Glad Styrofoam isn't Banned

In Karla Rodriguez's post, she describes that Nancy Pelosi tried to pass an amendment that actually tried to ban the use of products made of Styrofoam. Styrofoam is one of the most unimportant things to be concerned about. It doesn't seem like it would be one of the items on the agenda to be fixed. Surely it could be focusing on the health of the nation, but not important enough to go head-to-head against other bills on the agenda. I agree with Karla when she asks questions like, "When did Speaker Nancy Pelosi want to ban Styrofoam? Why did she want to ban the product?" These are important questions that need to be answered.

I feel congress should not waste time and energy on hearing bills about senseless items like banning Styrofoam. I only know one person who doesn't like it. Everyone else uses it everyday, either to keep something cool or prevent something from breaking. I wonder if there have been any scientific studies on the effect of Styrofoam on the environment. It doesn't hurt anyone. It only makes a squeaky sound that annoys people. Banning Styrofoam could cause people to lose jobs. There have got to be people who work in Styrofoam factories. If they close down, that would cause even more damage to our economy.

On Initiating My Government Experience, Karla Rodriguez makes a good claim on the silliness of banning Styrofoam. Her writing style makes me agree with her. She says, " I do not think it is that difficult to decide why or why not the object should be banned or not." That is a very logical statement. If only all government could be so easy.

Video Game Ruling

Did you know there was a ban on the distribution of violent video games to children under 18 years old? The Supreme Court overturned this in a 7 to 2 decision in favor of allowing the sale of these games to minors. The Court decided such a ban violated the First Amendment of the Constitution, the right to freedom of speech.  The California ban was trying to protect children from harm. The games had very graphic ideas like killing, maiming, and sexually assaulting others. These are all acts against the law in real life, but can be done without punishment in a virtual world.  First person shooter games, like Call of Duty and Gears of War copy military action. In those games players just kill and kill. In one game there is a chain saw attached to a gun where the gamer can grossly kill many characters at one time.  In Grand Theft Auto, the game player practices stealing cars and evading the police.

My little cousin at two years old could beat my older cousins on these death games. It was a really bad influence on him. I couldn’t believe how it would change his mind, just killing everyone.  Some kids I go to school with play these games all the time and I can see the personality change in them. They lose their tempers over the littlest things. I can call that a real effect of these video games.

The Supreme Court did the wrong thing in declaring this ban unconstitutional. There are many kinds of media like TV shows, movies and magazines that should only be available to people over 18 years old. Kids whose minds are still growing should not have open access to anything they want.  

But I can see how the public is addicted to these games, so they didn’t want the ban. They fought it all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. People were relieved and happy when the ban was lifted. My momma still won’t be buying them for me. 


Resource: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/us/jan-june11/videogameruling_06-28.html

Commenting on State vs. Religion

                Sarah Hrncir posts an issue, on The Big Block of Cheese, about State vs. Religion. She makes a statement and an explanation about how Governor Rick Perry plans to make a national day of prayer on August 6^th. Many people disagreed with that and sued him.

                I agree with what Sarah states about what Governor Perry is trying to do. This is not the first time he has tried to do this. I remember the one time she makes an example of where he has been trying to include religion with politics. I remember when he asked for people to pray for rain. That was weird, but no one sued him over it. This time he stepped over the line with trying to make a special day for prayer.

                It makes sense that Perry would try to do this. He is trying to incorporate Christianity into his election. Of course, Christians would vote for him standing on this platform; but he risks turning off people of other religions who would not vote for him. That is a major item that people use to decide who to vote for. Many who are non-Christian would not want to give their vote for him doing this.

                Ms. Hrncir uses strong logos reasoning and ethos in that she confidently speaks about what she thinks on the topic. She outlines her ideas in a reasonable, logical way. I also feel there should be separation between religion and government. They are conflicting sources and it doesn’t make sense to mix them.

Crazy Laws in America

     There are many dumb and crazy laws in the United States, and the government should remove them from the law books. Let’s start with Texas, for example. You can be legally married by simply introducing someone in public as your husband or wife 3 times. In Austin, wire cutters cannot be carried in your pocket. There is a law in North Carolina that says it is illegal to sing off key. You also can’t roller blade on the state highway, although it has been done and videotaped. In Kentucky you need a license to walk around nude on your property, and fortunately every citizen is required to take a shower once a year.


     People who are unaware of these obscure laws would be thrown in jail for no reason just because they did not know about them. Even I would be someone who would try to fish with a bow and arrow even though it is illegal in Kentucky. Now the government is paying for the shelter and food and everything that a prisoner would need to be taken care of for a minor offense. Officers are tied up chasing petty crimes when there are drug dealers and car thieves on the loose.


     The national and state governments should investigate and make changes to these silly laws. They can see the bad effects these laws would have on people.  The law codes need to be simplified and that would help out with freeing up the justice system to pursue true troublemakers. This would free people from suffering the injustice of nit-picky laws.


     The government should eliminate all laws that are nonsensical. Making carrying ice cream in your pocket because it may distract horses illegal, when it is not something any person would think of doing, is ridiculous. Laws should be made only for true problems that people face currently. Maybe there should be a process to review all local, state, and national laws on a specific time schedule to make sure there are not any out of date or unnecessary laws still being carried. 


Now where did I put my bow and arrow... I feel like a fish fry. I’m a smooth criminal…

Al Gore and his Ideas

     In an article called, "This Week in Climate News" posted by Steven Hayward on Powerlineblog.com, he describes a way Al Gore wanted to solve the climate campaign's communications problem. The idea was to present it through intimate reality TV show. Al Gore is known for the documentary "An Inconvient Truth" where he takes a look at how bad the world can get and that most people won't accept the information. For example, businesses are destroying the ozone layer but most people don't want to accept that. The movie threw it in viewers faces.

     Al Gore really wants to get elected President. He does not really care about the climate, but he is trying to get people to vote for him by stating he will do something about it and claims things will get done.

     You can see Mr. Hayward's cynicism in his words, "Oh what a bonus that will be". While it is true no one wants to hear from Al Gore, and I personally know a lot of young people who are tired of hearing about Al Gore. So even though he is targeting young people by making it a reality TV show, which is what most teenagers and young adults do watch, even if they are completely bored with life and have nothing else to do, they won't want to watch "Climate Reality Project."

     Steven Hayward builds credibility by connecting with his audience, saying what we all say in our heads when we think about Al Gore. He appears to be writing a rebuttle to a New York Times article so his intended audience is people who keep up with politics in The New York Times.

Supreme Court Denies Racism

       The article, "Death Penalty, Still Racist and Arbitrary", written by David R. Dow, published in The New York Times,  argues that the Supreme Court of the United States of America makes decisions that are racist in regards to the death penalty. The Supreme Court should serve as a balance to the executive and legislative branches of the government, however, on this matter they seem to have lost their objectivity.
      Mr. Dow explains a study done in the University of Iowa in 1976 that showed if a white person murders a white person, then they most likely only recieve a penalty of jail time. If they happen to murder a black person, they might get a few years. If a black person kills a black person, then they have a higher chance of receiving the death penalty. Astonishingly, if a black person has the blood of  a white person on their hands, they are 4.3 times more likely to be slapped with the death penalty. The Supreme Court has been presented with these statistics and refused to step in to fix this injustice.  The Court had made a rule that there has to be hard evidence of racism involved for them to accept an appeal. David Dow says this never happens except for the time in Texas where Chuck Rosenthal, a distric attorney in Harris County, resigned when they caught him with racist emails. Actually, he said the study had been repeated and found the same results in many states.
       The author is writing for readers of The New York Times. That would include urban, white, educated, and rich individuals, most like those who mainly vote.  Credibility is seen at the end of the article which states the writer is a professor at the University of Houston Law Center. On the other hand I wonder if the author is black himself.
     This argument makes sense to me. I have also noticed myself when I watch current events, most of the criminals who are put to death by the death penalty are black people. I didn't know the Supreme Court let that happen when there is supposed to be rights in the Constitution to protect all people.    
    

NASA changes and Political Disagreements

      In The Washington Post, Joel Achenbach writes an article entitled "As NASA transitions, U.S. space politics in a state of flux". As we already know, the space shuttle is going to be retired. Here, he explains the disagreements between what the President wants to do and what Congress wants to do about this situation. Since the government is funding the transportation of astronauts to the space station, the President wants to allow private companies to take this over. Congress disagrees because the Republicans and the Democrats feel as though the economy in their states will be hurt if there is a privatization of NASA.


     This article is worth reading because the future generation will have to make the decision of either making a new space shuttle or buying "tickets on Russian rockets." Whomever is voted into office by 2025 will be the person who needs to make the decision. I chose this article because space, science and technology is intriguing to my generation. It is interesting that politics can even  influence these areas of life.