Tag: politics

Who are you? The difference between liberals and conservatives

“You don’t need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows” Bob Dylan

True, but it helps.

An essential difference between the Right and the Left solicitudes the way each seeks to better society.

Conservatives think that the way to a better civilization is almost always through the moral development of the self — by each person doing battle with his or her vulnerabilities and imperfections.

It is the most significant battle of the individual must be with inner forces — that is, with his or her moral shortcomings.

The Left, on the other hand, thinks that the way to a healthier society is virtually always through doing battle with society’s moral shortcomings. Thus, in America, the Left concentrates its efforts on fighting sexism, prejudice, bigotry, xenophobia, homophobia, Islamophobia, and the various other atrocities that the Left understands permeate American culture.

One necessary outcome of this Left-Right difference. Is that those on the Left remain far further preoccupied with politics than these on the Right. Considering the Left is so considerable more interested in solidifying society than in setting the individual, politics necessarily becomes the vehicle for societal improvement. That’s why whenever the term “activist” is performed, we almost always assume that the term refers to someone on the Left.

Another consequence of this Left-Right distinction is that, since conservatives believe society is changed one person at a time, they accept that evolution happens gradually. That isn’t quick acceptable for the Left, which is always and everywhere concentrated on social revolution.

Conservatives not only have no interest in radically transforming the United States of America, but they are also strongly opposed to doing so. Conservatives understand that fundamentally changing any society that isn’t fundamentally bad — not to mention changing.

What one of the most decent organizations in history is — can only make the nation worse. Conservatives believe that America can be adjusted, but should not be transformed, let alone substantially molded.

The Founders of these United States understood that the conversion that every generation must work on is the excellent change of each citizen. Thus, character evolution was at the core of both child rearing and young people’s enlightenment — from elementary school through college.

How is that?

Democracy demands self-control. A free nation needs restraint. If the majority of people don’t check themselves, the state — meaning an ever more powerful government — will have to manage them.

We are now creating vast numbers of Americans who are passionate about fixing America while doing next to nothing about setting their character.

The dilemma, however, is that you can’t make society better unless you first make its people better.

Dream a Little Dream: College Student Copes with an Uncertain Future

When President Trump announced his resolution to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, the Obama administration program that protects young undocumented immigrants, Sarahi Zavali was devastated.

“After my manager told me the news, I went on break, and I went to my car and cried,” said Zavali who works part-time at Gap Inc. while attending The University of Houston as a full-time student.

Sarahi Zavali is one of the 800,000 children who was brought to the United States illegally by their parents or relatives.

They begin to face the likelihood that they may be deported, starting March 2018.

When she was 2 years old, her mom brought her to Texas to reunite the family with her father who had made the trip first. Her parents wanted a better life for her in the United States.

“My mother did not want me to remember the conditions in which we lived in, so she brought me to live a better life in America,” she said.

“This is the first time I have ever spoken about it; I used to be so ashamed that I would steer conversations away about it when I was younger,” she said.

Many dreamers including Sarahi did not even recognize they were undocumented until they were teenagers.

Zavali realized she was a dreamer when she could not go out-of-town for a class field trip.

“Being undocumented you miss out on so many possibilities. I was valedictorian of my class, and meanwhile, other students at the bottom half of my class were getting full-rides to colleges, and that made me resentful back then.” Zavali said.

The conclusion of the program will influence more than 750,000 young people who have acquired work permits by Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program to either study or keep a job.

The licenses last two years and were renewable. Under Trump’s latest proposal, once a Dreamer’s work permit expires that person will be eligible for deportation, entirely phasing out the program by 2019.

Under the plan, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program will conclude March 5, 2018.

The Department of Homeland Security will not approve new candidates for the program.

The approximately 800,000 people who remain currently shielded under the program will not see their standing change immediately but could be exposed to deportation if Congress does not pass legislation by March giving them protection.

The six-month deferral was thought to provide Congress ample time to replace the program with a permanent legislative solution.

Zavali plans to enroll in summer school, and have her bachelor’s degree completed before the fall semester of 2019.

The worse case scenario is that Zavala obtains her degree and is deported.

Ironically, Mexico her birthplace is a land foreign to her.

She has never met her relatives and has no memory of the country. The degree that she will have earned will be useless there.

“I have never met my aunts or uncles who live there. My biggest fear is graduating from here, being sent back and then having nothing to show for it,” she said.

Zavali keeps the faith that the government will come to a resolution and that everything will work out for the best.

She harbors no resentment or anger at the administration for the change in policy.

“I just don’t see myself leaving America, and I hold out hope. I am bilingual, so I feel that if America isn’t an option, then other countries will want to hire me. “

The Gun Law Debate: Is Chicago proof that our Gun laws don’t work?

The Chicago Blog Picture Untouchables

In the wash of the horrific shooting in Las Vegas last week, the White House faced inquiries about whether President Trump would support the stringent gun legislation.

Press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders did not give a straight answer to these questions, but her statement revealed a White House hesitant to create new laws.

“I think one of the things we do not desire to do is try to create laws that won’t stop these types of situations from happening,” Sanders said Monday. “I think if you look at Chicago where you had over 4,000 victims of gun-related crimes last year they have the strictest gun laws in the country. That certainly hasn’t helped there.”

Suggesting Chicago imply that gun laws do not work is not a unique talking point — Trump declared Chicago had “the toughest gun laws in the United States” in a 2016 presidential debate; Republican hopeful Chris Christie pointed to Chicago as a community with the big crime notwithstanding tight gun laws.

Moreover, the oratory goes beyond lawmakers. The conservative site Breitbart has on many moments posted editorials with headlines including the catchword “gun-controlled Chicago.”

This can sound like a compelling talking point. Chicago is a vast city with an infamous crime problem, which Trump previously used to talk about shaping law and order. It also presses the added rhetorical blow of being closely associated with President Obama, whose actions Trump has worked hard to undo.

However, while gun violence in Chicago is high, the rest of this common talking point does not indeed hold water.

It is also accurate that there were higher than 4,000 shooting victims in Chicago in 2016. It is also correct that Chicago has undergone a massive amount of gun crime lately. In 2016, homicides in Chicago piercingly rose, chiefly as a result of gun homicides, as the University of Chicago crime lab affirmed in a January report.

Gun murders in the city rose by 61 percent between 2015 and 2016. That made the gun homicide rate in Chicago particularly tremendous compared to other similar towns. The proportion stood 25.1 per 100,000 residents in 2016, corresponding to 14.7 in Philadelphia and merely 2.3 in New York.

It also had a relatively high quantity of guns recovered — 243 per 100,000 residents. That is approximately on a level with Philadelphia and much more significant than Los Angeles or New York.

Nevertheless, it is not accurate that Chicago has the most strict gun legislation in the country. It is true that Illinois has more stringent gun laws than many other states. The state is one of seven that requires licenses or permits to buy any firearm, and it is one of five that sets waiting periods for purchasing any gun. The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which follows gun laws nationally, has assigned the state a B+ for its gun laws.

Chicago itself has some harsh laws — there is an assault-weapons ban in Cook County, for example. However, it is not true that Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the country. At one point, it did have much more stringent requirements — it had outlawed handguns in the city limits, but a 2008 Supreme Court decision declared that limitation unconstitutional, and a 2010 decision reaffirmed this. The township also had had a gun registry plan since 1968 but stopped it in 2013 when the state established a law providing the concealed carry of weapons.

“We think of California as having the strongest gun laws in the country,” said Hannah Shearer, a staff attorney at the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. “The whole state’s laws are pretty strong.”

The center has awarded California an A rank and listed it No. 1 regarding the tightness of its gun legislation. California forbids the open carry of guns and demands background analyses on private firearm transactions.

“Some cities go even beyond that,” Shearer added. “San Francisco has a safe storage law, requiring that guns keep in the home be kept locked.” This is a regulation that Chicago, for example, does not have.

Complaining over precisely what part of the U.S. is No. 1 do not gun-law strictness, however, isn’t the most compelling portion of Sanders’ declaration. She also said that having gun regulations “certainly hasn’t helped” in Chicago. That is a much more controversial claim, and it does not withstand scrutiny.

State borders do not obstruct guns. It is imperative to recognize here that Chicago is very near to two states that have relatively weak gun laws: Wisconsin and Indiana. Neither Wisconsin nor Indiana is licenses or permits to purchase a gun, for example, nor do they need waiting periods. While Illinois has that B+ grade from the law center, Wisconsin has a C- and Indiana a D-.

Moreover, there’s good evidence that being next-door to those states keeps Chicago criminals well-supplied with guns. More than 60 percent of new guns employed in Chicago gang-related crimes and 31.6 percent used in non-gang-related offenses within 2009 and 2013 were purchased in different states. Indiana was a remarkably disturbing supplier, providing nearly one-third of the gang guns and almost one-fifth of all the non-gang firearms.

A 2014 Chicago Police Department report affirmed that Indiana accounted for 19 percent of all guns collected by the department between 2009 and 2013.

New firearms track data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives published last week show that Illinois as a total faces a massive inrush of guns. Of around 8,700 firearms recovered in Illinois and for which the bureau attained a source state, more than half came from out of state — 1,366, approximately 16 percent, came from Indiana solely.

By contrast, 82 percent of guns recovered in Indiana and traced were from within Indiana, implying that perpetrators in that state do not have to cross state lines, like those in Illinois, to get their weaponry.

All of this might infer that criminals will just go to whatever measures necessary get their hands on guns, unmindful of whatever laws are in place.

We should regulate ammunition, should be able to trace every bullet back to a person and if your bullets are used in a crime, you should be prosecuted regardless if you had anything to do with it.

This debate will always be “Beating a Dead Horse” anywhere, anytime, and any place. Guns are a tool; weapons are tools. It is the hands that use them that distinguishes what their purpose is. The laws are in place for guns and gun owners. Humans are the problem, and no one wants to address this. I can go anywhere, anyplace, at any time and buy a gun. Not because a pistol is just hanging out in an ally wanting me to buy it, but because humans want to sell them. There are laws for private sales of firearms, do they follow them? No. They just want to sell their gun, and someone wants to buy it. That is still illegal by law. So, guns are not the problem; humans are, no debate. Regulate ammo, discontinue production of firearms. However, criminals will always get what they want.