Today in Congress

http://ringoffireradio.com/2015/07/27/84-of-republicans-dont-believe-current-congress-represents-their-views-scary-what-are-they-looking-for/

Congress is a mess, and it’s been a mess for quite a long time. A large percentage of Americans today are completely dissatisfied with Congress, as shown by the disturbingly low rating of sixteen percent. Even the parties have found themselves divided when it comes to Congress, as “eighty-four percent of Republicans don’t believe Congress represents their views”. As one can imagine, this is extremely frustrating for everyone. And it seems that some people are taking advantage of this frustration for their own purposes. The current Republican candidate that everyone is talking about is Donald Trump, and despite the fact his proposals and ideas are not well thought out, “Trump leads the polls at eighteen percent”. And while this number is not huge, it does show how voters are thinking. Trump is loud and angry, and it seems that with the current frustration with how congress is working, many conservative voters seem to be of the same mind as Trump, and seem to be invested with his extreme point of view.

Questions: What do you think of congress? Do you feel satisfied with Congress? If not, what would you do to change it? Who do you think is the candidate most likely to win the primaries for the Republicans? For the Democrats?

Immigration Today

Link: http://www.cfr.org/immigration/us-immigration-debate/p11149

Summary: Immigration has been an issue for many years in the US government and continues to be moving forward. Many issues have moved up from state and local levels into the executive and legislative branches of government in hopes of finding a solution to the overwhelming numbers of immigrants, (mostly immigrating illegally from Latin American countries).
Although immigration is controlled at the federal level, states and cities vary widely on their stance on immigration reform. States such as California have a very liberal stance and allow undocumented immigrants to apply for a drivers license and are allowed to pay in-state tuition to universities. However many states are not  as liberal as California. In Arizona, immigrants are required to carry around their ID's and any person 'suspected' of being an illegal immigrant can be interrogated on the spot.
The Obama administration has attempted to level-out the un-equal immigration reforms from each state by protecting removal for almost half of the 11.5 million un-authorized immigrants living in the US today. This protection however doesn't guarantee their stay in the US, nor does it solve the problems the other half of the un-documented immigrants face as they try to live under the radar for fear of being deported. The Obama Administration has also deported more than 2 million illegal immigrants which is more than the Bush Administration in 2004. Despite these actions however, Obama has tried to improve the lives of illegal immigrants by passing bills such as the DACA or the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Child which gives immigrants a renewable two-year deportation referral. They also passed the DAPA or Deferred Action for Parents of Americans which defers illegal immigrant's deportation and allows them to work legally for three years.

Questions: Do you agree with what the Obama Administration has done with Immigration Policy? If so, why? Do you think the US should increase boarder control and deport more citizens, or do you think it is our responsibility to save them them from their drug infested and war-torn countries?

Who should know about your use of contraceptive?

photo: https://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/when-a-liberal-says-birth-control-is-not-my-bosss-business-show-them-this

article: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2015/09/22/birth-control-should-be-none-of-your-boss-business

Summary: In today's society, women face many different struggles. But, one of them should not be taking care of their own body and obtaining birth control. For a women to receive a pack of birth control pills not only does she and the pharmacist have to know, but her employer, her doctor, and a health insurance worker have to know. 

Not only is this causing problems for the women receiving birth control due to her employers health care, but it is also causing problems for the people who find receiving birth control is against their morals. Little Sisters of the Poor, a group of nuns, is currently petitioning to be exempt from the current Affordable Care Act's requirement for topnotch birth control. People who do not need birth control or do not want control should not be subjected to the cost of it. 

No matter the changes of health care, employees are still going to seek out health care from their employers. It is more affordable and there are tax break. Yet the requirement for businesses to provide health care or pay a lofty find is ridiculous. Businesses should have the choice to provide health care, birth control included or not. 

Birth control, in fact, would be cheaper if we just make it an over-the-counter drug instead. Making it an over-the-counter drug will increase competition between birth control businesses, forcing them to reduce their prices in order to stay "in the game" and continue to make a profit and in turn make it more affordable to the masses. It also cuts out the middle man and makes obtaining birth control easier.

Questions: Should birth control continue to be a necessary part of Obamacare? Why or why not? If you believe that it should not be a part of health insurance, should it become an over-the-counter drug? Why or why not? And if you do believe that it should continue to be a part of health insurance, do you believe it should also be available to receive it without going through the hassle of getting a prescription?

High School Football and the Injury's that Come With

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/18/us/high-school-football-player-dies/index.html

Date: 10/18/15

Summary: This Friday night, we lost another high school football player, the 6 death from U.S. high school football this year.  His name was Cam'ron Matthews and he was described to be, "a great kid, athlete, strong in his faith & a friend to many." Matthews at one point said to his teammates that he felt dissy just before halftime and then he collapsed on the field due to a seizure.  Now, as we look at the big picture we see that in 2014 there were 5 deaths out of the 1.1 million high school students that played football in the U.S., died due to the sport and the other six died due to other causes non-related, such as heart problems etc.  In 2013, there were eight U.S. high school football death directly related to the sport.  We wonder why all these deaths and injury are happening in the sport and we realized there are multiple reason why many young adults and kids get hurt playing this sport.  One of the reasons is that the skill level of the players allows them to be more susceptible to  injury.  Also,  "...nearly 70% of high school athletes with concussions played despite their symptoms, and 40% reported that their coaches didn't know of the injury, according to a 2014 study in the American Journal of Sports Medicine,".  And finally we see that a big reason that all these injury's keep happening is the lack of full-time trainers in high schools, due to the cost.  People say that high school sports are getting safer and that they are trying to limit the amount of full contact practices coaches can have so hopefully in the future these numbers will go down and we can just play football.  

Questions: Do you think the amount of these injury's will ever go down? If so, how do you think we can change the game so it is safer?  Finally, would you let you child play high school football?

Police vs. Society

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/10/us/tamir-rice-shooting-reports/index.html

Summary: On November 22, 2014, Tamir Rice, an unarmed 12 year old African American was walking around and playing around a Recreational Center in Cleveland, Ohio. A call came into the Cleveland Police that there was a boy walking around a play structure with a weapon, which looked to be a pistol, following up with saying that the weapon was most likely fake. According to Garmback and Loehmann, the two police officers who reported to the scene, information stating that Rice was a juvenile and the weapon appeared to be a fake were not conveyed to them. Within seconds of approaching the scene, Rice was shot by officer Loehmann, and he died the next day. According to law enforcement, “Loehmann was required to make a threat assessment and a split-second decision on whether to shoot” due to the situation’s circumstances. This is one of many controversial shootings involving police and an unarmed person, especially a white police officer and an African American victim. Because of these incidents, many people are questioning our national’s law enforcement because of how many questionable decisions have been made by police officers in the recent years.

Questions: Do you believe Loehmann should’ve shot Rice? Why? Do you believe some police officers take advantage of their power? How So?

Decriminalization of Drug

Link:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-newman/drug-legalization_b_3473098.html Summary:The Drug Policy Alliance are committed to ensuring the decriminalization of all drug use becomes a political priority. Criminalization is not only failing to effectively control drug use, it's a barrier to protecting individual and public health. As long as drug use is a crime, people are going to be afraid to get help. Decriminalization means nobody goes to jail and nobody gets punished simply for possessing a small amount of a drug. It has now been 42 years since President Nixon launched the "war on drugs" yet illegal drugs are as available as ever. There is growing awareness that our drug law enforcement is essentially a war on minorities, with Latinos and especially blacks getting arrested at several times the rate of whites despite similar rates of drug use. The Global Commission on Drug Policy's calls for decriminalization and fundamental reforms of the drug prohibition regime have generated unprec­edented media coverage over the past two years. They said that jailing people for personal drug use constitutes a human rights violation and called for abolishing criminal penalties. "Subjecting people to criminal sanctions for the personal use of drugs, or for possession of drugs for personal use, infringes on their autonomy and right to privacy." They join a surprisingly broad coalition that includes groups such as the Red Cross, who said that drug use should not be a crime in a statement to the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs last year.There is simply no basis in principle or evidence-based policy for bringing someone into the criminal justice system solely for drug possession. Most Americans know it doesn't make sense from either a human or fiscal perspective to lock someone up in a cage because they possess a drug -- and the time is now ripe to translate this into a fundamental shift in how we address drugs in our society.  
Questions:Are you in favor of decriminalizing drug use? Do you think it would be beneficial for our country? If so, how? If not, why?(consider the fact that our country the holds the largest population of people in jail)

Hillary Clinton Comes Out Against TPP

 

LINK: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-tpp_56157832e4b0fad1591a9289 

 DATE: 10/8/15

Summary: Hillary Clinton came out against the Trans-Pacific Partnership Wednesday, breaking with President Barack Obama on the 12-nation trade deal that is set to become a key part of his legacy.  The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a secretive, multinational trade agreement that threatens to extend restrictive intellectual property (IP) laws across the globe and rewrite international rules on its enforcement. "I have said from the very beginning that we had to have a trade agreement that would create good American jobs, raise wages and advance our national security. And I still believe that's the high bar we have to meet," she said. "I have been trying to learn as much as I can about the agreement. But I'm worried. I'm worried about currency manipulation not being part of the agreement. We've lost American jobs to the manipulations that countries, particularly in Asia, have engaged in. I'm worried the pharmaceutical companies may have gotten more benefits -- and patients and consumers fewer. I think there are still a lot of unanswered questions." However, Mrs. Clinton’s position on the Trans-Pacific Partnership represents a reversal of her earlier support for the agreement. She backed the pact while serving in the Obama administration, calling it the “gold standard” for trade deals during a trip to Australia in 2012. Now, Hilary, along with her rivals, Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) are all against it. Organized labor, environmental groups and public health experts all strongly oppose the agreement, arguing that it will empower corporate deregulation and send jobs to low-wage countries with poor human rights records, including Vietnam and Malaysia. Doctors Without Borders and other groups maintain that the multiyear monopolies that the deal would grant to pharmaceutical companies will drive up the price of life-saving medicine. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other corporate lobbying groups, meanwhile, strongly support TPP, saying it will boost U.S. exports.

Questions:  Do you agree with Hilary's point of view or Obama's? Why? Do you believe that the Trans-Pacific Partnership benefits the US? Do you think that Hilary's stance against TPP is because political analysts told her to be due to Sanders being in the race?

Should the 2nd Amendment be repealed?

Link: http://thedailybanter.com/2013/05/an-argument-for-repealing-or-clarifying-the-second-amendment/

Date: 5/6/13

Summary: The main arguments for the NRA and gun owners in support of gun ownership can be defeated with reasonable logic. A main argument is that they are needed to protect from a tyrannical government. Although this made sense in 1790, it doesn't make sense today. If the government wanted to kill you, you could. They have better guns and trained professionals behind the guns. The argument that they could be used for protection can be disproved by the fact that “For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.” The danger of having a gun in your house is not worth the rare scenario in which it which it would be necessary. The argument that it provides you liberty doesn't make sense. The freedom to buy certain products are not protected, and many other products aren't allowed to be purchased already. 

Questions: Should people be allowed to own guns? If so, what limits should be placed on them to keep people safe? Why?

Religion In Schools

Link: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/09/27/god-bless-greeting-lands-louisiana-school-in-hot-water-with-aclu/
Video Link: http://video.foxnews.com/v/4514609655001

Date: 9/27/15

Summary: A school in Louisiana is under attack by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), after the school allowed for students to place prayer boxes around the school and the principle ended an online letter with "may god bless you all". The ACLU believes that the actions by the high school violates the first amendment because it is showing that the school has an established religion. The school is a public school and therefore has no right to doctrine religion. Some people like Louisiana State Rep. Mike Johnson support the school. Johnson believes that the ACLU is just on another "seek and destroy mission". Both Johnson and Freedom guard, a nonprofit public interest law firm, offer legal advise to the school.

Questions: Did the school truly violate the 1st amendment? Do you believe there will be legal repercussions for the school and if so what will they be? Why is religion still showing up in schools across the country? 

Gender Wage Gap

Link: http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/13/news/economy/equal-pay-day-2015/

Date: April 14, 2015 

Summary- The gender pay gap affects women of all ages, races, and education levels. As of now, full- time women, on average, earn 78 cents to a man's dollar. Arguments have arisen that the type of professions a woman chooses in contrast to a man's, play a role in the pay gap. Even when controlling for hours, education, race and age, the gap persists for identical jobs. For example, women account for 70% of middle school and elementary school teachers. Even with the dominance of the women in that teaching profession, male teachers earn around $1,096 per week compared to a women's weekly salary of $956. Although these weekly salary differences don't look like much, when they are added up over the course of the year, there is a prominent distinction between 5- and 6-figure incomes. This accumulation over time is what affects women the most. Since women tend to make up the lowest paying jobs, there has been a push to raise the minimum wage, believing it could make a significant difference. The discrimination continues with African American women only earning 64 cents and Latinas earning 56 cents for every dollar made by a Caucasian man. On top of it all, what most refer to as the "motherhood penalty", mothers make far less then women who don't have children. The gender wage gap in these past few years hasn't seen much improvement and the change relies on companies individuals and policy makers. 

Questions- Do you believe the gender pay gap is important (requires much attention)? How serious do you believe the country is about tackling income equality? Companies now have to publish their C.E.O. pay gap, should they be required to publish the gender pay gap?