Banana Republic National Song and Dance

...as performed by George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

Mentors

To tell the truth, I do not have a lot to say about mentors. Just try to avoid them in my life. Don't like overloading people with my own stuff. But, I myself was a mentor to several people. It is a big responsibility and a big pleasure, when you see that the person you were trying to help succeeds.

MENTORS

 

While Mentors are usually associated with helping advance a career, or artistic endeavor, they can be an extremely valuable asset in just living a persons life.  As each decade passes, life becomes more and more complicated, demanding, stressful, and more intertwined with other persons, and multiple tasks. For a person to have a mentor to guide and advise them, even in their younger years, could  help them avoid certain pitfalls that can hinder them or even force them to alter their choices later in life. At say 18 years old a lot of things sound great, that an older person may have experienced or been through or learned from, that could possibly save them from some future heartache.  In these times, with higher tuition, and more specialized career paths, a person in college needs to make major decisions as to what path to take study wise, so that after graduation they  are prepared to accomplish their goals, whether they be academic, artistic or business wise.  Having a mentor to help guide them would be  a huge benefit when choosing their study plans and goals.

As to going about finding a mentor, I am at a loss.  In the earlier stages of life, I would imagine that a mentor would be someone that would come about through a family connection. Maybe a relative, or a friend or coworker of the parents. Perhaps a youth takes an interest in something that an adult acquaintance is involved in.  Thus sparking a mutual interest in an activity.  Maybe a college student stands out to an instructor, or shows an exceptional talent for a certain endeavor. This talent causing a spark of interest, in the students talents. Or perhaps it is at a future job, where someone shows a real interest in a career, and maybe reminds a senior employee of them at an earlier time.

It seems to show, when a person has a real enjoyment for and love of something.  Whichever scenario occurs, I feel that if someone has a genuine feeling, talent or aptitude for a certain "Thing," it will manifest itself to others, who will want to pass along their experience and knowledge, as a mentor.

National Anthem

The Banana Republic is the best.
We are the country that rules the west.
With our military strong and ready.
Ruled by a government strong and steady

Over other countries we stand high.
We shine bright like a star in the sky.
With the amazonians at our side.
If you want to survive you will abide.

Imports and exports with money made.
Our business might will never fade.
Our treasury full of gold.
Our economy will never fold.

The Game

I'm still not quite sure what to make of it. Our laws still haven't been implemented into actual changes in the game, so it's hard to look into it very far. We're pretty must just funneling ideas and I write them into the book. I think we should start being more aggressive and start actually "playing" the game and nuke some countries. Initially we wanted to be reactive, but with how slow things seem to be moving, we might as well be proactive and see what happens. I think our initial goal was to be more of a benevolent North Korea type state with American morals, but that's proving to be boring. I think it's time to start blowing stuff up. 

Oh, that Game ... again ...:-)

Well, one more time we are supposed to give our reflections on the Game. It is still difficult for me to judge, although now I understand a bit more.:-) Isn't it the great beginning? It could be, only if it were not almost the end.:-)))
Anyway, I enjoyed couple of last sessions a bit more than the previous ones. We all can feel that the tension is growing and we all will soon have the highest point.
I am not tired to repeat how much I like our group! But now I do think we are not aggressive enough. Especially after Odin gave us more detail about the geographic situation of each Nation, I find that the geopolitical situation of The Banana Republic is more than just satisfactory. It should have some more active politics toward others. Maybe it is just my well-hidden aggressiveness that is showing up!:-))) I lack some of this quality in the real life and the Game gives me the possibility to dream about some different Me.
We do use the United States as an example for our "nation construction" and I see no reason to choose any other example. I travelled a lot, I lived in different countries and only the United States  gave the feeling of freedom ...

 

MY SALUTE TO THE BANANA REPUBLIC

 

Just a small number of weeks ago, we were 5 strangers, that joined together to form "The Banana Republic." The  greatest country on the planet, (provided that planet is not Earth, then the top honor goes to The United States.) We have overcome the challenges of not knowing each other, or how each individual feels about the different topics we have to make laws about. One of the factors that is working for us, is the fact that we have a very intelligent core to our group, and some imaginative thinkers who have tackled the tasks assigned to us, and  given an exemplary performance. Perhaps the biggest drawback so far is a reluctance to voice an opinion on controversial subjects, such as abortion or gun control. However after our intelligent debates, we seem to always come to a consensus.  We have chosen a course of above average aggressiveness, but not being overtly evil. We feel that as the "Greatest Country" on the Planet, we should be given deference as to how things work here. Kinda like the big kid on the block, without being too rough on the lessors. To our way of thinking, a fair split would be Banana Republic 60%, someone else 40%.

We basically take a proactive approach to our dealings with others, while still allowing them some prosperity, so they can offer us more the next time we have a trade interaction with them. With that strategy in mind, we should end up on top of the world.

I guess as far as an example of someone we would model after, it would be us.

Nation-State Reflection

The game as a whole is working, I personally like how it is being run.  If one thing needed to be changed it would be the trading/waring between the countries, I would prefer it to be smoother.  My nation is making great decisions and I am happy with the decisions being made.  I would prefer my nation to be more agressive.  Yes we have an agreed upon strategy for dealing with other countries and city-states.  We are using the United States of America as our example for they are the most free and powerful in the world, as well as having the longest standing constitution in existence.

Reflections on the midterm

To tell the truth, this midterm is my first exam experience here, in America. It changes a lot from what I am used to. I always had more academic way of learning, but it does not mean I do not like the new one. And I am absolutely sure that I owe this positive experience to my group. We all are very different and that is what I love the most. To give you more details on what I think about all this:

1. The question about the fair share is always very subjective. I just hope that if, in our group, we have a person who thinks he did more and it went unnoticed, we will finally know this.  :-)
Personally I am very sorry for being absent for 2 lessons, sometimes we do not choose the circumstances... Talking about this, I really appreciate Mark's attention: every time I was not in class, he kindly let me know the assignment, with all the necessary information and details. Thank you, Mark! The Chris' share is also remarkable and I do thank him for making a nice PowerPoint to make our presentation more colorful. Thank you, Chris!
My own part is not really worth more than 6-7 points: I did not like the subject, my English is still far from being perfect (I am a perfectionist, you know) ...

2. No, no, no ! I would like to keep all my dearest gentlemen! They all are different, so we can have different approaches and experiences. And nobody to add, please! NO NEW GIRLS!:-)))

3.
A) 10
B) 7
C) 8
D) 7
E) 1 - What are you talking about??? Conflicts??? :-)
F) 1 - because, see 1 in point 4

4.
1) Mutual respect
2) Common goal
3) Self-motivation
4) Ambition
5) Reliability

P.S. My overall impression is very positive. I like meeting new people, getting to know them better through some interesting team-working, learning new things. Thank you, guys, for this enriching experience!

Midterm Reflection

1:  Everyone contributed equally.  I would rate myself a 8. Mark: 8 Chris: 9 Marina: 8 Earl: 8

2:  I would not  like to remove anyone. our group is seeming to get along great and everyone is contributing greatly

3:  A) 8
    B)10
    C)7
    D)10
    E)9
    F)7

4:  1) being in class, if can not make class alert other members
    2) helping others, not being overly concerned with pulling equal share
    3) being able to disagree on a subject without taking it personal
    4) completing assigned tasks
    5) keeping in contact with group members

Midterm Reflection

1. Everyone seemed to do as they were expected to do. What "fair share" is and what we delegated is up for debate. I went ahead and volunteered to put a PowerPoint together based on everyone's blog posts, which definitely put more a little work on me reading their posts, knowing what they want to say, and finding additional charts and images to compliment it. However, because I volunteered to do it, I can't blame anyone for not helping. Especially because my schedule outside of school wasn't exactly meet-up friendly either. Again, I feel like everyone did what was expected of them. I'd say I was at a 9 or 10.

2. I don't feel the need to pull anyone from the group. If I could add someone, it'd be someone good at keeping everyone in touch with one-another in closer to real time.

3. The basic rules seemed to work out fine.
A.  Showing up - 10. We only meet once a week, so it's important to have everyone show up.
B.  Doing your fair share - 8. It's always important in small groups, but given our minimalist approach to communication, it's hard to expect much more to be done than what has been.
C.  Being on time - 6. We haven't been getting into groups until later on in class, so it doesn't seem like it's been that important in regards to keeping common courtesy.
D.  Responding timely to email and communicating effectively with other members - 6. We aren't all communicating with each other outside of class, but seem to be keeping our heads above water alright.
E.  Handling conflict among group members - 5. We haven't had any conflict issues.
F.  Being present in the group -- not distracted by outside cell phone calls or text messages when the group is meeting. - 6. I don't think cell phones have been a problem in our group. I don't think anyone has been messing with them while we're actively discussing a topic.

4. Five Rules
A. Limit conversation on completely unrelated topics as to what we're trying to do.
B. Show up to class
C. Reliable communication.
D. Stop talking and let Odin freaking speak. More of a class issue, in a couple meanings of the word.
E. Nuke all enemies.

Reflections on the Midterm

As in any group effort, there were and are all levels of performance by the different members of the group.  With our group, the same individuals that seem to always rise to the occasion, again, rose to the occasion. Of the five members of our group, one took charge of being the person to control the blog postings, and of  making sure all things involved in the blog process were handled correctly. Of the remaining four, another person took charge of manually recording our conversations and transcribing our ideas into laws and our country's regulations. The remaining three of us , mainly verbally contributed ideas and made suggestions. I am sure this scenario caused our team to put more onus on the two more active members, and resulted in their doing more than their share. I know that I personally did less than my fair share, which I also submitted towards the last minute. On a scale of 1-10, I would put my performance at 4-5 when compared with our top two. 

In our group, I cannot think of a person to remove, unless it would be me.  I have a difficult time hearing, and always seem to be lost in both our group discussions and in the class in general.  That and I am totally at a loss when it comes to current pop culture, movies, music, electronic devises, and personalities. In other words, when I do manage to hear whats being said, I have no idea what is being talked about.  However that is my problem, and should not affect anyone else. But if a certain type of person could be added, it would be helpful if that person were a bit assertive, without being an ass, above average intelligence, without being a smart ass, organized but not anal, and have perseverance. 

For rating the basic workplace rules,on a scale of 1-10, I came up with the following order of importance, with 10 being the most important.

10.  Showing up: Of all the points to consider, showing up has to rate right up there.  It would seem pretty difficult to accomplish anything, if no one showed up.  Even if most show up, and 1 or 2 don't, it would cause a hardship on those attending that wont have the project contribution to work with, of those that fail to show. 

 9.  Handling conflict among group members: I rated this the highest, because if your group is in constant turmoil, and is not in control, it is very difficult to get anything done.

 8.  Doing your fair share:  This is only fair if everyone does do their fair share.  It is not right to burden others for your lack of effort.

 7.  Responding timely to email and communicating effectively with other members:  As with doing your fair share, responding timely, allows others to do their job, especially if they have to interact with, or respond to, something that you have not produced yet.

 6.  Being present in the group--not distracted by outside cell phone calls or text messages when the group is meeting:  A group meeting, especially in a class with numerous other groups, is hard to concentrate in.  By adding phone calls or texting, it makes it that much harder to interact and, to be aware of all that is going on in the group meeting.

 5.  Being on time: This is only fair to others in your group, allowing them to perform their tasks.

For me the 5 following rules, make for an effective group:

1.  A group, by it's nature, needs a designated leader, who  will be the ultimate arbitrator, and who has the final say. With 4 or 5 group members all trying to have input at the same time without control, you have chaos.

2.  Whenever possible the group should try to reach a consensus on a set of stated goals and, a defined purpose. Numerous people working on their own pet projects, without a group focus will lead to a Hodge-podge of poorly related information.

3.  Each member needs to have an assigned task, if not more than one task. Making a person responsible for a task, exerts pressure on that person to perform, or be exposed in the group, as less than reliable.

4.  Each assigned task must have a deadline for completion in order for the project to develop a flow.  If a person that has a task that is required at an early stage of the project, and is slow in producing results, then the entire project is delayed, and the delaying effect is snowballed to accentuate the problem.

5.  The group needs a final editorial authority to present the finished product.  This can be a single person or a committee. However if it is a committee, remember that the previous 4 rules will apply to their work assignment.

 "ATERNUM DILANTER" 

Forever Expanding

 Excellence, Profit, Law

  

Switzerland: The Gun Lobby's Favorite Example

Among western countries, Switzerland is second in gun ownership, only behind the United States. Switzerland is well known for low crime rates and an abundance of automatic weapons and military ammunition. The gun lobby is quick to point out that guns are plentiful, and the reason for the low crime rate. However, it is not that simple. In addition to ridding poverty with a minimum wage equivalent to $50,000, Switzerland does not have a standing army. Only about 5% of its protective forces are full-time military personnel, and are mainly protecting armories, landing strips, bases, and operating military vehicles. Every male aged 19-34 is required to give service as a militiaman, and receives government military training for 18-21 weeks, as well as take part in annual marksmanship training. Militiamen who choose to take their automatic weapons home are required to have a permit, otherwise their weapon will be stored in a local armory. Military rounds are also no longer given to normal militiamen to take home, but only to roughly 2000 military personnel that actively guard strategic targets. The military-grade ammunition is in a sealed box and regularly audited by the government to ensure proper use, and only one box of 50 rounds is provided.

For a civilian to purchase any firearm, a background check, knowledge exam, weapons handling skills test, and permit is required; and the civilian is limited to only three firearms. All commercially sold ammunition is also tracked by the government from point-of-sale, to purchaser. Any non-military issued automatic or select fire weapon, and any purchase or use of suppressors, is forbidden. In order for a civilian, after militia service, to keep his weapon he must also receive another permit. To publicly carry your weapon, you must be en route to military training or have yet an additional permit which is usually only given to police or security workers. Switzerland is also strict in enforcement of the transporting of weapons. During transport, all firearms must be kept unloaded, and only be transported to and from official military/militia training, and/or gun sales.

The US gun lobby wants to make you believe that ultra-safe Switzerland has the most relaxed gun laws, but even their laws are more restrictive than any of our traditional gun-loving states.

Do Sacramento's strict gun laws really work?



Sacramento has some of California's toughest gun laws in a state already stingy when it comes to firearms.

Gun-control proponents say the city's regulation help reduce violent crime and illegal firearms.

During February, the city's Law and Legislation Committee, which recommends new ordinances to city council, had to meet several times to brainstorm ways to crack down on gun violance. The committee discussed several proposals, including strict regulations for new gun shops and bans against owning certain kinds of high-powered ammunition.

If Sacramento doesn't pass new gun-control measures, state lawmakers may do so anyway. California Legislature currently has several bills pending that would, among other things, slap a tax on ammunition and prohibit gun sales to anyone under 21.

Sacramento already has landmark restrictions on firearms. Gun dealers must electronically submit customer fingerprints and personal information to the police department. And city residents must report all lost or stolen firearms within 48 hours or risk facing a misdemeanor.

According to Councilman Kevin McCarty, who introduced those laws in 2007, the city's tough stance on firearms has already paid off. The ammunition ordinance has helped officers from the Sacramento Police Department seize 230 guns from people who shouldn't have them - including convicted felons with violent records, gang members and sex offenders.

Last year, McCarty also proposed rules that would require firearm dealers to buy liability insurance and obtain a special permit to operate within the city limits. He believes the city currently doesn't have enough control over gun shops.The council's Law and Legislation Committee may vote on the proposal later this year.

Gun-control advocates give a thumb-up to the city's strict rules, which they believe has contributed to lower crime rates.Sacramento had 36 homicides last year, down from 57 in 2006.Thirty of those 36 murder victims from 2012 were killed using a firearm. Compared with places like Fresno or Stockton - cities about the same size as the capital but with higher homicide rates - Sacramento has fewer incidents of deadly gun violance.

Local opponents of gun control see things differently.



Sam Paredes, executive director for Gun Owners of California, thinks the city's firearm and ammunition rules are "onerous for law-abiding citizens". He also doubts whether those laws are effective, for a lot of firearm users simply leave the city to buy guns and then to bring them back in.

In fact, the police has seized fewer guns recently from enforcing the city ammunition ordinance. Based on his conversation with the police department, McCarty believes more criminals are avoiding Sacramento's gun shops to head for cities with looser rules.

Paredes is much happier with Sacramento County's gun policy, especially the amount of concealed-weapons permits issued by the sheriff's department (99 to 95 percent of permit applications for concealed firearms last year).

Thus, even if Sacramento's tough laws are working, there is still no way to actually count how many illegal firearms exchange hands on city streets.The task force has conducted sting operations to stop illegal gun purchases, and the results are sobering.

The Gun Ownership Dilemma in America

It has been estimated that there are approximately 300 million firearms in the United States.  The vast majority of which are legally owned and registered to law abiding citizens. If you took every one of those firearms, and placed them in a location, and allowed them to remain there for 1 year, and not allow any interaction with a human, you would not have a single incident of an accidental discharge, suicide, wounding of a person or murder.  For one of these events to take place, it would require human 

involvement.  Even if you involved humans, it would not change the outcome 99% of the time.  Most gun owners in the United States are either hunters, or sport and target shooters, or want to have a firearm for the protection of their home, family or business. We constantly hear of the instances when a firearm is used by someone in an aggressive or inappropriate manner, resulting in injury or death.  However we seldom hear of the many times firearms are used to deter, or stop that behavior, preventing injury or death to the innocent person that was just protecting them self.  This happens thousands of times each year, to homeowners, 

business owners, rural residences, drivers of passenger cars and truck drivers.

In actually in the United States there are literally thousands of laws already on the books covering guns, their operation, purchase, sale, and use. Chicago is a glaring example of some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Handguns are literally banned in Chicago, but account for approximately 90% of their murders. Also this year as in the recent past years, Chicago is on course to set another record of over 500 murders. The reasons for this are many and varied.  From socioeconomic, to neighborhood "Rules or Policies," to just plain bad people. An absolutely astonishing thing is how over the years, the criminal element has convinced the people in the neighborhoods, that the Police are the bad-guys, and that no one should cooperate with them. This is used a lot to promote the "philosophy" that people should fear the Police, thus giving the "Bad-Guys" a freer hand in running their criminal activities.  However it is just a way for the criminals to convince the locals to be uncooperative with the "Cops," thus helping to protect the criminal activities they are engaged in.   I have strongly felt this way for many years, however,this strategy was born out for me, after watching a 60 year old movie, (On the Waterfront),which was based on a neighborhood being totally convinced, by the bad-guys, to be negative and uncooperative towards the cops. In certain areas drug dealers, gangs, and thugs control the local streets, and have residents in total fear of their safety, if anyone tries to change the system.  Irregardless of these facts, these are not people that are going to say "I can't shoot him, this gun ain't registered."  Their guns are acquired through theft, or bought from other thieves, or through "Straw Purchases" which are legal purchases  made by people who then give or sell the firearms to the persons who are unable to purchase them legally. Whichever way they are obtained, this type of person has no regard for any laws, negating the effectiveness of passing more laws. Ironically the average law abiding citizen, that lives in one of these neighborhoods is prevented from legally owning certain firearms for their personal protection. Thus they are forced to rely on 911, which may take from 3 minutes to never, for a response.  I have personally tried to contact 911 several times via cell phone, one time to report a car driving on the sidewalk and running red lights, only to hang up after 7-10 minutes without ever having had talked to a human. I cannot imagine how a person would feel to be in a life threatening situation, then to dial 911 and not get through.

Also what should be of major concern today, is the policy of persons with mental health problems that are not being monitored or institutionalized.  In almost every case of people involved in multiple shootings, there is a clear case of mental infirmities. Columbine shooters Harris and Klebold, who wrote in their journals about the Oklahoma City Bombing, Waco, Texas and the Viet Nam war, and how they wanted to outdo those events. They were unable to purchase weapons, and had one friend make a straw purchase of two weapons, and acquired other weapons illegally from two other persons. .  Also disturbing about the two, was the fact that they made a video of their actual intentions that was viewed by students and instructors, who made minor comments on the darkness of it. The Sandy Hook shooter had a long history of mental problems.  He attempted to purchase a firearm, but was denied.  So he killed his mother and stole her weapons.  Matricide is already illegal. A similar scenario was true of the Tucson shooter of Gabby Giffords, who was already banned from the campus that he had attended, due to erratic behavior.  The Aurora Colorado theater shooter, James Holmes was described by an instructor as "A little bit off," after he would participate in role-playing games on-line.  His ultimate role playing was to imitate the Dark Night in appearance and actions and murder six people and wound twelve more.  Major Nidal Hason was described as "Deeply Troubled,"  "paranoid,"  "Belligerent," and "Schizoid," by the medical staff at Walter Reed psychiatric residency program.  He had objected strongly to America's involvement in, and being deployed to the war in Afghanistan.  He yelled "Allah Ackbar" and then killed thirteen American servicemen.  I believe the glaring fact in all of these situations, is that no law was going to stop the carnage put upon their victims.  However a more observant parent, teacher,  Commanding Officer, or mental health worker could have.

Another major problem with gun violence in the United States is the lack of enforcement of the existing laws. The United States has thousands of existing laws of varying degrees in all 50 states.  Simply enforcing these current laws wold cover most any situation that arises.  I will say as a strong proponent of gun rights, that I do support background checks, even though they infringe on the vast majority of law abiding citizens.  And I do somewhat understand the objections to high capacity magazines, but similarly why does anyone need a 400 HP car?

   

To be continued.

People v. Guns: Which One Kills

There are already 300 million privately-owned guns in the U.S. In theory, a more strict gun law could work. In 1996, Australia implemented a strict assault weapons ban with few loopholes. The country banned all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns and spent $500 million buying approximately 600,000 guns from private citizens. But this isn’t Australia.

There are almost 300 million privately-owned guns in America, or about nine guns for every 10 people, which eliminates the possibility of a mass gun-buyback movement. Also, stringent gun control laws have long been politically unpopular in the U.S., especially among Second Amendment advocates. Gun sales soared, and over 100,000 Americans joined the National Rifle Association in wake of a possible gun crackdown.

            “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The Second Amendment guarantees the people a way to defend themselves, should the need arise. In past times, arming the population was a safeguard against possible government tyranny and dictatorship.

Today, many citizens still see their right to bear arms as an important means of self-defense; they also fear that gun control would be the first step towards the people’s rights being removed little by little. You can’t carry your guns around in public.

Now you can’t own these specific guns. Now your guns need to be under lock and key at all times. Soon you can’t have any guns at all–time to amend the Constitution. That’s an exaggeration, but you get my point. You give an inch and the government could take a mile.

Mass shooters don’t follow the law. Studies show that most criminals come by their guns illegally, often by theft or underground purchases. This allows them to completely bypass stringent background checks and other regulations. For example, Connecticut has one of the nation’s most strict gun laws. Gun owners must be 21 or older, apply for a local permit, be fingerprinted for a background check, wait for a 14-day period, and take a gun safety course.

But that didn’t stop Adam Lanza from simply stealing guns and killing 20 children and six adults at the Newtown shooting. Additional gun regulations would not have done anything to prevent the tragedy. Additional gun laws would also be difficult to enforce. Even Vice President Joe Biden admitted that the administration lacks the time to enforce existing gun laws on background checks, saying to an NRA representative, “We simply don’t have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately.”

Getting rid of guns does not get rid of violence. Some people think that if we just get rid of guns, violence will lower dramatically. Those people are naive, especially when only 2.6 percent of all murders are committed with some type of rifle.

Thomas Jefferson once quoted criminologist Cesare Beccaria on the dangers of disarming citizens. He said, “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. …Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

Criminals would continue finding ways to illegally acquire guns while robbing and attacking law-abiding citizens who suddenly have no means of self-defense.

The cause of mass shootings isn’t guns; it is mental health. “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” at first seems like a stupid pro-gun argument. It sounds juvenile, and it is much too easy for liberals to counter with, “Well, people need the guns to kill people,” which is true.

The point is, we need to target the source of the problem, not the tools used. We need to talk about mental illness and how we can help provide services, resources and other support to those who need it. 

Assault Weapons Ban

In the wake of the Newtown, CT shooting, the nation has been hearing many propositions to ban "assault rifles". A common misconception is that these "assault rifles" are machine guns. Many times these firearms are also referred to as "military style firearms", however, in the context of assault weapons laws, they refer to cosmetic features of semi-automatic firearms that are similar to fully automatic military firearms. Fully automatic firearms on the other hand are not classified as an assault weapon by law, but are classified as a Title II weapons.

A semi-automatic firearm is classified as an assault rifle if it has a detachable magazine, and two other specified characteristics. These "military style" characteristics include:

Collapsible Stock
Pistol Grip
Bayonet Lug
Grenade Launcher
Flash Supressor

Not An Assault Rifle

Not An Assault Rifle

Assault Rifle


California Senator, Diane Feinstein, who supports the assault rifle ban was quoted as, "They are designed to kill large numbers of people". Out of the three firearms above only one is an assault rifle, however, they all fire the same type of ammunition, all have detachable magazines and magazine capacity, and they all have the same power and potential, as she puts it, to "kill large numbers of people". The assault rifle ban is nothing more then emotionally based legislation piggybacking on the tragic shooting in Newtown.

Much of the public isn't even aware that assault rifles were already banned once before in 1994, by a bill introduced by Diane Feinstein. It banned assault rifles for 10 years until 2004. For those 10 years it was illegal to manufacture these weapons for private citizens. It also banned high capacity magazines to no more than 10 rounds. In 2004, the National Research Council did studies of the assault weapon ban, and stated that it "did not reveal any clear impact on gun violence" and "due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small...". The United States Department of Justice and National Institute of Justice even found that if the ban were to be renewed, that it's effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, due to the fact that rifles in general, including "assault rifles", were rarely used in gun crimes.



The newly proposed assault rifle bill,  however, does not include an expiration, and many who oppose the bill feel as it is only the first push, in even further gun control laws to follow. Many claim that the ban on assault weapons is unconstitutional, and violates the 2nd Amendment. Which states, "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."

To determine the original intent of the 2nd amendment we must understand at minimal, some history leading up to it.The Stuart period in England, was the most influential period of English history, shaping the political theory of American revolutionary leaders. In 1628, Parliament enumerated King Charles' violations of the rights of his subjects. These included forced loans, imprisonment without process, and execution of persons pursuant to martial law.King Charles dissolved and refused to call new Parliaments for 11 years. He began developing his own army, and advised subjects of England that bearing arms against the King would result in damnation. Scotland went into an open rebellion, which forced Charles to call Parliament in 1640 for the purposes of raising taxes. Seizing the opportunity, Parliament secured power of dissolving and eliminating the Kings prerogative courts. Parliament also moved to seize control of the militia, the king refused, and parliament  appointed its own officers to take charge of the militia by passing the bill the king had refused to sign as an ordinance. Parliament called out the militia and the king did the same, and civil war ensued. Charles attempted to disarm many militia units by confiscating public magazines and seizing weapons of residents. Parliaments forces prevailed and Charles was executed in 1642.

There are two main points to take away from this time period. Both Parliament and the King had proclaimed themselves the protector of the subjects of England. Each had also tried to disarm the others supporters. The militia, the organization that intended to protect it's subjects liberty, had also become an instrument of government tyranny. Parliament, by appointing officers of the militia and selecting its membership showed how the militia could become an instrument of the government.

There is often debate over, if it's the states right, or the individual's right to form a well regulated militia.  In the states' right model, the militia is the national guard, and the citizens right's are much more limited. My position is that it is the individual's right. Under the current system, officers of the national guard are dual status, meaning they are member's of the state guard and federal armed forces. They are armed, paid, and trained by the federal government. We see the implications of this in the paragraph above. Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3, provides that "no state shall, without the consent of congress, ...keep troops, or Ships of war in time of peace...". In a state militia model, where the national guard is the militia, these points alone severely limit the "militias" ability to act as a proper counterweight to the federal government, which was not the envisioning of the founding fathers.

English history made it clear that, force of arms was the only way to effectively check government powers, and standing armies threatened liberty. Therefore, the power had to be placed in the hands of the citizens. These ideals were adopted by the framers of our nation, who knew that a check on all government, not just federal government, had to be a well armed population, the militia. As Thomas Jefferson said, "When the Governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

The in-class nation simulation: let's play! (how, with whom, against whom ...?)

The in-class nation simulation started and ... I wish I could understand the meaning of it better.:-) We are playing - that's ok. But is it supposed to be a totally imaginary world? Some of our posts are serious enough to think we are creating something we want to operate, some are not. What is the purpose of it? Are we just dreaming of a better world (Utopia) or we are supposed to deal with the events/people/structures, not every good politician is able to? The best thing we are practicing now is to make our group work - this is important, no doubt. But I just wish we could discuss in class more of what everybody is doing on his/her own. Maybe, I am just a big fan of a classic academic education?:-)

 



Drone Strikes

Is it ever appropriate for the U.S. government to kill one of its own citizens without providing them with a constitutional due process of protections?  I believe it is appropriate if an individual is a risk to innocent lives. For instance if an Al-Qa'ida member receives his citizenship and is a citizen for a number of years and then is plotting an act of terrorism and is taken out by an American drone before he is able carry out this act of terrorism, then the government is doing its job in protecting its citizens.  If the government were to wait and attempt to prosecute this individual he may be out of the country before he is found.  This forces the government to send troops to where this individual is hiding, putting American soldier's lives at risk, and in some cases losing troops to catch an individual who we could have got on American soil.  Once the terrorist is captured, given a trial, and placed on an island to live out the rest of his life.  I do not however believe that killing citizens who are not plotting acts of terrorism or are not a risk to hundreds or thousands of American lives is right or just.  Drone attacks on American citizens is merely self defence carried out by the government(on individuals who are a threat to innocent lives). Article

RE:
Article #2; New York Times.

Arkansas Abortion Law

One of the most difficult things to do, is to try to categorize any one controversial law, proposal, idea, or situation into an "either or" niche.  When it comes to abortion, both sides of the debate have very firm beliefs, but there is such a chasm between those beliefs, that it would seem impossible to bridge the gap.  Just this last week a Doctor in, I believe Philadelphia, was arrested for snapping the spinal chords of babies that were actually born alive. Aborting a fetus, up to a certain point is one thing, this is ???

Perhaps that is the biggest dilemma facing people today.  At what point does a separate egg and a separate sperm, when joined become an entity that is acceptable to all the factions of the debate, as a human being. From the belief that at conception, the fertilized egg is a living being, to the belief that if an abortion is not successful, and the perfectly viable fetus is extracted, it is O.K. to just put it in a sink to die on it's own, I wonder what is the point at which the "thing" becomes a viable something that is acceptable, to both sides?
The original questions from Professor Ellerman were;

Would this law pass under your constitution?
For me personally, I would say yes.  If you have a beating heart, you have a living being.

Do you think it is a good idea?
Again I would say yes.  But I have no idea what the circumstances in each case are.  If a person is seeking an abortion, it is a pretty fair conjecture that the baby would be unwanted, and be brought into an environment that would be lacking.  Then again just 2 weeks ago, a court said that nothing be done to a woman that did crack cocaine 2 days before giving birth.  Go figure.

Why?  I'm not qualified to give an answer to that.

I certainly do not know.  I'm just glad my mother didn't believe in abortion.

Banana Republic

Federal Tax System

It shall be adopted that:

The Banana Republic's National Philosophy regarding taxation is one of it being a necessary evil,  and not a means by which a select group may enrich themselves.

National:

I propose that:

Any country wishing to export to the Banana Republic shall pay a tariff to the Banana republic, on said exports, equal to their import tariff levied on goods and/or services imported to that country from the Banana Republic.

RE:

If Tasmania levies a 10% tariff on Widgets made in the Banana Republic, then Tasmania will pay a 10% tariff on any of it's exports to the Banana Republic.

I propose that:

In lieu of a national income tax the Banana Republic will impose a 10% Value Added Tax, to all items manufactured, imported, sold, or transferred through any and all companies, entities, businesses, or services operating in or licensed through the Banana Republic.

I propose that:

Individual counties, cities and municipalities located in or governed by the Banana Republic, will determine their respective tax systems, and limits.

I propose that:

Property taxes shall be determined by local control with no agency above the county level to receive funds from, or have jurisdiction over said tax revenue.

I propose that:

Any attempt to alter or change the tax codes of the federal, state, county, city, or municipality shall require a vote of 57% in the affirmative.

Submitted by: Erling Troswick

Banana Republic: Elections of Officials & Limitations Imposed on Gov.

                       Elections of Officials
Elections of county and district officials will be held on the first Wednesday of June every two years. National elections will be held on February 29 every four years.  All legal or naturalized citizens will have the right to vote.  Every citizen over the age of 18 has the right to vote.  Citizens can vote by mail or at a designated voting location, located in every district.

                       Limitations Imposed on Government
The Banana Republic will be a three party system with checks and balances.  The three parties are as stated: Judicial, Executive, and Legislative.  The Constitution imposes many limitations on governmental powers.  The three parties and Constitution all together keep the government in check.

Banana Republic: Law - Making Procedure

The law-making initiative can come from any source: political parties, business groups, authorities of any level (including President) and other interest groups. The subject of the possible-to-become-a-law project should not contradict the Constitution.
A decent project should be submitted to the lower Chamber of Parliament, for further discussion and vote. Once the project is voted and the result is positive, it goes to the higher Chamber, for vote also.
Once voted and accepted by the latter, the almost-law goes to the President, to be signed. The President has the right of "veto".

Banana Republic: Court Systems

Courts are divided into District/County Municipal Court, National Superior Court, National Appellate Court, and National Supreme Court. All citations and misdemeanor offenses will be seen by the District/County Municipal Court. Criminal offenses shall be tried at the National Superior Court. Decisions found in the District/County Municipal Court and/or National Superior Court may be appealed to the National Appellate Court for further interpretation. Decisions made by the National Appellate Court my be taken to the National Supreme Court. There is no requirement for the National Supreme Court to hear a case, and may refer back to the National Appellate Court decision. Decisions made by the National Supreme Court are final, unless overturned by the National Supreme Court in the future.

The Banana Repubic

Our Motto:

Aeternum Dilatantur 

"Forever Expanding"

Our Virtues:

Excellence

Law

Profit

Keep CALM and...maybe not.

Congress has recently passed the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act, limiting the loudness of TV commercials relative to the show being broadcast. The CALM Act states that any TV commercial must be, on average, the same volume as the average volume of the program being aired. The CALM Act is limited to only TV broadcasts, and does not apply to internet or radio advertisements. As with any bill passed, companies have found a language loophole to exploit, and in this case the loophole is the keyword average volume. This allows them to still have loud portions of a commercial, but soften up the rest of the ad to bring down the average volume.

US News

Trust

Earlier this month hundreds of Morgan Stanley retail branch managers made their way down to the JW Marriot Grande Lakes Resorts in Orlando, Florida.  There was an unexpected guest, the head of the investment operations for Morgan Stanley, Colm Kelleher.  Kelleher was present to present a message to the managers, that he has a plan to increase profits as well as trust among investors. This proposal of alliance is brought about due to the pressure Kelleher has had placed on him buy investors that he is not doing all he can to raise the companies revenue.  2012 was not a spectacular year for Morgan Stanley only turning out a 5% return on investment to its investors.  Chief executive James Gorman claimed to have  35 different fourth quarter projects to encourage business, profits, and procure more retail brokers.  Only time will tell if Morgan Stanley will be successful in their new programs of branch managers working trustfully and productively with investors.New York Times Article

Horses vs Cows?

 

The European scandal, concerning the presence of horse meat in beef frozen food, is expanding its geography. It appeared that at least one Northern American port - Port of Houston - already saw this kind of food transpassing from Mexico to the European distributors. The question that arises: did this food really passed away? Is there any possibility for horse meat from these shipments to stay in the Unites States? A priori, no. These shipments are treated separately from other goods. A posteriori, nobody knows ...
Another question is judicial: under the Texas law, passed in 1949, the sale, transfer  or shipment of horse meat for human consumption in Texas is prohibited. And this state law, notwithstanding the effort of the state's attorney general, might interfere with federal laws on interstate and foreign commerce.

Source: "The New York Times"

Yahoo rescinds "Work at Home"

Since Marissa Mayer was recently hired as the chief executive officer to try to revive Yahoo, she has apparently been reverting to more traditional business practices.  Both Yahoo and her former employer, Google had established policies of certain people being able to work from home.  However after taking over at Yahoo, Mayer has rescinded the work at home policy at Yahoo, and is now requiring employees to work together in a more collaborative environment.  The current thinking is along the lines of, "People who work at home are said to be more productive but less innovative".
Silicon valley innovations like instant messaging and video conferencing have made working remotely much more available and acceptable today, however Yahoo feels that working in the same location drives innovation.  The standard Silicon Valley perks still are abundant, such as free cafeterias, gyms, shuttle buses, ice cream, and dry cleaners not only are employee perks, but also help to keep the employees on campus during the day, and promote interaction between co-workers. 
Bank of America is another company that is curtailing working at home, and is reducing to a small number the number of remote jobs.
What is ironic is that just yesterday, the news mentioned that Marissa Mayer was having a nursery built at her Yahoo office.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/technology/yahoo-orders-home-workers-back-to-the-office.html?hpw

COSTCO is coming to France

The U.S. distribution's giant - COSTCO - wants to open 15 of its hypermarkets in France. Stores are planned in Marseille, Lyon, Toulouse, Nice, Bordeaux and Paris.

It has been quite a while ago the French supermarkets had experienced such an event. For the first time in last two decades, a giant Anglo-Saxon prepares to challenge the ultra-powerful "locals" (Auchan, Carrefour, Leclerc) on their own land. The COSTCO - number 3 in the USA, with its &97 billion in revenue and &1.7 billion of net income - has such an ambitious development plan, which, however, is still waiting for the green light from local authorities.

"Over the next 5 or 10 years, we hope to be present in a dozen cities", says Gary Swindells, CEO of COSTCO France.

However, this is not going to be easy to reproduce this COSTCO low-cost model in France. Based on the principle of club membership, COSTCO offers its customers the possibility to purchase wholesale at unbeatable prices. Its gross margin never exceeded 15%, while that of the French retailers varies between 23% and 30%. At COSTCO store, to attract richer clients, luxury goods are sold off - the phenomenon never seen in France.

The company will, thus, have to overcome many obstacles before becoming powerful across the Atlantic. The Raffarin's Law (former French Prime Minister) makes it very difficult to open new hypermarkets in France, especially in the food sector.

"In Canada, we decided to open a store in February and it opened in November. In France, the standard lapse of time is situated between 24 and 30 months", says Gary Swindells.

Also, COSTCO will not be able to sell that many items as in the U.S. Luxury brands have signed a fairly strict "selective distribution" contracts, and it seems impossible that COSTCO can sell Chanel or Guerlain perfumes in its stores in France, as it does in America. It will also be impossible to sell at a loss, what happens on rare occasions in New York.



Indictments Linked to 2009 Salmonella Outbreak

According to the New York Times four new workers at a peanut manufacturing plant have been linked to the 09 salmonella outbreak and are being charged with plotting to produce, then release to the public salmonella tainted peanuts.  In 2009 the outbreak killed nine and sickened hundreds, which sparked one of the largest product recall in the nations history.  These four individuals were indicted by a federal grand jury in Georgia, which is an extremely rare move when it comes to food related products.  Peanut Corporation of America owner Stewart Parnell, brother Michael Parnell, Georgia plant manager Samuel Lightsey, and quality assurance manager Mary Wilkerson all face a combined 76 count indictment in a federal court in Georgia.  Charges range from introduction of adulterated and misbranded food into interstate commerce with the intent to defraud or mislead to conspiracy, which alone holds a maximum of 20 years in prison.   Tainted food cases in court are becoming more widespread as companies expand to more locations.  This case is rare because criminal cases are rare in food outbreaks because they are hard to prove and even harder to get a confession out of the guilty parties acknowledging their mistakes.  New York Times Article

Bowman vs Monsanto

The U.S. Supreme Court is currently reviewing the case Bowman vs Monsanto to determine whether the patent of a replicable good also extends to future generations of that good. Elements are contract law are visited, however, this case specifically delves into the jurisdiction of federal intellectual property laws. While the idea and use of patents dates back to the early kings and queens of England, the initial U.S. patent law was instated in the Patent Act of 1790 and has been modified multiple times since.

The issue at hand is to determine whether farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman, 75, of Indiana, can grow Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" genetically modified soybeans without contracting with Monsanto. Monsanto sold its beans to farmers with a contractual agreement for farmers to not save seeds; thus requiring farmers to contract with Monsanto for every crop cycle.

Bowman argues that he legally obtained the soybeans from a mix of beans generally used for feed and industrial uses. However, Bowman then treated all of the beans acquired with Roundup herbicide to kill off any unmodified beans after planting, and saved the beans from the plants that grew. Bowman was therefore able to grow and sell crops solely made of Monsanto's Roundup Ready soybeans without compensation to Monsanto.

Monsanto argues Bowman not only find a way around contracting for the beans, but also intentionally violated intellectual property law as well, claiming future generations of Roundup Ready soybeans are included with their patent.

New York Times Article