Response to Video Game Ruling

Jareb Blackford post an issue, on US Government 2305, about the Supreme Court ruling to not ban video games. His statement reflect the views on many Americans, violence video games should be removed from our children and that it is not a violation of our first amendment according to to the supreme Court.

Video games often reward players for simulating violence, and thus enhance the learning of violent behaviors.Violent video games desensitize players to real-life violence. Violent video games teach youth that violence is an acceptable conflict-solving strategy.  and an appropriate way to achieve one's goals.Violent video games cause players to associate pleasure and happiness with the ability to cause pain in others.  Young children are more likely to confuse fantasy violence with real world violence, and without a framework for ethical decision making, they may mimic the actions they see in violent video games

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.

.I thought the Freedom of speech was the wish to speak freely without censorship but it has limitations suck as obscenity and incitement to commit a crime. But I think it is up to the parents whether or not they should buy video games for their children. But like Jareb Blackford, "My momma still won’t be buying them for me. "

What should the Investors do???

President Obama and Congress have failed to think of ideas to get us out of this debt crisis. Causing continued worries in our global market, with the dollar losing its value, United States stock declining and the value of gold, what is the investor suppose to invest in. Once considered the United States Safe haven the United States Treasuries has held steady for the past few weeks.
      

The Treasury Department has said that the government must reach a deal by Aug. 2 or risk being unable to temporarily meet all its obligations like interest payments on debt, Social Security  or paychecks to federal workers.       


Few investors believe the United States will fail to commit on the debt crisis. but some are taking steps to reduce the risk of holding treasury bonds and angling on ways to make a profit as soon as possible.  And even if a deal is reached in Washington, some in the industry fear that the debt crisis has already ruined and or harmed the country’s market credibility.

People have pointed out that past governments have neared the same crisis we are passing now without a global collapse.  There is still some of the  greatest anxiety in the markets is that investors will lose confidence in Treasuries and move toward selling them, which would drive their values down and raise the rates up.      

Analyst have said that investors might sell some United States bonds to buy foreign bonds, or assets in Asia and emerging markets. The investors should be nervous about their assets because there has been this expectation that at some point, they’d come up with a deal, but given the failure this past weekend, I think that most people are losing confidence in our  market system.

I hope investors now where to put their money, so they can save their money or make more off of it. I just hope this crisis is soon over

To Pass the Dream Act.... Heck YEAH

The Views expressed in Fransico Cardova's post " Higher Education for Undocumented Immigrants " reflect the views on very little Americans. This is very controlversial

Fransico discusses an argument which i agree with. Currently, there are a lot of undocumented immigrant children that are guaranteed free public education but are not guaranteed college or university education. I do not understand, our kids are growing up with these "illegal immigrants",  I know I did and i became wonderful friends with these illegals. I also went to school with them and watched them race to the top of their classes, excel at math, science and English. But now I am in college  and a lot of the kids that did better than me in high school are working at as Medical Assistants or working at the local Mcdonalds when they could have been Doctors or Nurses something challenged their brain. "Working illegally and or for less than minimum wage hurts many immigrants and continues the cycle of poverty for their families".

" A solution to this would be the current proposed DREAM Act that Democrats have presented to Congress" said Fransico 

The Dream Act offers those illegal students an opportunity to work toward legal citizenship. As long as the illegal party is willling to serve at least two years in the US military and or US college, the illegal party would be on the path towrds becoming a citizen. This new policy would only apply to illegal residents who came to the United States before the age of 16. It does not change the status of any other family members, but does offer a route to legal residency for younger illegals who have grown up in the US.

The Dream Act not only encourages education but for this group of students to earn a decent job and contribute to society. There should be no need to complain that is not fair for us U.S citizen students. There are too many U.S citizens students not attending college or getting a job, that is a problem with society.people think that by allowing these students to earn a higher education they will take jobs. I think that the person that is best qualified will end up getting the job. I do strongly believe this problem is our fault for not having more border security. now look we have good students in our schools who don't know if they have a future because we simply didn't have enough help to protect our border.



To that I say What was the problem again??????

2012 Presidential Elections........... Ha

So as the elections press on for the 2012 presidential elections more and more shocking stories hit the fan. The story of homosexual presidential candidate Fred Karger and Michele Bachman caught my eye as being  both funny and idiotic. Republican Presidential candidate Fred Karger, which is the first openly homosexual to vie for a nomination attacked GOP hopeful Michelle Bachman on her thearpy methods praticed at her husband's clinic.

According to the Huffingston post  In 2004, Bachmann described gay individuals as being part of “Satan.”  And now that she is running for presidency she refuses to discuss her early statements. At her husbands clinic, that system conists of  "praying away the gay."  Also that controversial praying used as a ‘treatment’ at her ‘clinic’ has been proven to be ineffective and Bachmann still refuses to give any explanation of her beliefs concerning gays.

Karger saids, "Bachman has been clear about her opposition to marriage equality. She's a liar and now that she's been busted, she's trying to divert attention away from her lies."

"She is just another hypocrite and bigot."

Michelle Bachman does not like homsexuals. Two weeks ago she signed  The Family Leader's "Marriage Vow" pledge, which entails protects the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman."

I just can't believe Michelle Bachmann is serious in running for President. Michelle Bachmann wants to institutio­nalize inequality­. She wants less government­, except when she doesn't... which seems centered around her own personal version of christian values. I don't believe for a minute that as President, she wouldn't try to run the country just like her clinic.

What are the Odds

For the upcoming 2012 Presidential Elections, President Barack Obama has been scrunized and it did not look like he would be winning a reelection. According to the Huffington Post, on a conference call with reporters this morning, Barack Obama's 2012 reelection campaign touted the their second-quarter fundraising numbers, the number of individual donors and amount of grassroots support for the campaign. In my learning in chapter seven and eight grassroot mobilization is very important, your organzing citizens to support group poilcies or canidate preference.

 Campaign manager Jim Messina called the first weeks of the campaign, "a test of our grassroots strength, and the results are in." The reelection effort, he added, had 552,462 individual donors -- more than the total it received in all of 2007. Of those donors more than 260,000 were “completely new to the Obama organization.”The fundraising numbers offered more than just a chance for the Obama re-election team to tout its enduring support and wide-ranging reach.

 It also gave them an opportunity to create contrasts with those in the Republican primary field. "Given the lack of grassroots enthusiasm surrounding some of the Republican candidates, it will be interesting to see to what extent they rely on special interest and Washington lobbyists to fund their campaigns," said Messina.

I'd measure grass roots success by enthusiasm­, number of volunteers and word of mouth. Among the Obama base I didnt think there was much enthusiasm and no one is saying much positive about Obama. While reading this article I was suprised that there were so many followers around his campaigns. This story caught my attention because, I saw lobbyist and grassroot moblization. Since we were studying them in our books, i though it wise to see how it applies in government today. Its obvious that this person is trying to get the word out that President Barack Obama still has a chance and not to count him out. I think this story is more bragging to liberals conservatives about how many donations and grassroot followers he has.

two heads are better than one

As the national debt is rising, the Democrats and Republicans are working together to aid our government in this crisis. In a recent USA today article, President Barack Obama said, "It's my hope that everybody is going to leave their ultimatums at the door, that we'll all leave our political rhetoric at the door," The Democrats and Republicans have been working on this issue tirelessly each party trying out ideas that lead our nation with "a balanced approach that addresses both taxes and cuts".  

Sen Pat Toomey from  USA Today Opinion article  said “The most irresponsible thing Congress could do is to continue on the reckless path of excessive borrowing and spending. Since the administration shows no interest in curbing its spending appetite willingly, we should force the concessions by making our support for a higher debt limit contingent on restoring fiscal prudence.”   

 We do not have the luxury of postponing the tough choices for another day. I support raising the debt limit provided the increase is accompanied by serious spending cuts and structural spending reforms — such as spending caps and a balanced budget amendment.

Speaker of the House John Boehner, who said a "big deal is best -- but not one that includes tax increases", is pleased the president started to address the long term challenge this country is facing.

Democrats are willing to compromise, "Senator Harry Reid said. "But compromise does not mean allowing our Republican colleagues to put the wants of a few millionaires and billionaires ahead of the needs of this nation and the world."

The authors intended audience is the nation but he puts most of the pressure on congress and saying that we should have spending caps.  He is leaving it up to the reader to say who is right. Although I agree with the spending caps and balanced budget amendments I think we should tax the filthy rich and tax the big oil and agriculture. This is very important article because no one knows the correct way out of this situation. But two heads are better than one, hopefully the Republicans and democrats can put the egos away and work together as one nation.

Stay out Federal govenment

     There has been an on going battle with same sex marriages, should we allow it or should we not allow it? Should same sex marriages spouses recieve the benifits of their loved ones? In a recent New York Times article, the sunday review stated that New York’s new marriage equality law will not be married in the eyes of Washington". As long as gay and lesbians work for the federal government they cannot extend their helath insurance policy to their spouses. "A childless soldier with a same-sex spouse will not receive the housing allowance for dependents, even after “don’t ask, don’t tell” is fully repealed."

    To me it seems odd that a country founded on its values of freedom and the pursuit of happiness should try to limit the the individual right to its citizens. Neither the federal government nor the courts should have any say in the matter. If a state, however, feels differently, then it may enact laws recognizing gay marriage as NY did recently.The main role for the federal government is to give financial benefits to couples with marriage licenses.  I think the big thing here is to repeal the Defense of marriage Act, which does not allow same sex marriage to be recognized by the federal government.