Work, America

Lately, there has been a great amount of talk regarding the predicament America is in currently. These persons assert that America and the current generation is embroiled an exponentially more dangerous and confusing time than it has ever been, brought on by, inter alia, morally weak politicians and reprehensible societal ideas of propriety and values. Considering some of the stories in the news today, who can really blame them? However, the truth is:

America is, as of yet, the greatest country in the world. There are, as there always have been in any society and always will be in every society, those persons who would ruin her through their own greed and corruption, though not through any intention towards ruination. Unfortunately, through our own complacency and apathy, we have allowed these men to become the majority in those bodies to which we give the power to decide for us.

 We have come to this difficult crossroad not because, as some suggest, the time in which we live is any more confusing or dangerous as those that have come before; every new moment is both confusing and dangerous, simply by virtue of it being new. Now is not the time to blame our problems on the advances of technology, industry, economics, or any other developments, for there have always been advances. The confusion and danger that our society faces now, is the same that every society faces, though, for America, it may be slightly different because we were the first to attempt our representative democracy on such a large scale.

The only way to fix this predicament is to do what the members of any free society must: work! In any society of liberty, it takes work to make that society function, as it is only through work that true liberty remains. As we have seen first hand, a refusal to do work, a passing off of that duty to others results, not in liberty, but in fraud, exploitation, avarice, and subjugation in the guise of prosperity, equity, and morality. Allowing this to transpire is a mockery to these values.

Americans, let us work to gain back what we have lost: our liberty, our dignity, our pride, our direction, and, most importantly, ourselves. Civic duty is always one of the most difficult to fulfill, but it is not an impossible goal. To reach this objective that ever-requires more work, start small: take pride in your labors of every second; before you vote, research the candidates, find the ones that conform to your value sets and have proven themselves as men of good character, and vote for those candidates. If none exist, find the closest one to those criteria, the “least of the evils,” for if we pick the least of the evils every time, eventually, there will be a shift to the best of the quality persons. After you do this, attempt other small civic labors; try to inspire others to do the same. Eventually, our country will return to one of which every American can be proud.

Constitutional Questions Involved in the “Gay Marriage Question”

           The argument regarding “gay marriage” has intensified as of late, especially since President Obama has thrown his hat into the ring. The “question” of whether gays should be allowed to marry in America should not be a question, let alone such a polarizing political issue. It should not be a question at all because of the Constitution for the United States of America. There are, or at least there should be, two Amendments to the Constitution that are involved in this debate, and which solve the “question” unequivocally. These Amendments are the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment.
          The first constitutional amendment (the First Amendment) implicated in this debate is really an argument of semantics.  Using the term “marriage” implicates the First Amendment because marriage is a religious institution. In being a religious institution, it is not within the purview of governmental authority as guaranteed by the First Amendment’s freedom of and for religion clause, and as such any politician’s personal view of the rightness or wrongness of “gay marriage” is immaterial and whether marriage for homosexuals will be allowed is a matter for individual religion/church to decide.
           However, the term “gay marriage,” as a political issue, actually refers to a different question: whether the union of two homosexuals should be recognized by the government by giving the same tax-related and other benefits to the members of that union. This question implicates the Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the clauses that state, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . [and] . . . [n]o State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.” This guarantees to all persons that they will be treated as equivalent to any other under law, and this principal is normally read to apply to the federal government through the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause. Guaranteeing equal protection of the law means giving everyone the same legal benefits and duties as everyone else. It is easier to explain through a simple logical proof:

Q – Does the Equal Protection Clause guarantee equal protection of the laws to all persons who are citizens of the United States of America? 
A – Yes. 
Q – If a homosexual has been born or naturalized in the United States, is he or she a person and citizen of the United States? 
A – Yes; he or she is a person and citizen of the United States. 
Q – Are taxation laws, and other similar laws that impart benefits to recognized unions, laws? 
A – They are laws. 
Q – Did the Equal Protection Clause guarantee the equal protection of LAWS? 
A – Yes; it did. 
Summary – Homosexual persons are persons, and if they are naturalized or born in the United States, they are United States citizens, and are thereby guaranteed the equal protection of the laws, in which category the laws that impart benefits to members of a recognized union are included. Ergo, homosexual persons, who are also citizens of the United States, are (not should be because this SHOULD NOT BE a question) entitled to the same legal benefits afforded to anyone else in a recognized union, and their unions should also be recognized along with everyone else’s.
          
          It may be easier to understand by approaching it in a historical context. African Americans were persecuted by white persons because they had darker skin than white people. Is skin color or race a rational, sensible reason for persecuting someone or rational methodology for establishing someone’s worth and entitlement to dignity? No (hopefully everyone agrees with that sentiment) because everyone is a human being or a homo sapien sapien, and as such is entitled to the same dignity upon being brought into this world. Sexual orientation is like skin color or race in that it is irrelevant to someone’s entitlement to dignity or worth. Both of these groups (African Americans in the past and homosexuals of today) are being persecuted based on irrelevant attributes. This country has realized how foolish it was for persecuting African Americans, Asians, Indians based on skin color and other physical attributes, it should realize how foolish it is to persecute based on other irrelevant characteristics.
           In sum, "gay marriage" cannot and should not be legislated as it involves a religious institution and is therefore outside the government's sphere of power; however, some type of union (or whatever term it is given) should be recognized by the government, both federal and state, and the members thereof should be given the same type of benefits that those in heterosexual unions are given.

Abortion Is So Much More than a Decision for A Mother Alone

     Yesterday, a story came to light about a 35-year-old New Mexico man. Greg Fultz posted a billboard along an Alamogordo, New Mexico highway that pictures himself, holding an outline of an infant. On the billboard there is text that reads, "This would have been a picture of my 2-month old baby, if the mother had decided to not KILL our child." Because of this billboard, Mr. Fultz's ex-girlfriend (whose name has not and most likely will not be released) is suing him for harassment and infringement of privacy.

    No matter your stance on abortion, this story, and the court case that has sprung up because of it, highlights aspects of abortion that most people do not think about when the topic is discussed. Assuming that the billboard is an expression of the would-be father's true feelings, Greg Fultz clearly wants to be a father. The majority of people, especially those in favor of abortion for some reason, view the issue as a decision the mother has to make. Though the baby matures inside of the mother and the mother is the one on whom the procedure is performed, it did take two persons to create the child, and therefore it should take two persons to make that decision of ultimate importance (assuming that the mother knows who the father is and the way some people use abortion today, it is clear that that is not always the case) because the decision does effect more lives than just the mother and child's.

     It also shows how quickly some rush off to get an abortion without really thinking about it, almost as though it is a first impulse. It seems as though many would-be mothers' thought process goes, "NO! I'M PREGNANT! -> Abortion!" Just like that, no thinking, no discussion with anyone else.

     If this girl had thought it over (once again assuming that this billboard accurately represents Greg Fultz's intentions), she probably would have realized that the right thing to do would be to carry the baby to term, deliver it, and sign all custody rights over to the father.

     I know many are thinking, "This girl should get a billboard of her own that says, 'I wish my stupid, 35-year-old boyfriend would have worn a condom.' for revenge." It's true, because I was listening to the radio tonight and heard a number of people say that or something like it. This is only addressing a quarter of the issue. 1 Yes, Greg should have worn a condom, 2 and/or his girlfriend should have been on the pill is she didn't want a child, 3 girls can make sure their partners are wearing a condom, carry one with you just in case, it's SMART 4 it still doesn't change the fact that once a girl becomes pregnant, the decision is not just hers, sorry it just isn't.

     The worst part about this story is that there is a court case involved.  Dealing with the harassment charge, the news stories I have read do not give enough background to know whether it is warranted (it is not warranted if the charge is based solely on the billboard). As far as the infringement of privacy charge, it is a sad sham. The billboard does not give a name or picture of the girlfriend, so the only people that will know who Greg is talking about are those that the girlfriend has already told the story to, so there is no infringement on her privacy. This story has made national news, and her name has still not been released, so it is definitely not infringing on her privacy. Granted it is not the most productive use of the money it took to buy the billboard space, nor is it the greatest way to express displeasure at an action of an ex, but it is not an infringement of privacy.

A Trial, a Law, and a Travesty

     Let's start today with an international event. Egypt's former president Hosni Mubarak and his two sons are set to face trial in Egypt (on a yet-to-be-announced day). They are charged with intentional murder, attempted murder of demonstrators, abuse of power, and unlawfully profiting from public funds. If they are found guilty on the murder charge, they could possibly face the death penalty.

     Many reporters and analysts say that this trial complicates the U.S. position in the Middle East and embarrasses the country because we can neither support nor oppose this trial. They say this because the U.S. had supported Mubarak until the revolution of this year. Also, Mubarak was a staunchly pro-U.S. Arab leader and supporting his trial would most likely anger our current Arab allies. Lastly, analysts say that putting Mubarak on trial after he "peacefully" stepped down may cause other Arab leaders facing uprisings to brutally crush them in order that they are not deposed.

     However, there are some problems with these points. Mubarak did not step down peacefully. After over two weeks of protests, Mubarak left around eight-hundred and forty people dead and over six thousand injured. Even by the loosest interpretations, that is not peaceful. In addition, the U.S. needs to break with its past history of supporting tyrants for our temporary gain (we fight a revolution to be free of one and now we seem to habitually put them in power). What better way to do that than by supporting the trial of one that we supported and admitting our wrong? As far as other Arab leaders go, here is some advice: if you do not want to be deposed and put on trial, do not oppress and kill your people! And lastly, what allies? Our Arab allies are countries like Yemen, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, who help train and/or harbor terrorists that attack the U.S. and other western countries...some allies.

     Turning to national news, Tennessee has just passed legislation that prohibits any local government in the state to have anti-discrimination laws that exceed the state ones and repeal all such laws on the books at the present time. This law has upset gay rights activists because, currently, sexual orientation is not in the state's anti-discrimination law. While activists have a right to be upset and outraged at this law's passage, their method of dealing with it is entirely wrong. As one might expect, gay rights organizations have said that they will fight this law with litigation. Instead of wasting your money and time on litigation to remove the law, it would be better to use that time and money towards getting sexual orientation added to the state's current anti-discrimination law.

     Finally, an article in the Wall Street Journal caught my attention today. It discusses a family, in Medina, Ohio, and how they are forced to pay $4,446.50 for their children to attend public school. This is not for any extravagance within the children's education, the families in the Medina school district must pay registration fees, technology fees, fees for required classes, such as Spanish I (for language requirement) and Geo Science, in addition to the $200 fee for band or the $660 fee for cross country participation. It highlights a growing problem in the country: school districts across the country are attempting to deal with financial cutbacks from state governments, and are, in many cases, thinking about it in the wrong way. Looking into charging fees for extra-curricular activities, such as football, lacrosse, and other sports could be a good idea, but many school districts are cutting needed programs (like spelling and physics), cutting teachers' salaries or teachers' jobs altogether, or even worse, such as the case in Medina (and many other school districts) charging already financially strapped parents fees to attend school and take required courses. The point of public schooling is that it is free for parents, if it isn't free, then stop collecting taxes for schools (as the taxes are there to ensure free schooling).

     All of these different methods are being implemented to cut costs and increase money flow, yet there are no stories about school districts attempting to cut school board positions, unnecessary administrative positions, ask higher paid administrators to take salary cuts, or ask the superintendent to take a salary or benefits cut. In these rough economic times, survival cannot be attained by just cutting more from the lower tiers, cuts must be made across the board.

     Because of the article I looked at the contracts of three superintendents in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The first is that of the superintendent of the school district in which I live. This school has just above one hundred students per high school class and just under that for many of the lower grades. This superintendent, according to her contract, makes $105,000 per year with a 3% increase every year that she achieves "satisfactory marks." There is also the possibility of a yearly bonus, termed "merit pay," which is voted on by the school board and can be up to 2% of her salary. In addition to her salary, she is granted twenty vacation days, medical, dental, and life insurance, reimbursement for "reasonable expenses," and she does not have to pay for any classes that she takes from an accredited university or college while she is the superintendent.

     Philadelphia City's (for a much larger school district in comparison) superintendent has a salary of $186,000 per year with a yearly increase in pay that was not disclosed in the contract in any specific terms. He also receives up to $10,000 for moving expenses (since he must live inside the school district), up to $5,000 for temporary living expenses, twenty-two vacation days, medical, dental, optical, and prescription insurance at no cost to the superintendent, and a $400,000 life insurance policy.

     Pittsburgh City's superintendent probably gets the most lucrative deal. The previous superintendent, Mark Roosevelt (not the current one, Dr. Linda Lane), was paid $180,000 for the first year, with a pay raise of $15,000 per year if he met "the agreed upon performance priorities." If he did not meet those priorities, he still received a $5,000 pay increase. His benefits included health and dental insurance, forty total days of leave (comprised of vacation days, sick days, personal days, etc.) and $1,000 for every day not used by the end of the year, a $400,000 life insurance policy, a district vehicle (with the option of a security person to accompany him), reimbursement for job-related cellular phone use, and free set up and use of the Internet and a fax machine (and all accompanying devices, fees, and expenses), as long as they are job-related in their use.

     With all of these "sweet deals" for superintendents, how can they be immune to any type of cuts? It seems as though the only intelligent cuts that school districts are doing is trying to make public school teachers pay a slightly larger percentage of their health care. Currently, the average PA public school teacher pays for between 1-5% of their health care, whereas the average person pays about 24% of their health care. Some school districts are asking teacher to pay between 5-10% of their health care (depending on what they paid before), and over this, many school districts' teachers have gone on strike in the past year.

Today is an Election Day: VOTE!!!

     Today, I am reminded of a discussion that I was a part of in my PHIL 101 class this past year. We were discussing whether people think of voting as a right, meaning it is voluntary, and fine whether you vote or not, or it is a duty, meaning that you are obligated to vote. Also, we discussed the way in which we think people should think of it; if you are unconcerned if people don't vote, or you think people should always vote no matter what. We talked about this because of the nation's rapidly declining voter turnout. Currently, roughly 40% of eligible people vote in non-presidential elections nationally, and, in a good year, 50-60% of eligible people vote in presidential elections nationally. In primaries, the lowest state turnout in the 2008 primary (the presidential one) was an election for the Democratic candidates at a pathetic 2.6% of eligible voters, and the highest was an overall primary at a sad 53.6%. This discussion got me a little heated. By far, the most spoken reason for voting as a voluntary choice (and not voting at all) in this discussion was that people did not want to be forced to do something, justifying this as the right of all Americans to choose their own actions.

     The right to determine who you are and how you will act is an immeasurably important right, but using this logic as a reason not to vote is almost a contradiction if you think about it. If you don't vote, you are allowing others to tell you who will make the laws for you, and what laws and ideals will govern you without being able to even voice your opinion on any of the matters. If you vote, you may not like the outcome of the election, but at least will have made your voice heard. Essentially, what these people are saying is that they do not want to be forced to do one thing, and yet will allow themselves be forced to say and do many other things (i.e. everything that those elected decide). That is the epitome of crushing individualism, though "individualism" is the rallying cry of the people that use this logic.

         Now this is all not taking into consideration the fact that millions (soldiers, civil rights leaders, women's rights advocates, etc) have labored, and possibly even died to ensure that you are able to vote, and not voting is like spitting in their face. 

     Nor is it taking into consideration that voting is taking action for the health of the country, which is probably the most important reason to vote. It is ensuring the health of the country because, like the health of a person, you can remove a bad politician (or a germ) before they can hurt the country (like  a disease), or before they can do any more to harm the country.

         In the end, vote! More importantly, vote intelligently! Research the candidates, decide on the person that best typifies your beliefs and preferences, and vote for them. If you're a patriot, it is a nod to those that have died for the country. If you're a nationalist, it contributes to the strength and health of the country. If you're none of these, and you are simply an individualist (and everyone is at some level), then what is more individual than standing up and saying "I like this person's ideas, and not this person's." to the world?

What bin Laden's Death Says about Pakistan and a Little Economics

     Early Monday morning (May 2, 2011), one of the most dangerous terrorists was killed in his home by a group of American Navy Seals. From the moment the public was told this, there have been mass celebrations and general feelings of greater security. I must believe that this celebration is due to the end of a serious threat to America and a good portion of the western world, and not due to the end of a human life (even though he was very disturbed on many levels). It is because of this belief (no matter how naive or increasingly ill-founded it is), I wonder why the government is questioning whether to release Osama bin Laden's post-death photos. The government is well aware that Arab nations around the world, especially those populated with a large number of fundamentalists, will view such an action as tasteless at best, and a challenge/direct insult at worst. Since an argument for caring what other nations think has never appealed to many in America, I ask, "Would you want the post-death photos released of American soldiers or civilians that have been killed over there?" The answer is, "No. Of course not. That would just be a grisly trophy being shown to shock us." So why do the same? It is not as if releasing the photos will make the action of those Seals more triumphant, or bring back anyone that perished in those terrible 9/11 attacks, or even ward off future acts of aggression from "Islamic fundamentalists" against the U.S. (I put that term in quotations because someone who is really returning to the fundamentals of Islam would not do the things they do to begin with).

     However, the killing of bin Laden does mark a victory for the U.S. in many fronts. In addition to the ending of a serious threat, the Navy Seals also took possession of five computers, ten hard drives, and over one hundred file storage devices, such as DVD's, CD's, and flash drives. The government believes that this information will tell us what acts bin Laden was planning, future Al-Qaeda movements and plans, and even possibly who their operatives are in the West. On top of this, it has further proved that Pakistan is NOT our ally.

     Pakistan, a country that has supposedly been our ally for decades, and to whom the U.S. sends billions of dollars annually in relief money, has a lot of explaining to do, which they should not be allowed to do at all. Soon after President George W. Bush commenced his War on Terror, the U.S. alerted Pakistan that there was good evidence that bin Laden had fled Afghanistan and was hiding in Pakistan. Pakistan denied this, but subsequently began "searching" for him. It turns out that Osama bin Laden had been "hiding" in the town of Abbottabad for at least the last SIX YEARS. On top of that, Abbottabad is a town that sits two hours (by car) from Pakistan's capital city of Islamabad and houses its own military academy, near which sat bin Laden's home. That would be akin to a terrorist living right next to the West Point Academy or the Annapolis Academy. And Pakistan wants us to believe that they couldn't find him for those six years!

     Well, they don't really want us to believe that because as soon as they learned of bin Laden's death, they reproached the U.S. for its "unauthorized" action and expressed their concerns that the U.S. would do something like that without consulting them. Why would we consult them when bin Laden's been living with them for six years? After they released that statement, Pakistan's government took a step backward and sent word to the U.S. that they were forced to react in that way because of the fundamentalists that live in Pakistan. If the U.S. released a response like that and then said, "We had to do so in order to quell a possible uprising from extremists in our country," the world court would crucify us. The response is even more shocking when one considers that the response of the Taliban was not nearly as stern as Pakistan's...and they are the main enemy we've been fighting in Afghanistan! All of this diplomatic confusion can be cleared up by looking at other countries. India, Pakistan's neighbor, is beckoning the U.S. to press Pakistan on this issue and force them out of involvement with Afghanistan, while China (who, in part due to their owning at least ten percent of our national debt, could literally take over our country soon if everything continues as it has been) is standing by Pakistan, who is China's ally as well as ours. Doesn't that make an odd bed to sleep in: the U.S. and China having the same ally when we are so often at odds with one another?

     Speaking of China, they have made U.S. economic news recently. SI Group Inc., a U.S. chemical maker, is locked in a court battle in Shanghai. The company outsourced to China to supply the tire industry there with one of SI's rubber-bonding resins. At some point, SI's factory manager quit SI and started working for one of SI's Chinese competitors. This company, Sino Legend (Zhangjiagang) Chemical Co.,  started making an identical product soon after the factory manager, who, as per the usual, was entrusted with SI's formula, started working for them. Of course, the Chinese company is denying anything more than a coincidence in timing. This legal battle is just further proof of how bad outsourcing is, both to the U.S. economy and for the business doing it in the long run.

subsidizing Renewable Energy development and sources (an idea gaining weight in Washington) was a bad idea. He spoke of the fact that renewable energy already has a market and if left to the "free market," the innovative ideas would pay for themselves without the need for subsidies. This argument is clearly flawed. First, the idea of a "free market" today is laughable at least. The government already subsidizes a plethora of industries and thousands of companies, including, as the author also pointed out, oil and gas companies (the competitor of renewable energy companies). How can a market that is interfered with millions of times a day be called free? Second, the author (and the federal government for that matter) seems to not understand for what purpose subsidies are supposed to be used. Subsidies (those for new industries and technologies, not for farming or things of that nature), as originally thought of, were supposed to be used to help new technologies and industries that the government thought would become lucrative, good for the economy, or beneficial to the American people for reasons of economics or health to pass the stages of research or initial implementation and continue to wide-stream commercialization and market exposure. Once the industry or technology had become advanced enough to counterbalance their costs, the subsidies would be removed, thus freeing up money for the government to subsidize other technologies and allowing the industry to thrive on its own. The use of subsidies have since been corrupted, obviously, since oil is subsidized and is still costing Americans around four dollars per gallon.

     The last note of the day is for the Debt Reduction Council that will meet tomorrow, Thursday, May 5, 2011. Vice President Joe Biden and a couple of senators will propose their different plans to cut the national debt by four trillion dollars in the next ten to twelve years. Let us hope this committee remembers one word that many in Washington have forgotten: compromise. Compromise for the good of America, allow intelligent people to prevail, and Good Luck!

Why the Power of the Executive has Expanded and the Recent NRA Convention

I had originally written this post on Sunday, but I forgot to post it, so here it is today:  

  To start out, I would like to continue with a point made in the previous post. I think it is regrettable at best, and shameful at worst that the powers of the American Executive (i.e. the President) have expanded to the point of making the man an almost royal, who is elected every four years. This travesty has occurred because the American people and, probably more importantly, the American Legislative have suffered from afflictions that have affected humankind for its entire history, but seemingly more so in recent generations, and result from the cowardly (at least when put into many of today's situations) impulse of self-preservation above all else. These interwoven afflictions are a fear of personal responsibility and a need for a scapegoat.

     Many humans fear to take responsibility for their own actions, when these actions have resulted in a failure because they fear the consequences of these shortcomings. Who among us can honestly say that they have not felt this fear? No one. However, too often in recent times, have humans let this fear win over their knowledge that they must indeed take responsibility for themselves and their actions. Since politicians are always in the public's eye, they have been most noticed doing this. One of the ways this impulse has manifested itself in Washington D.C., as it does for everyone, is the need for a scapegoat; the need to say, "This person has done the wrong, I have not. It is because of him that my strivings have failed, not because of any lack of intention or action by myself." It is precisely this phenomenon that has given us an enlarged executive power. Members of House and the Senate have passed the blame in many actions to the office of the president. But, because power begets responsibility, they were forced to relinquish power in order that their end may be accomplished. 

     The reason that the President has been the target and beneficiary of Congress' scheming is precisely the reason that the original framers did not vest the Executive Branch with more power: the President is one man. The framers saw this as a problem because they experienced first hand what terrors one man, who has been corrupted with great power, can do to a nation. Congress saw this fact as the requirement for the target of their scheme, and the people saw this fact as the perfect way to ease their frustration. Because the Congress is comprised of many men and each member is dependent upon the others in order to accomplish his goals, it is difficult for the American public to reproach any one senator or congressman for the failings of the whole. However, it is unspeakably easier to reproach one man, i.e. the President, for failings of his office, though a good deal of the power he has failed in the wielding of should not be his in the first place.

     The power of the executive that has been wrongfully enlarged and that is most in the news derives from his constitutional power of Commander and Chief of the Military. The president is the highest authority in military terms and Congress has used this to shield itself from the blame of the American people. Americans hear every year from Congressmen and Senators that they do not agree with the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Libya. They seem to be forgetting (or just ignoring so they do not have to shoulder the responsibility) that they have the largest power in the entire American Federal Government: the "Power of the Purse." If they truly disagreed, and did so as vehemently as many make us believe in their campaigns, then they could easily use this power to cut funding for that part of the budget, forcing the president to bring our troops home. I'm not saying that I disagree with the wars, I am just using Congress' own words. This Commander and Chief power is not the only one that the president has wrongfully enlarged or unconstitutionally taken, but it is one of the most famous today.

     In more recent news, the NRA has just finished their convention in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. As with every NRA convention, and probably more so this year because Pennsylvania, in particular Pittsburgh, traditionally is controlled by a majority of Democrats and liberal Republicans, it has opened the doors for advocates of the removal of guns from the public sphere to shout out against guns by misconstruing the text of the Bill of Rights and by citing skewed data in favor of that aim. They usually do this in one or all of three ways.

     First, they cite the second amendment and only pay attention to first half of the sentence. The text says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." When one breaks down the sentence, they find that there is an independent clause, which is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," and there is a dependent clause, which is "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." As any English teacher can tell you, when there is an independent and a dependent clause in the same sentence, the independent clause takes precedence over the dependent, as the independent can stand alone without the dependent, but not vise versa

     Second, they cite data that says the types of guns that are available to average citizens (sporting rifles and small handguns for personal protection) are used to carry out more crime than the one not available, and therefore average citizens owning guns is wrong. While this data is gathered correctly and usually interpreted by experts correctly, politicians and activists knowingly use this data in a deceptive way. If one looks at the data, they will see that crime is carried out by these weapons more often because they are the type of weapons that are available to everyone. If sub-machine guns, AK47's, and other guns of these types were more readily available, it is probable that they would be used more than a standard "6 shooter" because they are more efficient in many criminal purposes.

     Third, anti-gun advocates cite data that says if you own a gun and keep it in your home, then you are three times more like to be murdered in your home. Once again, though this data is gathered correctly by experts, it is given by anti-gun advocates wholly without any interpretation. If they did interpret it, they would see that this data is true because of drug and gang violence. The number of persons killed in their home, who also own a gun and keep it in their home, but who are not involved, nor are any members of their family, in drugs or gangs is drastically lower than those who are involved in drugs or gangs. Because of this, the numbers of gang members or those involved in drugs skew the numbers by greatly increasing them. If this data were taken from only those who are not involved in gangs or drugs, the numbers would be far smaller, and thus more equal to those who are killed in their homes without owning a weapon. Similarly, anti-gun advocates mention nothing of those gun owners who have successfully stopped a crime in their home in comparison to those who do not own a gun.

     Having said this, I am in no way advocating the arming of the public. I am not saying that everyone should own a gun. I do not own a gun, but the Bill of Rights says we should be able to do so, and it is because of this, I will fight for the right for those who to own a gun (as long as they have gone through the proper channels, taken the safety courses, and have been deemed safe to own one) to own one. I am, however, saying the need for stricter gun laws and the like would be made unnecessary if every state was more intelligent about background checks.

     We as a country, and we as the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, need to communicate more in our background checks. If someone has committed a violent crime, such as rape, robbery, assault, etc., or even some non-violent crimes, in another county or state, that needs to be communicated during a background check for gun ownership. In addition, if that person has been diagnosed with certain psychological disorders, such as paranoia or schizophrenia, that also needs to be communicated and invalidate that person's right to own a gun. Most importantly, background checks need to be mandatory, not only for gun stores, but also for gun shows and gun conventions, at which they currently are not.

     Lastly, I am not saying I find no fault with the NRA. As I have just stated, I do. I also think the political power they and some other advocacy groups have and wield constantly is deplorable, but that is what happens sometimes in a free market of ideas, especially one that has been so corrupted by money the way that ours has.