Movie Theatre Massacre: Gun Control Conflict

As I am sure many of you have heard, James Holmes, a 24-year old medical school drop-out, has been accused of opening fire at a midnight showing of the new Batman movie in Aurora, Colorado.  The shooting killed 12 people and left dozens more injured.

After the shooting in Colorado, many federal lawmakers have expressed their desire to tighten gun control laws in the United States.

Photo: Source

Here, I will present a couple of arguments of both sides -- For and Against -- stricter gun control laws.

Support FOR Stricter Gun Control Laws:

1. President Obama said yesterday (Wednesday) evening, during a speech to the National Urban League that he believes in the Second Amendment right to bear arms; however, he does not think that AK-47s belong in the streets of our cities. 

2. Colorado shooting suspect, James Holmes, allegedly used a shotgun & a semi-automatic rifle during the shooting, and the police found a handgun found in his car, along with 6,000 rounds of ammo.  These are all shown as being purchased legally.

Main Argument For: The movie theatre massacre in Colorado is a clear signal that stricter gun control laws would prevent another massacre such as this one from taking place.

Photo: Source

Opposition AGAINST Stricter Gun Control Laws:

1. Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney, stated during a press conference to NBC that there is no need for more gun control laws -- More laws will not prevent people from performing actions that are against the law.

 2. The Second Amendment clearly states individual right to bear arms, not only military personnel.  It is an essential part of being an American citizen in order to protect our homes and our families.

Main Argument Against: More gun control laws will not prevent bad people from doing bad things (i.e. Criminals are still going to break the law, no matter what the law is).  Allowing Americans to exercise their Second Amendment right will provide safety for all Americans attempting to protect their homes and their families.

Photo: Source

As you can tell, the conflict here comes between public safety & personal protection.

President Obama has dealt with the gun control issue lightly during his Presidency term, and has recently been vocal about tightening gun control laws, post-Colorado shooting.  However, it is unclear whether or not he will personally push legislation concerning tighter gun control laws -- especially with the upcoming election.

Source

New Immigration Policy: Violating the Constitution?

The White House is a mere few weeks away from facing a lawsuit, brought to them by Iowa Republican Congressman, Steve King, regarding the Obama Administration's immigration policy.

The lawsuit is in response to the new immigration policy, an Executive Order, which was announced by President Obama in June.

If you are not aware of Obama's new immigration policy, here is the gist of it:

1. Young, undocumented immigrants who came to America before they turned 16 (and are under the age of 30, now) would stop getting deported. 

2. They would also get work permits issued to them that would be good for two years. 

3. The work permits issued are renewable, and here is no limit as to how many times they can renew them. 

4. This is an estimated total of up to 800,000 illegal & undocumented immigrants that would benefit from this law.

As expected, there have been a lot of questions about this law concerning immigration issues, including:

When will there be limits made for young illegal immigrants?  How will this law will prevent even more immigrants from entering our country and taking American jobs?

However, the immigration issues are a completely different category than what King is attempting to sue the Obama Administration for.  King argues that his lawsuit is that it is not an immigration issue (or a political issue, for that matter), but a constitutional issue.

Congress has voted down the DREAM act for the past consecutive two years, which may be sufficient proof that the President is going against the will of Congress by announcing this Executive Order.

King said in a statement that if the president is allowed to "pick and choose" the laws that he wants to enforce, there is essentially no checks and balances system being adhered to -- checks and balances is part of what helps keep democracy in the system.

If it can be shown that an act of Congress is being nullified by the President, then he has the right to sue, and has a strong and legitimate case.

Another one of King's reasons for bringing up this lawsuit as a constitutional issue is:

By allowing the President completely bypass the will of Congress has the ability to set a very dangerous precedent for future regulations.

For example, what if one day, the President one day decides that the IRS should not enforce a certain tax because there are already a massive amount of tax frauds out there, and gives them amnesty, or a "free pass"? 

My guess is that a lot of people would have a serious problem with that.

Within the coming weeks, we will see if the lawsuit that Congressman King is threatening against the White House will actually be pursued.

Not So Lucky In Kentucky

A health services company that operates 21 nursing homes in Kentucky, Extendicare Health Services, Inc. has recently announced that it will be leaving the state.  Not only this, but it will be leaving the state with more than a few bridges burned along the way.

What could have triggered this announcement?  Since 2009, Extendicare has faced at least 43 civil lawsuits (which are still pending), for negligence on the part of the company.  The lawsuits include both personal injury and wrongful death claims.


The health services company requested immunity on these civil lawsuits, in order to avoid liability to the elderly residents who were injured or killed due to the company's negligence.

Kentucky lawmakers refused to grant Extendicare this "free pass."  And rightfully so.

After the refusal of lawmakers to bailout the company with a bill that would require personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits against nursing homes to be reviewed further by a medical panel, Extendicare decided to leave Kentucky.

According to at least 43 lawsuits, the health and safety of the residents in the nursing homes owned by Extendicare has been compromised because of the negligence of the company.


Apparently, the same health services company pulled this exact same "vanishing act" in Florida in 2001, when the Florida lawmakers did not hand them a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Although Extendicare, like any other corporation, may not have been fully responsible for the injuries and deaths of its residents -- the company must do its best in order to avoid these types of lawsuits.  And being sued by at least 43 families since 2009 does not make a good case for the company was providing the quality care and safety that its residents deserve (and paid for).

The fact that Extendicare is completely up and moving from the state, just because Kentucky lawmakers would not grant them full immunity, is yet another clear indication of liability on the part of the company.

If the company in fact practiced its duty of care and due diligence to all the patients, then it should prove themselves not liable, and move on and continue running the business in the same state.

Holding Accountants Accountable

At any given time that popular musical artist, Rihanna, is in the news for filing lawsuits, it is normally against some sort of abusive ex-boyfriend (i.e. Chris Brown or Drake).  In this case, however, she is suing the people who deal most closely with her finances -- Her accountants.

She has recently filed a lawsuit against her former accountants, Berdon LLP, for millions of dollars, alleging mismanagement of her money.

When she first started out, Rihanna was a 16-year-old from Barbados, who quickly became extremely rich and famous. With all of this wealth, at such a young age, and from a foreign country, she clearly needed help managing her money.  Who better for the job than accountants?

Hiring accountants means that they now have a duty of care to you (and more importantly, your funds).  You trust them to monitor your finances diligently.

In Rihanna's case, her job was to sing and make the money, and their job was to advise her on what to spend her money on, and what not to.

Rihanna may soon be under investigation by the IRS due to the amount of money that she has lost.

Although there are many famous people who quickly lose their wealth due to carelessly spending and overspending, she was under the impression that her finances would be carefully monitored by her accountants.

Part of the reason she hired them was to ensure that she would not be one of the stars that loses millions within only a few years.


The most recent statistics from Entertainment Weekly reveal that Rihanna's accountants' commission was around 23%, while the singer only received about 6% of her total earnings.  Something just doesn't seem right here, given these numbers.

(Sorry about the cheesy graphic... I had to.)

Yes, Rihanna had recently bought a ridiculously expensive home, along with many other nice, overpriced things, by her own choice.

However, her accountants receive commission on each purchase that she makes; it is their job to advise her on whether or not to make these purchases.

Because of their failure to manage her money correctly, it looks as though they may be having to compensate Rihanna for the losses they have caused her.

Suing Siri

It seems that China has recently discovered the power of the court system, especially concerning patent lawsuits, and are taking full advantage of that.  Apple, Inc. is paying the price.

Apple has been hit by three different lawsuits from China, all alleging that Apple infringed on patents from certain technological services originally offered by Chinese companies.

After Apple finally settled with a firm in China for $60 million over the use of the iPad name, which was allegedly Trademarked by Proview, a Chinese company.  Now, Apple faces two additional lawsuits from China:

1.) Siri lawsuit; and
2.) Snow Leopard lawsuit.

One of the lawsuits is over Apple's Siri, which is a robotic voice assistant included in each of Apple's iPhone 4S devices.

The suit alleges that the idea for Siri was first patented by an Internet Technology firm in China, Zhi Zhen, except it was called Zaio i Robot.  The Internet Technology firm alleges that they thought of the idea in 2004, and it was approved in 2006.

Apparently the firm attempted to settle with Apple through mediation, out of court, in May; however, after not receiving a response from Apple, the company officially sued Apple yesterday.

The other lawsuit filed in China against Apple, Inc. relates to Apple's Snow Leopard operating system in Mac computers, released in 2009.  Chinese firm, Jiangsu Xuebao, alleges that Apple infringed on its trademark of Snow Leopard; the company claims that they registered their equivalent of Snow Leopard in 2000.

Apple has yet to comment on the lawsuits.

Life, Liberty, And The Pursuit Of Health Care

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld most of the constitutionality of the Affordable Health Care Act, affectionately referred to by many as Obamacare.

The individual mandate, which requires that most Americans buy health insurance, was upheld and ruled constitutional.

The Supreme Court of the United States of America

If you do not really understand what this actually means for you, here is a brief rundown of what the Supreme Court decided:

• The Supreme Court Justices ruled, in a 5-4 vote, that all Americans must have health care coverage -- whether public or private -- by 2014, or face a tax penalty.
• By 2016, this tax will be around $695 per person.
• An inevitable tax increase for the middle-class.
• Over 20 million Americans will lose the current health care plan that they currently have and want to keep.
• This puts the government in charge of health insurance.
• Makes it less likely for people to receive high quality health care.
• Healthcare is now officially a tax on the American people.  (Sure, you can decide to opt-out of having health insurance; however, if you do, then you have a serious problem with the IRS.)
• Health insurance companies are now required to approve everyone who approaches them for health care, regardless of their health.
• Ultimately, whether you are a completely healthy person, or someone who has a fatal illness -- everyone will be charged (taxed) the same amount.

The Supreme Court only rules on the constitutionality of things.   They do not rule on whether it is a good idea or a bad idea for our country.

Health care is obviously a great investment for any individual.  And although considered constitutional, here are a few questions to consider:

• Is health care something that the federal government should be responsible for?
• Should this be yet another a tax for the American people to pay?
• Should Congress have the power to force people to buy something they may not necessarily want?
• Does this promote the most notable ideal and foundation of America -- Freedom ?

The Justices cannot tell us what the best way to provide healthcare is -- only the American people will be able to decide that, at the ballot.

All the media outlets will have differing opinions and reports on this issue.  The Republicans vow to repeal any other mandates that they can, and the Democrats vow to protect the rest of the mandates.  Regardless, this is clearly going to be a huge issue this in the upcoming election this November.

FBI Sting Raises Awareness of Online Financial Fraud

In the largest enforcement effort ever against hackers of credit card information online, a highly elaborate, two-year long FBI sting has resulted in the arrests of 24 people, on four continents, in 12 different countries.

Hackers had stolen bank and credit card information, as well as other personal information from secured websites.  This practice is known as "carding."

The sting started in June 2010, when undercover FBI investigators set up their own website where they planned to discover and locate cyber criminals in order to stop their fraudulent activities.

Undercover investigators found that they could easily contact the hackers through online forums, and the hackers would exchange personal, credit card, and bank information that they obtained through the secure websites, and sell them to the undercover FBI agents.

Little did the defendants know that these "cyber criminal forums" were not as exclusive as they thought, and that they could easily be tracked with just their IP addresses.

The complaint filed against the defendants specifically names them, as well as their online names (i.e., one who went be the name of "OxieDox"), and states which information the undercover agents were able to obtain from the hackers.

Thanks to the sting, over 400,000 potential victims were protected.  In addition, about $205 million was prevented from being stolen by the hackers.

Eleven arrests were made in the United States, including New York, Florida, and California.  Thirteen arrests in various other countries, including Italy, United Kingdom, Bosnia, Norway, and others.

This FBI sting is not only an eye-opener for the two dozen online hackers who were caught and are now defendants in the case, but also for those of us who share information online every day.

As if you probably haven't heard it enough, let this FBI enforcement effort be a reminder:  It is extremely important to be cautious of where all of your information, especially personal and financial information, is being shared on the Internet.

Freedom of Speech vs. Threats of Violence

Jesse Curtis Morton, a 33-year-old Muslim convert from Brooklyn, was sentenced to nearly 12 years in prison for posting threats online to the creators of the animated show, South Park, and other people he saw as enemies of the Islam religion.

As founder of the Muslim Revolution website, Morton desired to have a forum-style website that promoted ongoing discussions regarding the Islam religion and religious followers.

Morton believed that he was exercising his First Amendment right of freedom of speech on the website, but did admit he took it too far when he posted an Al Qaeda magazine, which had an article entitled "How to Make a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom."  The magazine also specifically called for the murder of a cartoonist from Seattle who started "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day".

The creator of the website, Morton, as well as another person who used the website, Zachary Chesser, delivered threats on the website against creators of popular animated series South Park, because in one episode of the show, the cartoon insulted the prophet Muhammad by placing him in a bear costume.

South Park Episode which depicted Muhammad in a bear suit

These acts were clearly promoting violent acts against so-called "enemies" of Muslims -- Although, the potential victims in these cases were simply using their First Amendment rights (i.e., promoting a day for everyone to draw a religions figure, coming up with a cartoon making fun of a particular religion.)

Although Morton offered an apology, stating that his website was "contributing to a clash of civilizations" with the violent ideology presented, the prosecuting attorney, Gordon Kromberg, believes that even if his apology is sincere, it cannot take back the thoughts put into the heads of potential terrorists to America.

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the Freedom of Speech.

Defense attorney, James Hudley, argued that Morton did try to use his website strictly for free speech, but admitted that he did cross the line to violent threats at times -- he sought a prison term of less than five years for his client.

United States District Judge, Liam O'Grady, said in a statement that he believed Morton was a bright man who could have used his intellect for good, but decided to take a turn for the worse instead when his freedom of speech turned into promoting violence to some of the most dangerous revolutionaries within the past few years.

North Carolina Boy Strip-Searched over Twenty Dollars

A 10-year old boy, Justin Cox, who is a student at Union Elementary School in Clinton, North Carolina was strip-searched after being accused of stealing $20 from another student.  He was ordered to strip down to his boxers and t-shirt.

According to Justin's mother, he told her after it happened that the girl had dropped the money and he simply reached down to help her pick it up from the ground to give it back to her.

Justin's mother was infuriated by the incident, which she did not find out about until after he came home from school that day.  No one contacted her during the day -- before, during, or right after it happened.  She said that if she felt he needed to be searched, she would've searched her son herself, in the bathroom, with a witness present.

The Fourth Amendment protects all people from unreasonable searches and seizures.

The assistant principal at Union Elementary, Teresa Holmes, was the one who strip-searched the boy, and said in a statement that two teachers and several students told her they saw Justin dive under the table for the missing $20.

Justin told Holmes many times that he did not have the money, and to "search him."

After strip-searching Justin, Holmes did not find the money.  She apologized to him afterwards.

The money was later found on the ground; a teacher had said it had not been there previously (before the search).

Sampson County Schools spokeswoman, talked about the event, and stated that Holmes was within her legal authority to conduct the search; however, she "may have been overzealous in her actions."

Justin's mother believes that the search was extremely inappropriate.  She said in a statement, "[Holmes] came up to him and rubbed her fingers around inside of the underwear.  If that isn't intrusive, I don't know what is."

"A Dingo Ate My Baby" Defense: Verified 32 Years Later

In 1988, Lindy Chamberlain-Creighton was convicted and life sentenced for the murder of her daughter, Azaria, after her daughter mysteriously disappeared.

Chamberlain-Creighton's defense? A dingo ate her baby.

I'm sure you're probably thinking that line sounds familiar.  A movie with Meryl Streep entitled Cry in the Dark made this line famous.  This line was based on this case.

Crying in the Dark Movie Cover

The official finding was finally uncovered today by an Australian coroner: an actual dingo -- type of wild dog -- attacked and caused the death of the young child.

She served three years in prison, until continuing to fight with her same defense, that a dingo ate her baby.  This has been a legal battle in Australia for over 30 years in regards to this case.  Chamberlain-Creighton has been fought over four different inquests, including a judicial inquiry, a murder trial, High Court of appeals, and Federal Court.

Lindy Chamberlain-Creighton

I am glad to see that the coroners have finally gotten down to finding out what happened 32 years ago, when poor Azaria mysteriously disappeared.

Today, Chamberlain-Creighton's conviction was overturned, and although the exact dingo who did it will most likely never be found -- justice was served for the "dingo ate my baby" woman.

Sandusky Trial Kicks Off

Opening arguments are to begin today in former Penn State football coach, Jerry Sandusky's, sex abuse case.  Sandusky faces 52 counts of molestation from 10 different alleged victims over a 15-year period.

Eight of the victims are expected to testify in the trial, and two of the victims have either not been located or identified by the Attorney General.

Gerard "Jerry" Sandusky, Former Penn State Football Coach

The investigation began in 2008, when a high school student told his mother and school administrators that he had been molested by Sandusky.

On November 4, 2011, charges were brought against Sandusky that sparked a great deal of controversy around the Penn State football team, and led to charges against two school officials, as well as the dismissal of the legendary football coach, Joe Paterno.

The trial will likely depend on the testimonies of the eight alleged victims.  There is essentially no physical evidence to prove that Sandusky molested the boys; however, it seems that there will be a whole lot of men claiming to have been molested by the former coach.

The credibility of the alleged victims and what they testify is supposed to be the main deciding component of this case for the jury.

During the jury selection process, more than 200 Centre County, Pennsylvania residents were interviewed, and the 12 jurors were finally selected, seven women and five men -- Many of them apparently having close ties to Penn State.

Centre County Courthouse where the Trial will take place

I am interested to see what will happen during this trial.

For full coverage of the Sandusky trial (with live updates), click here.

Bank of America's CEO Withheld the Facts

Back in September 2008, when Bank of America acquired Merrill Lynch, shareholders with Bank of America had to vote to approve the bank's purchase of Merrill Lynch, which would cost approximately $50 billion.

The purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America struck during one of the lowest points of the financial crisis, and was part of a point in time in which CEO, Ken Lewis, was transforming Bank of America from its base in Charlotte into a monstrous financial corporation that would compete with the biggest institutions on Wall Street.

Days before voting, apparently Bank of America's top executives and Ken Lewis, knew that Merrill Lynch's extreme mortgage losses would actually cause another taxpayer bailout of $20 billion.

When it came time to vote, the shareholders didn't have an issue with this --- Why, you ask? -- Because they were not informed by any of the Bank of America's top executives or the CEO.  Had the shareholders known about the projected losses in advance, the vote would have most likely taken a different route.

Bank of America Corporate Center; Located in Uptown Charlotte, North Carolina

Bank of America's shareholders filed a lawsuit Sunday evening against Ken Lewis. The suit says that Lewis had received Merrill's loss estimates before the stockholders voted to approve the deal.

Shareholders rely on proxy documents to decide whether or not to approve transactions companies propose.  Because of this, it is necessary that companies disclose all the facts that might be meaningful to the vote of their shareholders.  Considering a lawsuit is now being filed, it looks as if Lewis's failure to mention the details of Merrill's massive losses may have been meaningful to the vote of Bank of America stockholders.


The proxy documents recommending the approval stated that Merrill's mortgage losses would reduce earnings by only 3% in 2009, but would then not hurt the bank's profits in 2010, and possibly even add to them.

A motion filed on behalf of Lewis filed on Sunday stated that Lewis did not tell shareholders the information about the losses because the bank's law firm and other bank executives had told him that it was not necessary.

The CEO also discussed the hectic period between September 2008 (when Bank of America acquired Merrill Lynch) and December 2008 (when the shareholder's voted on Merrill Lynch's acquisition by Bank of America).

 Lewis testified that after the shareholders voted, the numbers regarding the merger's effect on the bank had changed.  It had now been over 13% reduction in earnings in 2009, and about 3% reduction in 2010 -- a large difference from the previous "profit outlook" stated in the proxy documents.

Before the vote, Bank of America and Merrill Lynch had determined that the loss for that period would be approximately $14 billion before taxes.

There are emails back and forth from Bank of America's former treasurer, Jeffrey J. Brown, and Joe L. Price, the chief financial officer during that time, with Brown warning Price of the potential consequences of failing to notify stockholders of the merger's actual outlook.

Fiscal Responsibility Prevails in Wisconsin

After the recall election for governor of Wisconsin, Republican Gov. Scott Walker once again, prevailed.  All precincts found that the governor won by a wide margin (with approximately 54% of the votes in each precinct).  Today, Walker is still the governor of Wisconsin.

The effort for a vote recall stemmed from the labor union movement -- when Governor Walker prevented what they thought were excessive collective bargaining agreements of public-employee unions.  This was part of the effort to cut Wisconsin's approximately $3.6 billion shortfall in the state's budget.

Governor Walker's reform effort turned Wisconsin's $3.6 billion deficit to a $154 million surplus.  The main beneficiaries of this powerful change in Wisconsin's economy was Wisconsin's schools.  Now, children in Wisconsin are able to receive materials needed to learn, and teachers are receiving materials they need to teach, as well as getting paid what they deserve.

I am happy to see that there is an elected official like Governor Walker keeping the government living within its means -- this cannot be said truthfully about every politician.
It is important for elected officials to both meet the wants and needs of his or her constituents, while also being fiscally responsible.  After all, it is the money of the people that voted for the official, and their children, that will be paying any extra money out of their pockets.

This is not an issue that has to deal with which political party you belong to, or which politician most easily persuades you -- this has to deal with getting America back to the ideals it is founded on. 

Economic freedom is a huge part of political freedom.  Once indebted, especially to the government, personal and political freedom becomes extraordinarily limited.

Although we, as a country, do not often pay attention to the small Midwestern state -- the people of Wisconsin sent the message Tuesday night that they are not interested in limiting their freedom.  They chose the American ideals of liberty, responsibility, and security.  We may forget that Wisconsin exists sometimes, but we should continue to uphold the message they sent.

Mark Zuckerberg Quickly Becoming "Unfriended" By Many

A group very of unhappy Facebook IPO investors, including Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and Morgan Stanley, has reportedly sued the CEO.

A class-action lawsuit -- filed yesterday, June 3rd, in the United States District Court of Manhattan -- claims that the Facebook creator knew his stock was terribly overpriced at $38 per share last month, when the trading began.  With this inside information, he quickly unloaded shares.  If the complaint is true and accurate, this was clearly a highly unethical move on the billionaire's part.
 
Facebook was down 27% last Friday, June 1st -- since it went public on May 18, 2012.

In the class-action lawsuit, the complaint calls out Zuckerberg and company of hiding the business "flaw" of his stock, was was: there is simply not enough advertising revenue to support a thirty-eight dollar per share opening price.

Essentially, the suit suggests that this business "flaw" information was only shared with its largest investors, which Zuckerberg and company did through "selective discourse" methods (as reported by Daily Mail).

Stock market analysts have constantly held doubts about Facebook's valuation, prospects in the moible market, and its overall ability to compete with Google.

After this Facebook situation, Nasdaq's market structure and market quality as a whole has been put under scrutiny.

Allegedly, Facebook is developing technology that would allow children younger than 13 years old to use the social-networking site (under parental supervision).  Under Facebook's current policy, users under 13 years of age are banned.  Although this is not part of the class-action suit, there is something seriously questionable about this situation.

Skip School & Go to Jail

In Houston, Texas a 17-year-old girl, Diane Tran, was put in jail for a full 24 hours for missing too much school.

As a straight-A honors student at Willis High School (11th grade), Diane also worked two jobs -- part-time at a dry cleaner, and part-time for a Wedding planner -- in order to support her two siblings, after her parents' separated and her mother moved away from the family.

The state law in Texas allows no more than 10 absences within a six-month period of time.  Diane is considered an adult under Texas law, and was put in jail after a warrant went out for her arrest for truancy, which is considered a misdemeanor.

After the jailing of the honors student went viral, the Judge told many news sources that he put Diane in jail to set an example for the rest of the students in Texas.  According to Texas Compulsory Education Laws, the minimum time in jail for truants is 24 hours -- which is what she received.

Apparently, while Diane was in jail she was surrounded by any and all types of criminals -- from drug addicts, to prostitutes, to suspected murderers.  The girl has described her time in jail as "the worst experience of her life."

Needless to say, this is not what one would typically call a "fair" punishment for missing school.  Most kids would think something more like no television for a week, or having to do extra chores on the weekend.

The real question here is: Should Texas's truancy law be decided on a case-by-case basis? 

If the answer is "Yes" then a student who is already making straight As, taking college-level courses in high school, and holds two jobs to support her family should most likely not have been put in jail for this.

If the answer is "No" then there should be no certain GPA requirement to not be jailed, or any other type of exception to the rule for that matter.  This essentially means every person would be looked at as absolutely the same, no matter what their circumstances.

I do believe that state law is important to follow, and I don't think that very many exceptions should be made by the federal government, overturning the laws.  After all -- this freedom is part of what gives us as Americans the ability to prevent too much government control.

However, the one issue I have with the Judge's statement -- that he was trying to create an example with Diane -- is if he had been deciding these issues on a case-by-case basis, then even if we was attempting to make an example, he could have chosen a student who was doing worse in school, and who was in better circumstances than this girl (for example, did not have two jobs and two siblings to support).

That being said, I do not know every single detail of what happened, so I cannot fully take one side or another -- but the public outrage for what happened to Diane is already quite immense.  Many believe that the Judge should have just given the girl a break.


Finally, Happy Belated Memorial Day!

Before You Send That Text Message, Make Sure They Aren't Driving...

A case from New Jersey that has recently been brought up in the news seems to be the first of its kind in America.  A college student in New Jersey may potentially be held liable for texting her boyfriend, while she knew he was driving -- and allegedly, this caused him to crash into a couple on a motorcycle.  Both the man and woman on the motorcycle lost their left legs during the wreck.

On May 25, a Superior Court judge will determine whether or not the college student, Shannon Colonna, will be added to the suit against the driver, her boyfriend, Kyle Best.

New Jersey is one of 19 states in which it is illegal to text while driving.

The attorney for the couple on the motorcycle argued that if a person texts someone that they know is driving, and texting while driving is dangerous and violates the law, he believes a jury should decide.  He argued that the numerous text messages (about 60) that they had sent throughout the day made Colonna "electronically present" in the car.

The man who was driving and hit the couple on the motorcycle, Best, testified that he was not actually texting when he crossed a lane of traffic and hit the couple, but he was glancing down at a text sent from Colonna.


Another argument the lawyer for the motorcyclists made is that passengers in cars who encourage drivers to ignore traffic violations can be held liable for accidents -- he believes that this is the same situation, as Colonna knew that texting and driving was breaking the state law.

I do have to agree with the defending lawyer in this case -- the only person to be held liable here is the driver.  It is completely unreasonable to suggest that Colonna knew exactly when Best would look at the message she sent him.  There is no proof, or reason, that she had an intent of him looking at her text message while he was driving, and then subsequently causing an accident.

It would not surprise me, however, if in the near future there are laws put into place about liability being placed on those who text people while they are driving.  At this rate, with the fast and continuous advancement of technology, we have GPS capabilities on smart phones that can track where the person you are talking to is.  Maybe in the future there will be some sort of limit on the speed they are going that someone is allowed to text another person -- if they are going over 10 mph, you should know they are driving and not send them a text message.  Let's hope that doesn't happen though.

Regardless, this would all still be very unreasonable, even in the case of the smart phone GPS and what not.   A person has to literally be psychic to know exactly when the person they are sending a text message to will look down at that message, driving or not.

CIA Bomb Interception

According to a source familiar with United States Central Intelligence Agency, an international American spy gained access to the Al Qaeda cell.  The informant was apparently the would-be bomber in the airline plot, who had Al Qaeda fooled from the start.

The U.S. intelligence learned last month that the Yemen branch of Al Qaeda was planning to launch a huge attack using a new and nearly undetectable bomb aboard an airliner bound for the United States.

Luckily, the man the terrorists were counting on to carry out the attack was in fact a CIA agent who also worked with Saudi intelligence.

So basically, the U.S. was able to prevent the success of the attack before it even had the chance.

Al Qaeda has made repeated attempts to detonating a bomb aboard an American airliner – this was only the latest misfire.

It was a victory for the U.S. and the bomb was soon delivered to U.S. intelligence to analyze.

The FBI is currently analyzing the explosive – it was intended to be hidden in the passenger's underwear. Analysts and officials say that the bomb was certainly an upgrade from the previous bomb that misfired in Detroit on Christmas in 2009.  There was no metal contained in this bomb, which would have made it hard for Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to detect at the airport, although officials believed that a body scanner would have detected this bomb.

Although there have been many complaints in the recent past about having to pass through tedious, and sometimes even embarrassing, procedures at airports in the United States, the House Intelligence Committee Chairman acknowledged that this is one of the main reasons we are kept safe from these types of attacks.  The U.S. uses these types of measures as a serious concern for the safety of American passengers, especially within the past decade (since the occurrence of 9/11).

The question here is whether or not to attempt to improve security in international airports with U.S.-bound passengers.  Many countries do agree that their security needs to be better, at least somewhere near the level of security at American airports.  If not, we face dangers from flights coming to the U.S. from overseas.

It is reassuring, however, to know that every single passenger boarding U.S.-bound flights are checked against terrorist watch-lists, as well as law-enforcement databases.

This one was a victory for America.  In the meantime, we must not let our guard down, especially concerning a terrorist group as serious as Al Qaeda.

Taking Advantage of Your 26th Amendment Right

In 1971, the 26th Amendment to the United States Constitution gave everyone 18 years of age or older the right to vote. The youth vote is of great importance because of as more young people vote, the more we will see our elected officials actually have concern for the things that matter to us (especially since we are also the group who tends to do a lot of complaining when things don't go our way).

 The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

 --26th Amendment of the United States Constitution

American citizens, especially the the youth, must realize that elected officials make a ton of decisions, everyday, that directly affect our lives.  Congress, the President, and other federal and local leaders elected decide whether to raise taxes, lower taxes, create economic policies that could affect jobs, and make decisions on when, or if, it is appropriate to use military force (in other countries or on our home front).

 
Whether you are interested in politics or not -- These are all basic, yet very important, issues that we must use our rights as American citizens to decide on ourselves.

Voting really is one of the greatest rights of any free people to have.  It's what makes America a country with a "government of the people, by the people, and FOR the people," as Abe Lincoln stated in the 1863 Gettysburg Address.  Voting gives people the power to choose who they want in power.

Accountability seems to have become a huge issue within these past few years, especially with members of Congress sneaking around, stealing money, and engaging in other various unlawful activities.  Luckily, however, your vote holds your local and national leaders responsible for the decisions they make.  In this sense, the accountability question is answered: it is the fault of the civil official for not keeping his/her promises to the constituents.

If you are not exactly sure what people in the 7th District of North Carolina are voting on today, here are my two previous posts on a couple of the main issues that will be on today's ballot:


Amendment One.
Congressional Republican Nominee


Please make sure to go vote today -- It takes five minutes, and you will certainly not regret it.

There are so many polling locations, I am confident that at least one of them will be convenient for you:


New Hanover County Polling Locations


Happy Voting.

It's Back: Keystone XL Pipeline Debate

This past January, President Obama blocked a proposition for the Keystone XL Pipeline, which would carry oil from tar sands in western Canada to a hub in Steele City, Nebraska, then link up to other pipelines operated by the same company to transport oil to refineries around the Texas Gulf Coast.

Map of Potential Pipeline' s Route through North America

Although President Obama blocked the project, he did not completely reject the idea -- the White House correspondence liked to say that the "decision was postponed."  Republican supporters of the Keystone Pipeline project were extremely unhappy with this decision.

TransCanada, the company who proposed the project, is expected to reapply for another Keystone Pipeline permit for the President and various federal officials to review.  This means that we may have another shot at undertaking the pipeline project.

By "postponing" the Keystone XL Pipeline in January, an estimated potential 6,000 new jobs that would have resulted from the project, were never created.  Many oil refinery companies with the United States pulled back on hiring after this decision because they were uncertain of any increase of business within the near future.

The country's current unemployment rate was released today -- and it is a staggering 8.1%.

Cartoon Depiction of One Major Benefit of the Proposed Pipeline

The project will cost in the multi-billions, but would greatly reduce the United States' dependence of foreign oil and stimulate tremendous job growth for American workers.

And Even More Good News for Everyone: This may also mean lower gas prices at the pump.

 Remember these days?

President Obama, many Democrats, and environmental groups are concerned about the Keystone XL Pipeline because they believe that the oil transported from tar sands in Alberta, Canada would be "dirty" and, in turn, take more energy to extract.  They are also concerned about a possible spill due to the distance oil will be traveling throughout North America.

Pipeline Protesters in Washington, DC.

The new application of the Keystone Pipeline XL will be reviewed, but a final decision is not estimated until sometime early next year --  which means that this issue will be a big one for the upcoming Presidential Election.

I am excited to hear both sides of the discussion, and of course the ultimate decision, concerning the reinstating of the proposal for the Keystone XL Pipeline.

The First of May: National Law Day

Anyone who knows me know that I know lots of random holidays, mainly because practically every day of the year honors something (yesterday, April 30, was Confederate Memorial Day).  This is why I was surprised that today -- Law Day -- had not been brought to my attention, until today.

Established by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1958, today is meant to honor the American legal system, attorneys who work for justice, the rule of law, and all enforcers of the law.  It can also certainly be seen as a type of celebration, for many reasons...

Today marks the One Year Anniversary of Osama Bin Laden's capture by Navy Seal Team 6.  Bin Laden's death is a remarkable day in the history of the United States because it was a day when true justice was finally served -- after almost a full 10 years -- to one of the most evil men to have ever lived.

On National Law Day, we celebrate the enduring legacy of justice and equality under the law, as well as appreciate the democracy that we have sustained by the rule of law.

President Obama gave a proclamation today about Law Day, in which he said "In accordance with Public Law 87-20, as amended, do hereby proclaim May 1, 2012, as Law Day, U.S.A. I call upon all Americans to acknowledge the importance of our Nation's legal and judicial systems with appropriate ceremonies and activities, and to display the flag of the United States in support of this national observance."

I thought this was an important remark that he made.  People tend to take for granted the legal system that exists in our remarkable country -- even though it is not one hundred percent perfect, I can say with confidence that it really is what keeps our country in tact, and the reason that we have our freedoms and ability to attain justice today, as well as our safety.

To Put it Simply: Without the Rule of Law, it would literally be impossible for us to function as the productive society we are today.

Happy Law Day, and Remember to have your American flag on display all day today.
 

Visit LawDay.org if you would like more information

Politics v. Policy

The Student National Loan Debt is predicted to hit the $1 trillion mark by early May.  Yes, that's one with 12 zeros after it: $1,000,000,000,000. 

In Washington today, a bill was approved to prevent student loan rates from doubling on July 1, 2012.  In a 215-195 vote, the Senate voted to keep interest rates at 3.4% for another year, and not raising it up to 6.8%.

The vote on the bill was supposed to be fairly simply and bipartisan (which is rare nowadays).  It seemed to be a clear agreement -- both Republicans and Democrats wanted to pass the bill.

They understand that students are working hard in school, and working hard after school to find a job -- but in the economy in the way that it is today -- that is not as easy as it was 10 years ago.  Why is it so important that the Senate recognizes this?  So that they do not raise interest rates on the population of the country that is: (1) already in massive debt, and (2) having the most difficulties finding jobs.  This is not the most desirable combination.

Controversy came right before the vote, when the White House staff said that President Obama was threatening to veto the measure because he did not like the way that the Republicans wanted to pay for it.  The House Republicans plan was to cut spending in order to make up for the money lost to student loan debt.  The Senate Democrats, however, would rather pay for it by creating more loopholes in the oil.

The Bipartisan Harmony that is so rare in this day and age was, again, disturbed.

If Congress did not take action today, student loan interest would have doubled starting July 1st.

Speaker of the House, John Boehner got extremely passionate, and even emotional at some points, regarding this issue. 

The video below shows Speaker Boehner giving a speech before the vote in Senate:

The main point of his speech is pointing out the absolute absurdity of the "fight" over this bill.  Since there was no long-term plan put into place, everyone knows that this short-tern policy is the best way to give the committee time to focus on a long-term solution to this problem.  The question is, then: Why can't we all finally just agree on this one thing?

His conclusion was simple:  What's driving the fight over this student loan bill is politics, not policy.

Luckily, student loan debt rates will be kept at 3.4% percent because the Senate voted in favor of the measure to keep student loan interest rates lows.

I am confident that all college students and graduates taking out loans for their education are happy that the Senate made the decision not to double interest rates July 1st.

I am also personally happy to see the Senate finally pass a bill without worrying about it's affect on politics, for once (although it was a close call when Obama threatened to Veto the bill).

We can only hope that the Senate will continue to fight for students, finding a long-term solution to the $1 trillion national student loan debt our country is currently facing.