathetic towards Alexis. It interviewed the victims from his past run-ins against the law involving firearms.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/us/washington-navy-yard-shootings.html?pagewanted=all
The NY Times article had a slightly more sympathetic tone towards Alexis. It involved an interview with his mother, who was portrayed to be utterly distraught and shocked while the public raged against her and her family. It also spoke about his mental instability and hinted that it may have been more the government's fault for not providing proper background checks.
The LA Times article primarily focused on the facts of the issue. It talked about Alexis' previous misconduct and his mental instability; however, the tone was cut-and-dry and completely unsympathetic towards Alexis. It interviewed the victims from his past run-ins against the law involving firearms.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/us/washington-navy-yard-shootings.html?pagewanted=all
The NY Times article had a slightly more sympathetic tone towards Alexis. It involved an interview with his mother, who was portrayed to be utterly distraught and shocked while the public raged against her and her family. It also spoke about his mental instability and hinted that it may have been more the government's fault for not providing proper background checks.
[SUMMARY] Navy Yard Shooting
On Monday, September 16, Aaron Alexis entered the Navy Yard at Washington D.C. and shot and killed 12 people, wounding 8 others (CNN). The first 911 call was made around 8:15 AM, and soon, buildings were on lockdown and workers were unable to leave until 3 PM (USA Today). It was unclear whether there were multiple gunmen, causing confusion and speculation amongst witnesses as well as responders (Washington Post). Alexis has been been confirmed as among the dead (Washington Post). Investigators are now looking into his background, searching for reports of mental illness/instability and an explanation for the security breach.
Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/17/us/navy-yard-shooting-knowns-unknowns/index.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/17/navy-yard-gunman-killed-for-more-than-30-minutes/2828585/
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-09-16/local/42092857_1_second-suspect-lanier-gray
Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/17/us/navy-yard-shooting-knowns-unknowns/index.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/17/navy-yard-gunman-killed-for-more-than-30-minutes/2828585/
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-09-16/local/42092857_1_second-suspect-lanier-gray
[OPINON] We Armed Aaron Alexis
Eight wounded. Twelve dead. The President has given his obligatory condolences; investigators have ferreted out every last possibility of mental illness and forewarnings that could have prevented this tragedy. News reporters and analysts continue to speculate about conspiracies, fallacies in the government systems, anything that will bring in viewers and money. Everyone is pointing fingers and demanding, "Who gave Aaron Alexis his gun? What happened to the background checks? Why didn't we stop this?"
How long will it take Americans to realize that this isn't just a tragic phenomenon? How many more Navy Yards, Sandy Hooks, and Auroras will it take? And those names are only the ones that made national news. According to the Huffington Post, there have been nearly 250 mass shootings (defined as a shooting in which at least 4 people are injured or killed) in 2013- we've only had 260 days in the year.
And the best part? We armed every single one of those shooters.
America has long cherished its beloved Second Amendment- the right to bear arms. But at what point is enough, enough? We have an average of almost 1 mass shooting per day, and our solution is to supply everyone with more guns.
The NRA's standing argument is that arming upstanding civilians will serve as a deterrent for criminals who would otherwise attempt mass murder. And, in the event of a shooting, they claim having guns at hand will help to quickly neutralize the threat.
That's all well and good, except for the fact that this latest shooting happened in the freaking Navy Yard, and twelve people still died.
Not only that, but this "solution" of allowing Americans to easily access firearms is simply damage control. Why aren't we considering prevention -AKA, not giving people the guns in the first place- instead?
If the American people must have their guns, then at least have them pass a strict psychological test in order to get a firearms license, and repeat the test every time they want to buy a gun. If they don't pass, they can't buy the gun. Simple.
How long will it take Americans to realize that this isn't just a tragic phenomenon? How many more Navy Yards, Sandy Hooks, and Auroras will it take? And those names are only the ones that made national news. According to the Huffington Post, there have been nearly 250 mass shootings (defined as a shooting in which at least 4 people are injured or killed) in 2013- we've only had 260 days in the year.
And the best part? We armed every single one of those shooters.
America has long cherished its beloved Second Amendment- the right to bear arms. But at what point is enough, enough? We have an average of almost 1 mass shooting per day, and our solution is to supply everyone with more guns.
The NRA's standing argument is that arming upstanding civilians will serve as a deterrent for criminals who would otherwise attempt mass murder. And, in the event of a shooting, they claim having guns at hand will help to quickly neutralize the threat.
That's all well and good, except for the fact that this latest shooting happened in the freaking Navy Yard, and twelve people still died.
Not only that, but this "solution" of allowing Americans to easily access firearms is simply damage control. Why aren't we considering prevention -AKA, not giving people the guns in the first place- instead?
If the American people must have their guns, then at least have them pass a strict psychological test in order to get a firearms license, and repeat the test every time they want to buy a gun. If they don't pass, they can't buy the gun. Simple.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)