Is it ok to kill if it's self defense?

With the recent law passing of "stand your ground," I feel that this will only make things more complicated in the area of the right to carry. This law is basicaly giving people more insentive to just shoot and ask questions later. I support the right to carry to the fullest,and how California's gun laws are and I think that people need to just leave some things alone. My gun policy would be similar you would have the right to shoot someone in self defense but with the intent to only wound the person not kill them unless you absolutly have no other choice. Like the case involving the rapper Gucci Mane he was arrested on murder charges but because it was self defense and there was a witness to testify that the men indeed did rush into his condo the charges were dropped because the lack of evidence they needed. And because it was self defense and his life was threatened.

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1519599/murder-charges-against-gucci-mane-dropped.jhtml

"Make My Day"

The current gun legislation being passed such as the "Stand Your Ground" laws pose a great threat to public safety. I'm a proud supporter of the second amendment but these laws only hurt any future progress in gun legislation by making it easier to get away with murder.

My Gun Policy:
1. Any permitted (with proper training and registration) person should be allowed to carry a concealed or unconcealed weapon for protective purposes.
2. Any person carrying a gun may only use it in time of immediate and obvious danger.
3. If a person carrying a gun feels threatened or in danger they should first try to retreat or escape before resorting to use of the gun.

No one, gun or no gun, should ever pursue someone they feel threatened by. No one should be legally allowed to shoot and/or kill a person without evidence that their life is in danger. Finally, No one should be able to murder an unarmed person, claim self-defense and get away with it with out some sort of punishment.

Here is an article other shooting gone wrong as a result of these laws:
Article

Policy for right to carry laws

After reading about the Trayvon Martin case these past few weeks I feel a national discussion on the "right to carry" laws should be discussed at length if only to avoid this from happening again.  Few details have been released, but people are very angry that this happened and that no investigation was done by local law enforcement.  My feeling is one of sadness and I am sure the shooter George Zimmerman feels the same as I do - at least this is what some witnesses have stated  What could have prevented this tragedy is what we all should all be asking ourselves.  As for policy on this subject I side with California's strict gun control laws that make it very difficult to carry a loaded weapon unless you have a concealed weapons permit license or are law enforcement.  These people are trained rigorously and know how to respond to a threat much more than the average citizen does.

My policy would follow California's law as follows:

You act in lawful self-defense if you:

1.  reasonably believe that you are in imminent danger of being killed, seriously injured, or unlawfully touched.

2.  believe that immediate force is necessary to prevent that danger and

3.  use no more force than necessary to defend against that danger.

California also does not have a "stand your ground" law that makes it easier for a citizen to shoot first and ask questions later.  Florida's "stand your ground" law does not permit a person to walk around his or her neighborhood with a loaded firearm without a special permit so Mr. George Zimmerman might be found guilty just for carrying  the gun that fateful night.

As Gail Collins of the New York Times said "The best solution for all concerned would be a national gun-control law that makes it difficult to get a concealed weapons permit and to limit them to the home, business, or glove compartment unless that individual is in the security business.  Mr Zimmerman was not a licensed security officer, but only a zealous neighborhood watch person who's lack of training probably contributed to this nightmare.  I bet he wishes this never happened and if a national law was in place maybe it wouldn't have.

link:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/22/opinion/collins-pity-the-poor-gun-lobby.html?scp=4&sq=march%2022,%202012%20&st=cse

Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing

I agree with my group members that I am not a fan of this article assignment but here it goes.

The article I found was about a study on group dynamics preformed and documented by Bruce W. Tuckman. As a result of this study he preformed one of the most quoted models of group development in the 1960s that is still used to this day. This model called "Forming, Storming, Norming and Performing" is the perfect example of what my group went through to become a successfully functioning team.

Article Link

1. There were members in our group that did more than others for the midterm assignment but i do not think it hurt our presentation. We made up for any weakness in the time we were given in the beginning of class because we function well as a team and i think pulled of a great presentation! I would rate myself at an 8 for performance but know I would not have done that well if i didn't have my group up there supporting me.

2. I would not remove anyone from our group. All of the other members in my group have some sort of strength that helps us be successful. For example: I may be able to come up with a decent presentation the night before it's due but I would never be able to find the confidence to stand up by myself and sing "Dancing Queen" in front of the class for resources. I wouldn't be against adding someone to our group if they wanted to join though I don't feel a need for it. They would just need to be creative and friendly.

3. Workplace rules are very important for getting stuff done successfully.
A. 10
B. 7
C. 7
D. 8
E. 10
F. 7

4. 5 Rules:

1. Good Communication
2. Be friendly and have fun
3. Don't get distracted from accomplishing tasks
4. Be creative and efficient
5. Get to know everyone's strengths and weaknesses 

To sum it up I feel one assignment cannot define the strength of a person or a group.

group dynamics

I also find this blog a little troubling and out of pocket but here is my best shot. I chose to use an article from group dynamics about problem solving teams and I feel that my group is one of them. We could have made things better and been more prepared with more communication, but we worked very well together with what we had and managed to pull it off. If I had a choice to add or remove someone I would not are group is small but we all work together and help each other out the best we can. I know some characteristics that I need to show improvements and have been able to see what they were after this midterm and have been working to make them better. For example better communication with my group members and taking more responsibility to do my part to increase are groups productivity so we all can benefit from it. Here is the link to the article in which I found are group dynamics.
http://managementhelp.org/groups/dynamics-theories.htm 

Reflections on the midterm

I have to confess I don't like this assignment where I am asked to rate fellow team members - but since I don't have a choice I will try and do my very best in assessing all of us honestly.  First I must say that I believe as a group we performed good even though we had some obstacles to overcome.  We could have been better prepared if we had communicated more effectively prior to our presentation, but we did work very diligently in class to fix our mistakes.  I do have to give the most kudos to my fellow team mates Chane and Amber for their stellar presentations and would grade me as effective.  Although we were not as prepared as we should have been, we chose to overcome by gathering some additional information before our presentation.  I give us credit in resolving our mistakes by making the best of a stressful  situation, and not just throwing in the towel.  I would rate myself as a 6 in this group dynamic.  At this time I would not want to remove or add a member to our group because we have been together from the beginning and to do so would be disruptive, to say the least. The article I chose to demonstrate our group dynamic was from author Scott Johnson who used a 1967 Science article where ecologist Garrett Hardin discussed a group of cattle ranchers shared land for grazing their cattle called "tragedy of the commons".  The basis for this article is that each rancher could add as many cattle they wanted to graze, but each additional cow would deplete resources for all ranchers.  In this study it was found that the smaller the group of people involved in this business venture would be at risk the most for losing money, and would be less willing to add additional cows to graze.  The larger group encountered less risk as it was shared by more investors - some with more resources - so would be willing to graze more cows - no matter the risks to the other investors.

Our group is comparable to the smaller investor in that we have such a small group dynamic, and much more risks if we do not work together to complete our tasks.  We depend on each other more than a larger group because there are less of us to get the job done. And finally I will rate the basic workplace rules important in our group as follows:

A. Showing up on time - 9
B  Doing our fair share - 8
C. Being on time - 7
D. Responding timely to email and communicating effectively with other members - 6
E. Handling conflict among group members - 5
F.  Being present in the group -not distracted by outside cell phone calls or text messages when the group is meeting - 10

Lastly I would like to say I enjoy being in this group and look forward in spending the next few weeks with all of you.  Thanks everyone!

Link:http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/06/group-dynamics-key-to-avoiding-tragedy-of-the-commons.ars

Susan B. Anthony List's Pledge

The Susan B. Anthony List is a pro-life group who have encouraged presidential candidates to sign their Pro-Life Leadership Presidential Pledge. There are four parts to the pledge. The first promise signers make is that they will only nominate “federal bench judges who are committed to restraint” and that those judges will be dedicated to applying the original meaning of the constitution. The second promise is that they will only “select pro-life appointees for relevant cabinet and Executive Branch positions”. Meaning that they will only select pro-life supporters to be the head of positions like the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Justice. The third obligation signers will have is that they will “advance pro-life legislation to permanently end all taxpayer funding of abortion in domestic and international spending programs”. This will include defunding organizations such as planned parenthood. A former George Bush Justice Department official said that he is worried that the pledge is possibly too “far-reaching in its implications.” He says that if it is taken as it is written then there is the possibility that Medicare and Medicaid patients would not be able to use any hospitals that perform any type of abortion. Mitt Romney refused to sing the pledge because he believes that the pledge calls for legislation that would “strip taxpayer funding from thousands of health care facilities”. Now, if the pledge really calls for that is debatable but if further proves the point that the pledge is too vague. The last promise of the pledge is that signers will “advance and sign into law a Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion. The pledge has no expiration date, so it is just as binding as the tax reform pledge written by the Americans for Tax reform advocacy group. Republican congressmen who signed the pledge in 1986 are still bound by it today. The pledge is partly responsible for the failure of the debt-reducing super-committee and for the way it “essentially kills any serious prospects for tax reform”. The Susan B. Anthony Pledge might seem like a good way for candidates to get support from voters at the moment, but it could restrain them in the way they vote years from now. So Far Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum have signed the pledge. The Susan B. Anthony List also supports many congressmen and encourages them to make policies that will ultimately end abortion.  If someone who has signed this pledge becomes president then they will limit people’s right to pursue happiness. People will not be able to follow their own moral code, they will be having the moral code of someone else forced on them. People who do want to get an abortion will not be able to make that choice for themselves because federal judges, the president, and Health Departments will all be against their choice. Anyone with a different moral code will not be able to fully pursue their happiness. If a signer of this pledge becomes president then these laws will come from the federal government and will be confirmed by the judicial branch. It does not matter if a President or a Congressman is against abortion, but they should be able to let everyone make that choice for themselves. The best outcome for this situation is for no else to sing this pledge and that the next president is someone who has not supported the Susan B. Anthony List. 

Sources: 

The Economist

SBA List

National Review

Fox News

Women Losing Freedom

The comic Doonesbury creates a pretty realistic image of the political battle that today's women are currently fighting that is reducing our freedoms as women and as American citizens. Everyone deserves the protection of reproductive rights and no government should be able to take those rights away.

The World Health Organization defined reproductive rights as the "basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number and timing of their children,  to have the information and means to do so, and to have the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. They also include the right of all to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence.

During the case Roe v. Wade in 1973 the Supreme Court ruled that a right to privacy under the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment extends to a woman's decision to have an abortion prior to fetal viability (the time at which a fetus is potentially able to live outside the mother's womb). Or after viability if the Mother's life is at risk. I feel legislation has been regressing instead of moving forward in the almost 40 years since that case ruling.Current legislation among states and even the federal government have violated many of these standards especially in Texas where anti-abortion laws are the most extreme.

Texas has sliced its two-year family planning budget from $111 million to $38 million causing more than a dozen clinics like Planned Parenthood to close and potentially eliminating services for nearly 284,000 women. They have also passed a law that forces a woman seeking an abortion to go through a lengthy and stressful process before being legally able to have the procedure.

As described in the article "When States Abuse Women" a woman, "first must endure an ultrasound probe inserted into her vagina. Then she listens to the audio thumping of the fetal heartbeat and watches the fetus on an ultrasound screen. She must listen to a doctor explain the body parts and internal organs of the fetus as they’re shown on the monitor. She signs a document saying that she understands all this, and it is placed in her medical files. Finally, she goes home and must wait 24 hours before returning to get the abortion."

Some argue this force of intravaginal ultrasound is borderline rape. This violates a woman's freedom to privacy as promised in the Roe v. Wade decision but her reproductive freedom by exposing her to discrimination and forcing her into an almost violent situation. It will not put an end to abortion but only increase the number of deaths caused by women who seek illegal or more dangerous methods of abortion.

These budget cuts to women's health care and family planning programs reduces more services that are essential to a healthy life than it does abortions. Services such as breast cancer screenings,  free birth control pills and pap smears for cervical cancer to name a few are now virtually impossible to receive for many low income families.

I feel reproductive rights for every women, not just those seeking an abortion, are at great risk with middle-aged men making the majority of the decisions mostly off their own religious beliefs and bias opinions. I'm not saying whether having an abortion is right or wrong but every woman should have the freedom to make that decision on their own and no one should be able to choose for them.

A response from a New York Times reader:
"At a tad over 80, I feel as if I am being dragged back into the dark ages for women. Contraception and abortion are being played out in the political arena, where efforts to limit or deny women’s reproductive rights are being debated by those people least qualified to do so."

-JANET HELLER, Baltimore, Feb. 29, 2012

Sources:
Article "When States Abuse Women"
Article "Women in Texas Losing Options for Health Care in Abortion Fight"
Reproductive Rights Defined
Roe v. Wade

Abortions and where the funding comes from

Many  women who get abortions use funds, but what are they and where do they come from and who pays for it? Do we as tax payers have to float the bill, or is it swept under the rug? First what are abortion funds; they are a group of people who will help you pay for your abortion when you can't afford it. These groups are almost all volunteers the government has nothing to do with it and they haven't been a part of it since 1977, when the Hyde Amendment was first implemented. There are still loop holes at  present, the federal Medicaid program mandates abortion funding in cases of rape or incest, as well as when a pregnant woman's life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury. Also to add to the mess some states are requiring that women who want an abortion are first required to have a vaginal ultrasound is this a right of the state or is it wrong. I feel this is effecting women's natural right of exercising their fundamental liberties. Because women having abortions are already going through a hard enough time trying to make the best decision possible for them and for a state to require a vaginal ultrasound so the women can see their child is just plan wrong and cruel, as if the future mother doesn't have bad enough feelings about not being able to have her child the choice is hers and only hers. We as people should stand by them and try and do are best to help them through their tough time, but still educate on how to avoid it and prevent it from happening again.

http://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/public-funding-abortion

Women in Texas Losing Options for Health Care

The legislature in Texas is cutting funding by two-thirds for all women's clinics they feel is supporting Planned Parenthood because of their association with doctors and clinics that fund abortion.  The "right to life" movement is gaining momentum in many states like Texas that feel the new federal health program passed by congress and signed by Obama in 2010 is over stepping states rights.  Almost forty years ago Texas was also involved in a case before the United States Supreme Court named "Roe vs. Wade",  in which a single pregnant women residing there, argued the constitutionality of Texas criminal abortion laws and won the case.  So here we are again arguing the legality of the Federal government in telling states how to handle a women's reproductive health and if they should have to fund it.  Title X  a federally funded family planning program enacted in 1970 is also at the heart of this argument, because Texas wants to opt out of receiving these funds altogether.  Although this program was set up to fund women without any means to provide their own health care coverage, such as:  birth control, pap smears, breast, cervical, and STD's screenings, states like Texas are adamant that this money is connected in some way to funding abortions which they are strongly against!  The question that should be asked is what are a states rights versus the federal government in determining how to take care of its own citizens - and who should make this determination?

Link:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/us/texas-womens-clinics-retreat-as-finances-are-cut.html?scp=1&sq=THURSDAY%20MARCH%208,%202012/A1&st=cse

The E-Book Scandel

The popularity of e-books have sky rocketed over the past couple years and so had the issue of how to price them. Apple and other electronic publishing companies are currently under investigation by the Justice Department for suspicion of price collusion. Industry experts believe these companies have made secret agreements to raise prices of e-books limiting open competition.  The current pricing policy, which allows publishers to set their own prices for e-books, is currently under the microscope as investigators try to come up with a way to improve it without giving an unfair advantage to industry leaders such as Amazon.

The current fight is with Apple and the smaller e-book companies to try to say in competition with Amazon who is dominating the market. The Justice Department’s antitrust division's job is to try to come up with a better pricing policy that creates fair competition while preventing illegal dealings between underdog competitors. If no settlement is reached soon Apple will find themselves facing a possible major lawsuit.

Article Link.

AARP Study Says Prices Of Popular Drugs Rose 26%

As I read this article it reminded me of the time not long ago when I was taking care of my mom and handling her medical care and prescription drugs.  By the time my mom moved in with me in 2008 she was taking several subscription medications, but that soon grew to multiple ones that were only partially covered under the new Prescription Drug Coverage Law passed by President Bush in 2004.  After paying her premium of forty plus dollars a month and a copay at the register she still ran out of benefits by June of each year.  This study by AARP supports this trend in that prices of brand names (most commonly used by seniors and the ones taken by my mom) has risen by 26% from the years of 2005-2009.  This is even after a steady decline of generic drug prices.  Most drugs prescribed to our seniors are in the category of brand names - not generic, and the specialty drugs grew by 48%.  In this period inflation grew by just 13% - so what is going on here!  One thing that has been stated by Lawrence Marsh, managing director of equity research at Barclays Capital, is that drug companies raised these prices before their patents expired.  What we need to do is to control the rapid and destructive rise in prescription drugs our seniors depend upon.

Link:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/07/business/aarp-study-says-price-of-popular-drugs-rose-26.html?ref=business

The Cigarette War

New York and their local Indian tribes are in a legal war over the state's $4.35-a-pack cigarette tax. The tribe made cigarettes bring in millions of dollars each year and New York wants a piece of that income. These Indian reservations are sovereign nations and i believe the state has no right to tax cigarette that are manufactured and sold there. The original reason for these tax laws was to decrease the rate of smoking but if that was New York's real concern they would be fighting for less greedy legislation to reduce sales. The state could outlaw the Indian made cigarettes outside the reservation like they do with gambling and the state would have the right to do so, but trying to take money that they have no legal right to is an abuse of power.

Article Link