Obama Pardons 17

Our class discussions about racism and how it is present in the justice system sparked my interest in how apparent it really is in daily life. Although in class we talked about black protesters from the Civil Rights Movement getting sentenced to long prison sentences for trespassing, just recently Obama pardoned seventeen people for non-violent crimes. The crimes that the newly-pardoned people committed were far different from the "crimes" that protesters did during the Civil Rights Movement. But I think that it still shows that our country is at the very least trying not to make the same mistakes we made in the past.

Obama pardoned seventeen people recently after committing minor crimes from almost decades ago, such as "falsely altering a U.S. money order" or even "acquiring food stamps without authorization". I think that there is a consensus that these crimes are not big enough to the extent that the person who committed it is in jail for over a decade. That just seems outrageous. But that is a clear connection back to the CRM, when authorities would press charges on protesters for whatever charge they could press. For instance, since protesting was not a crime, they would charge them for trespassing on property.

But I don't think that pardoning people for acquiring food stamps falsely is anywhere on the same level as for protesting racial inequality. So although Obama is taking a step in the right direction by pardoning people for petty offenses, there is still a lot of work to be done to make the justice system equal.

Work and Wages

In the wealthiest nation on Earth today, there is debate over how much money people deserve for doing certain jobs. The current minimum wage requires that each person gets at least $7.25. Obama wants to raise the wage up to $9.00. What the raise in wage would signify wouldn't just be a physical increase in cash in people's pocket, it seems to me it would raise the value of people who work lower level jobs.

Before I get into that, it is interesting that the US didn't have a minimum wage until the end of World War II. Before then, the Supreme Court ruled it Unconstitutional to impose a federal minimum wage because it infringed upon the workers' rights to determine the work they do. As the years went by, the minimum wage eventually got instituted after FDR instituted the minimum wage. FDR thought that the "government must have some control over maximum hours, minimum wages." The word "must" to me indicates an obligation to the people that the government must help them using this law.

As the years passed, the wage increased more and more. And now the debate is on again - to raise it higher. To me, without a minimum wage, it would show that the government has no problem letting people in the lower class who can only work at certain places fall into poverty. Without a minimum wage, hard-working Americans would make no money after hours of strenuous work.

But some think that not having a minimum wage would be helpful. The theory is that when you raise the cost of employment, there is less incentive for businesses to hire.

What do you think about a raise in the minimum wage? Would it have a positive or negative effect on the people and our economy? Or do we even need a minimum wage?

False Progression in America

Recently, the trend of shootings, whether with a high or low death toll, has increased. The Sandy Hook shooting and the shooting at Lone Star College in Texas are two that were well covered by the media. However, what most of you probably don't know is that between January 10th and January 31st, there were eight shootings at different schools. The event that triggered debates about gun laws was the horrific Sandy Hook shooting. But months after that crisis, there is no resolution on curbing violence.

What people in America think is that our country is getting better. Our economy is improving, there are no imminent dangers that are being pushed to the public, and it seems as if people pay little attention to shootings. But this is all part of the false progression theory - the public isn't aware of  certain issues, and they therefore think that nothing is wrong.

But clearly, there are major problems in the US when it comes to curbing gun violence. But since the public isn't getting these events shoved down their throats, they do not pay attention to it. Is this the fault of the media? Since the school shootings aren't as big as the Sandy Hook shooting, the media is not providing coverage on those issues. Should they be?

With media coverage aside, are Americans stuck in a mindset of false progression? Why or why not?

The Gun Paradox

Just today, the most prestigious US military sniper, Chris Kyle, was killed. The cause? Not an illness, or a car accident. No. He was shot by an Iraq and Afghanistan military veteran at a shooting range.

I think that this example sets up a clear paradox about guns and their usage. The first is that a man who dedicated his life to killing other people with guns ended up being killed by a gun. To me, Chris seemed to think of himself as almost invincible from the negative consequences of guns, especially given the title of his autobiography, "American Sniper: The Autobiography of the Most Lethal Sniper in U.S. Military History". The word "lethal" to me indicates that he is deadly at what he does. That is magnified by the word "most" because it means more than anyone else. However, the most lethal sniper was killed by his weapon.

The second is that Kyle was shot at a firing range. He brought a military veteran to go to the range to shoot guns with him in order to "bring some relief". To relieve stress, Kyle took the veteran to a shooting range. I think that is another paradox because to me, shooting guns have a negative connotation. I feel this way because I have never been exposed to a gun before, and quite frankly, they scare me. A gun has so much force and power that I feel as if I am not responsible enough. If I were to go to the shooting range it certainly would not be to let out steam.

What I am trying to get at is that gun usage is very two-sided. In other words, Kyle killed people with his guns, but got killed himself by one. How do we, as Americans, suppress or alter gun usage so that horrible events like these don't happen anymore? Are guns embedded in American society to the extent that a change in policy is unforeseeable? Why or why not?