Old MacDonald had a gun...

In my critique of Governmental Confusion's post on “Guns – Too easily obtained,” I am going to focus on several solvency issues, debate lingo for whether a proposal or plan is able to fix the problems, or “harms,” presented.

While everyone agrees that having guns in the hands of criminals and killers is a terrible thing, no one can quite seem to devise a workable solution of fixing this problem short of banning all guns completely. It is with this focus on solvency, or workability, that I will analyze the proposal by Governmental Confusion, breaking down the “plan” and responding to it in parts.

First, I agree with the feasibility to “Require EVERYONE who purchases a gun to go through a rigorous training course AND safety course.” It would not difficult at all to require every prospective gun owner to display a certificate of completion from a certified gun safety course. This would definitely help stop people who are “gun ignorant” from purchasing guns. However, “ignorant” gun users aren’t exactly the main threat since criminals and murders aren’t exactly untrained in the ways of gun usage….

“Require them to take a refresher course every two-three years while they still own a gun. If they fail to do so, they lose their license and the gun should be confiscated.” I would also agree that mandating a refresher course is also a good idea, but the “enforcement” seems quite unnecessary. To put this into perspective, let’s compare gun use to another activity that requires a license, driving a car. Not only is driving incredibly dangerous (the momentum of a 1-2 ton mass of metal called a vehicle traveling at over 70 mph is extraordinarily high…) but it also accounts for a loss of 40,000 lives per year. (http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen99/gen99845.htm) We would also agree that there are criminals, murderers and insane people who own and drive a car and use their vehicles to aid them in their crimes against humanity. However, if were to apply the same sort of standard to your driver’s license you would have to take a refresher driver’s course every couple of years (something that’s not required even today…), and if you failed to take such a course you would loose your license and your car would be confiscated. Sounds a little harsh. Maybe a fine would work better?

At the time of the consideration of purchase, make sure the individual(s) know what they're getting into, and learn the responsibilities that come with owning a gun. Unfortunately, this part of the proposition begs the question, “how?” How could we actually determine if a person actually knows what they are getting into? Or worse yet, do we really want to let people who know exactly what they are getting into have a gun? Such as intending murderers... Also, factual knowledge of “responsibilities” and actual application of that knowledge are two completely different things.

Know the pros AND cons. Make sure they know how to handle and manage their own weapon; how to store it safely. Keep it away from curious children. Don’t we already do this?? But more importantly, don’t murderers and college campus shooters know how to handle their weapons well?

“Make sure the person who is attempting to obtain the gun is of sound mind, as well.” I completely agree with this suggestion! However, how would we go about determining the soundness of a person’s mind? Isn’t such a determination quite subjective? For example, if I lived in Germany, I would be classified as “mentally unsound” and placed in a mental institution…. because I am home schooled!! Trust me, I’ve seen several Neurologists who can attest to the fact that I’m not “mentally unsound” at all!

Do not allow anyone to take their gun home until it is absolutely certain they understand and will follow the procedures, and all the qualifications have been met. No exemptions What procedures, what qualifications? (Who will be the one to set AND enforce the standards?) But more importantly, how do you actually make sure that someone completely understands the procedures? I can see myself walking into academy to by a hunting gun and saying “Yes, I’m reallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreally sure that I know how to operate the gun!!!,” in response to the employee asking for certainty of my abilities.

Harsher punishments need to be given for crimes with guns. Not only on the people that commit the crimes, but the places that sell the guns when not all of the requirements and courses have been met. If a gun was purchased at a certain store without covering all the boundaries, and then that gun was used for a crime, the store, as well as the criminal should be punished. That would help cut down on stores selling guns so loosely, and in turn, cut down on the "wrong" people owning guns and using them for destructive purposes. I completely agree with the conclusion that people should not be able to obtain guns with the intent on using them for destructive purposes. Unfortunately, such fines and punishments won’t stop them. For example, say your exact “plan” had been implemented before the Virginia Tech shootings. The would-be shooter would go to the gun dealer, take the tests, “certify” that he met all the conditions and qualifications (say “really” enough times) and be able to get his guns after jumping just a few more hurdles that normal. The shootings would have still happened. Why? Because killers are well trained in the art of killing and gun usage and what would the suggested tests measure? How well trained and informed a person is...

Unfortunately, all the last part of your proposal would do is punish gun dealers from selling guns to people who passed their tests with flying colors and didn’t have a prior felony conviction or other crimes. All those first time murders and college gunmen who will kill themselves. Also, smart criminals would know better than to try to purchase another gun from a legitimate dealer after committing their first crime. Most likely.
Unfortunately, all the ideas presented are directed towards the average citizen who has no plans on using their guns for crimes. Some will not even buy a gun with the new regulations in place, thus reducing the legitimate usage of guns. But the average Americans are not the problem, are they? The real problems are the college gunmen, the serial killers, and even your everyday murders who won't be stopped since it's rather hard to punish a college killer who is already dead...

Top ‘O the Mornin’ to Ya – The case for increasing high-skilled immigration

“What do Albert Einstein and Andrew Carnegie have in common? Both were immigrants. How about the companies Intel, eBay, Google, Yahoo! and Sun Microsystems? All have been incredibly successful and all were founded by immigrants.” (Larry Sumney, president and CEO of the Semiconductor Research Corporation, May 18, 2007) Based on the fact that “Nationwide these immigrants founded companies that produced $452 billion in sales and employed 450,000 workers in 2005,” (The National Foundation for American Policy, March 2008) and “For firms with fewer than 5,000 employees, each H-1B position requested in labor condition applications was associated with an increase of employment of 7.5 workers compared to 4.7 additional workers at firms employing between 5,000 and 10,000 workers,” (National Foundation For American Policy, March 2008) one would assume that our country is doing all it can to welcome brilliant foreign nationals into the United States and encourage them to stay and work for us. Sadly, this is not the case and instead immigrants are met with a yearly cap on visas that is used up the second day that the applications are released, and the yearly allotment of 65,000 visas is distributed via random lottery to the more than 100,000 applicants who applied on day one. After overcoming this first incredible obstacle, the vast majority of applicants are faced with 6-10 year backlogs after having their application accepted to the time they receive their visa.

While many people would like to think that the high-skilled visa cap of 65,000 is a carefully calculated number designed to reflect the free market, this is unfortunately not true. This cap is completely arbitrary, and this restriction on the avaliabiltiy of work visas for foreign graduates of American universities is creating brain drain, where foreign students come to the United States and are educated in our universities, only to be sent back to their home countries to create wealth for them instead of us.

Also, this cap on high-skilled visas, which sniffs of communistic restrictions placed on the flow of people by the Soviet Union, is a major factor in outsourcing of high-skilled jobs. According to the National Foundation for American Policy in March 2008, “Sixty-five percent of technology companies responding to an NFAP survey said in response to the lack of H-1B visas [Temporary work visas for high-skilled immigrants] they had "hired more people (or outsourced work) outside the United States.” This problem is most clearly demonstrated by a plant recently opened by Microsoft in Canada. Before opening this plant in Canada and moving hundreds of American jobs out of the country, Bill Gates petitioned congress to allow the workers to come here to the United States. However, his request was denied and Bill Gates moved the plant to Canada because of their less restrictive immigration laws. The people who state that bringing foreign workers to the United States is no better than outsourcing do not take into account that whenever foreign workers come to the United States, they spend money in our economy and many of them desire to ultimately settle here if they can obtain a permanent residence visa, thus allowing them to become Americans just like you and me.

So, considering the high-skilled labor shortage in America due to the lack of Americans graduating from masters or doctorate programs, an increase in the number of temporary and permanent residence visas for high skilled immigrants is definitely in order. “In electrical engineering, for example, 56% of master's and 66% of the PhD graduates of U.S. programs in 2004 were foreign students, according to Compete America.” Taking into account that many of these highly skilled foreign students will be unable to obtain a temporary work visa or a permanent resident visa, we should stop denying these highly skilled foreign students the right to stay in the United States and instead welcome to our country those who will be able to return our country to the former greatness in technology.

Comment on "Continue Supporting our Troops in Iraq"

While I agree with Marcy on part of her conclusion, that we should continue to stay in Iraq, I myself have arrived at that conclusion from a different route of logic. But before I divulge the logic behind by conclusion, let’s first look at a brief history of United States foreign policy from World War II and onward.

Just about every American agrees that we should have gotten involved in World War II. Without our economic aid, Britain might very well have been defeated by Germany, thus greatly reducing the chances of an allied victory. But as history has revealed itself, the allies emerged victorious, but at what cost?

Everyone who lived during the 50s and afterword remembers the Cold War. However, people tend to forget one reason why the Soviet Union was such of a threat. The answer: The United States of America. “What?” you might ask. However, the fact remains true, that many of the weapons and much of the technology that we gave to the Russians during World War II was used against us during the various skirmishes during the Cold War.

However, this is not the end of the story. In order to fight Russia, we decided to use the good ‘ol American tactic of making friends with our enemies to fight the worse common enemy. The new “enemy turned friend?” Iraq. Yes, we gave military supplies and weaponry to Iraq to help them fight Russia.

You might ask yourself what is the point of this history lecture. The answer lies in the reason why I believe we should remain in Iraq; in order to clean up the mess that we made. We were the ones who gave Iraq the weapons in the first place, and we were the ones who invaded Iraq (without the approval of congress, I might add, a similarity to the conflict in Vietnam.) in the first place. Also, under the JFK administration, the United States was the one who helped Saddam Hussein rise to power.

This instance with Iraq brings about a very interesting conclusion, that of the failures of the US foreign military policy. Now before you start picking up stones, I have to relate my story of how I reached this larger conclusion.

This year, the NCFCA (National Christian Forensics and Communication Association) LD (Lincoln-Douglas) debate topic is “Resolved: That the United States of America ought to more highly value isolationism.” Before hearing some of the LD debate rounds this year, I thought much like any other American. I believed that the US was the king at military interventionism and I also believed that every time the US got involved in a foreign conflict we won and greatly helped the “nation in distress,” with the exception of Vietnam.

However, after listening to a particular LD case written by my friend Paul Hastings, I came to a very important conclusion: that the majority of the “monsters” in the world today that we are facing militarily were created by the one and only United States of America.

Just look at the current situation. We are facing a possibly future war with Iran. But whose fault is it that Iran is in its current situation. Ours. First, we tried to “encourage” Iran to become more democratic by allowing their moderately democratic leader, the shah, to fall from power, hoping that a more democratic leader would replace him. The result: the current “president” of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is in power. What about Iran’s weapons that we have come to fear? Those were given to them by…you guessed it…the United States, in order to “help” them fight Russia.

Unfortunately, this isn’t an isolated event. What about the Cuba Missile Crisis during the Cold War? Regrettably, the United States had a hand in this affair, because it actively supported a young leader named Fidel Castro many years earlier.

You might wonder about the current situation in Afghanistan? Unfortunately, the US also played a role in this situation, since the United States actively supported a young Afghanistan leader by the name of Osama Bin Laden in his fight against the Soviets using Jihadist soldiers.

What these instances show us is that by leaving of foreign policy of military isolationism, we have caused evil to fix evil. We fought Germany by helping the Soviet Union, and we fought the Soviet Union by aiding Cuba, Iran, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

After examining this brief history of American military interventionism I hope you will agree with Marcy and me that we should remain in Iraq until we have finished cleaning up our own mess, but not indefinitely. However, the question still remains: how many more failed states will it take before the United States finally learns its lesson and stops creating monsters for it to destroy?


A commentary on the post "Continue supporting our troops in Iraq" by Marcy Winston http://fourmoreyears-winston.blogspot.com/2008/03/continue-supporting-our-troops-in-iraq.html

Einstein, Economy and Insanity - The effects of the economic Stimulus Act

“Congress and the president recently rolled out a $150 billion economic stimulus package. However it is heralded by politicians, in truth it is unlikely to have any significant effect on the economy. The only significant effect it might have is garnering a few votes come November.” (ERICK S. CREACH (an attorney with Van Matre, Harrison, Volkert, & Hollis.,) Tuesday, February 26, 2008, Columbia Daily Tribune)

Everyone loves free money, so those citizens who opposed the “rebate” were initially discredited as “being ignorant of the problems with the economy” and accused of wanting to keep people from getting “their money.” However, since a month has passed since the signing of the economic stimulus package, let’s examine the effects (or lack thereof) of this stimulus bill.

What was the stimulus package supposed to do? Most people would say that it was supposed to help the lagging economy. However, let’s examine a quote by Economics professor Khan Mohabbat, on March 25, 2008 “Though the stimulus plan was passed by Congress to boost the economy, Mohabbat said any transitory rebate plan will be less successful than a permanent stimulus plan. “It is a nice thing that the administration has done to boost economic activity,” Mohabbat said. “But it is going to have an extremely small positive effect.” (North Star Online)

“Extremely small positive effect.” That’s looking on the optimistic side. But according to attorney Erick S. Creach, this economic stimulus package might wind up doing more harm than good. For example, ‘the government will borrow (likely from foreign investors, thereby creating other more difficult issues such as the dollar’s shrinking power) or print new money. As Albert Einstein is credited with saying, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."’

Now that we have examined what a couple of experienced professionals think about the bill, let’s examine this bill through the eyes of logic. First of all, let’s look at the feasibly of the bill. Let’s say that someone makes around $6000 dollars a year, and his or her income tax percentage is around 10% (minus the other tax benefits). Tax time comes in April and they pay the government $600 for their income tax. Then, in May, they get $600 back from this economic stimulus package. We have successfully gone in a complete circle.

This is not just a theoretical statement. I will wind up paying the government just about as much as I receive from the rebate, which begs the question, why not just issue a tax credit and save the Government the trouble of playing hot potato with our money? Why, as some economists have suggested, does the government refuse to take care of the problem? Instead of entering into the cycle of insanity of spending money that we don’t have, why not cut taxes permanently and allow the citizens of the United States to keep more of their money? However, such tax cuts require cuts in government spending, a measure many politicians seem unwilling to complete.

A Rotten Way to Pick a President

“Something is seriously wrong with the way we pick our presidential candidates. But experts and pundits, caught up in the horse races, have been slow to point out the obvious -- or have come to accept our badly flawed system as immutable fact.” This quote by Washington post writers Sean Wilentz and Julian E. Zelizer in their article “A Rotten Way to Pick a President” adequately sums up the common sentiment regarding the presidential nomination process. In agreement with the majority of Americans today, Wilentz and Zelizer reach the conclusion that the current selection system is flawed after presenting a brief summary of the failures of the status quo. However, unlike the vast majority of people, Wilentz and Zelizer are willing to offer solutions to the problems that they have identified in their article.

Is the fact that Wilentz and Zelizer have offered some practical solutions to the presidential selection process worthy of high honor and praise? Maybe not, especially when one considers the lack of specifics that these two Princeton Professors provide. Take their solution to the problem with the caucuses, for example. In order to fix the problems of non-secret ballots and limited voting times, these two writers offer only a two word solution “abolishing caucuses.” This incredibly limited solution leaves a question burning on everyone’s minds: “does this mean that we should completely abolish all caucuses?” If this is not the authors’ intent, what do they mean by the statement “abolishing caucuses?” Nevertheless, this phrase might not be suggesting any more complicated than making the ballots secret and extending the voting times and days. The solution can’t be that simple, can it? After all it doesn’t take a couple of PhDs from Princeton to arrive at this conclusion, does it? Or, is it the fact that the American voting public has become so complacently acceptant of a broken system that it takes two people with high powered degrees and jobs just to state the obvious?

This lack of specifics isn’t just limited to the proposed solution for the caucuses. It also extends into the primary problems. The problem with some primaries: a citizen can vote for either or both parties. According to Wilentz and Zelizer, this theoretically allows voters from opposite parties to wreak havoc in the voting system. The Princeton professors’ simple solution: “closing open primaries.” Again, why does it take a professor to state the obvious, given the problems with the system? Aren’t the various political party leaders able to come to this conclusion on their own and fix the problem? Or maybe Wilentz and Zelizer are right and these seemingly obvious solutions are not so obvious. Maybe it takes involvement in the election process to really see the problems and be able to offer meaningful solutions. Once this occurs, ordinary American voters just might be able to offer these solutions and it won’t take a PhD to state the obvious.

Satellite Fuel's Risks Are Disputed

According to the Washington Post, “The Pentagon counted down Wednesday toward a dramatic nighttime effort to shoot down a dying and potentially deadly U.S. spy satellite, using a souped-up missile fired from a ship in the Pacific.” This recent announcement by the Pentagon is the latest development in a story that has spanned the course of several weeks: the fate of a dying US spy satellite. Launched in December 2006, the spy satellite was defective and failed within a few days of orbital deployment. Shortly after the failure of the satellite, officials at NASA realized that it was loosing altitude and would ultimately reenter earth and most likely burn up upon reentry. The problem: the satellite contains 1,000 pounds of unused hydrazine, a toxic rocket fuel. In order to remedy the slight risk of this fuel falling into the United States and causing harm to people, the Bush administration has proposed to shoot down the failed satellite using a modified standard missile 3 (SM-3) in order to destroy the fuel tank and its toxic contents.

Government officials maintain that the only purpose of this mission is to protect the public from the threat of the toxic fuel but many people think otherwise. Others, including Washington Post writers Kaufman and White in their article Satellite Fuel's Risks Are Disputed are now questioning the government’s real intentions regarding the spy satellite. The emergence of such articles brings the Government’s statement under heavy criticism. The government claims to be protecting the people, but according to Massachusetts Institute of Technology research professor Geoffrey Forden, the risks associated with the satellite are exceedingly low. According to Forden, for someone near Los Angeles the risk of injury is one in one billion. However, the government estimates that the risk of someone being struck by lightning is only one in 700,000. With information such as this in mind, one can conclude that the government’s ulterior motives, such as the desire to test this newly developed anti-ballistic missile defense system, are really the main reason behind the decision to down the satellite. However, the Russian defense minister’s conclusion that the United States is planning to test its “anti-missile defence system's capability to destroy other countries' satellites” might still seem far fetched. The conclusion that United States wants to test its new missile system and is looking for a target seems plausible, but only time will tell whether the Russians have indeed uncovered the heart of the matter or if they are exaggerating the issue as usual.

Republicans Join to Block Stimulus Bill

The fate of the economic stimulus plan proposed by President Bush is in jeopardy after Senate Republicans blocked the Senate’s version of the economic stimulus plan. The proposed changes by the Senate would have reduced the tax rebate checks from $600 per person and $1,200 per couple to $500 per person and $1,000 per couple and doubled the income eligibility caps for the rebate checks from $75,000 per person and to $150,000 per person. The Senate proposal would have also extended unemployment benefits for 13 weeks, given $1 billion in heating aid the poor, and it would have included the elderly and disabled veterans for tax rebates.

Now the Senate democrats are faced with the difficult choice to either quickly accept a House bill they deem inadequate or risk being blamed for delaying a measure that both the House and Senate agree is necessary to help the lagging economy.