Recent orders
Extra Credit Response for Lets Repeal the Second Amendment
Name
Lecturer
Course
Date
Extra Credit Essay
Extra Credit Response for “Let’s Repeal the Second Amendment”
In “Let’s Repeal the Second Amendment,”
Kurt Eichenwald enters into an already inflamed debate about gun control in the United States. He reports on the increasing cases of violence marked by indiscriminate shooting of innocent Americans. Such violent acts have been witnessed in schools and movie theatres. Therefore, it has necessitated the reaction of President Obama has been at the forefront and declared that he would do something, but then later being shut down in the House of Representatives. In his essay, Kurt masks his claims under moderation, but really he jumps into the debate with a premise as far left as one can really get.
He says, “O. K., I’ll agree. Let’s not talk about policy when it comes to Sandy Hook.” He knew that this was a very political polarizing issue and wants his argument to be logical and methodical rather than emotional and reactionary. As he skips talk on this though, he brings up a number of anecdotes about other such mass shooting on the US. He names around a dozen and then says that we could talk about “any of the senseless mass murders that have left behind piles of maimed and murdered.” Throughout the essay he makes claims that are mostly supported by pathos, and not ethos or logos.
He goes to the heart of the issue that is allowing for people to own guns or the second amendment. There is much debate on how this could be interpreted. He brings up the valid point that this clause was written 200 years ago and we as a sovereign people capable of self-governance do not need to be prevented from passing practical policy measures simply because of something that is not only vague and open to interpretation but was written 200 years ago.
He points out that most of the mass murders committed by guns were done through the aid of weapons that were legally purchased. His central tenet is that our system is broken, and the only way to fix it, is to start from the beginning with a question of whether or not Americans should be constitutionally allowed to own such tools of mass destruction.
I would like to begin by concurring with this writer that gun possession has of course become a very contentious issue in USA today. He is right for reporting that this right has been really abused on many occasions.
Even if the constitution grants people right to possess guns, many people have not used these fire arms for the right purpose. They have used it to cause more harm than good. As Kurt exclaims, many Americans have been maimed and killed indiscriminately. This implies that the guns have been used to compromise national security. I would like to point out that it is not justified for anyone to abuse the use of these ammunitions. Instead, they should be used for the right purpose.
However, while I agree with him that more should be done, I believe that in suggesting that this amendment be repealed he is adding more polarization to an issue already charged. Gun control is an issue with a powerful lobby of support.
I would like to suggest that the country needs right now is not more charged rhetoric, but middle ground on the issue. It is possible to agree with someone’s premise but disagree with his approach that he or she takes. Like other charged issues such as abortion, it is unlikely that either side of the issue will ever see eye to eye on the issue. Guns represent large aspect of culture in the United States. Rather than invoking a change to the Constitution, which is not only dramatic, but basically politically impossible given the current political climate, what Eichenwald could have done, is figure out what was stagnating in Washington in terms of policy reform and then suggested how this obstacle could be overcome. The gun lobby, not the second amendment is what is standing in the way of lawmakers who want to restrict gun use from gaining ground.
In conclusion, I would like to agree with Kurt for writing such an insightful article. He gives a right discussion about the gun issue which has really polarized the American society. As he observes, guns are very important weapons because they are used in self defense. However, it is very unfortunate that many gun holders have taken advantage of their privilege to destabilize the country’s peace. It is for this reason that I rally behind him. He gives a candid argument on this emotive matter. Even if guns are meant for safeguarding individual security, it has become a weapon of aggression. The most saddening part is that it can even be accessed by school-going children who use it to shoot their colleagues. Thus, I support President Obama for proposing stricter gun laws. This is the only way through which the possession and use of these faire arms can be regulated. It will make people use them responsibly.
References
Snyder, J: Nation of Cowards: Essays on the Ethics of Gun Control. Accurate Press, St. Louis, 2001:pp. i-ii
Affordable Care Act offers the United States citizens with superior health security
Name:
Institution:
Course:
Date:
Health Care Reform (ACA)
Abstract
Affordable Care Act offers the United States citizens with superior health security by establishing complete health insurance improvements that can increase coverage, hold insurance corporations answerable, promise additional choice, and improve the quality of care for the American people. The Act was approved by the Congress and then put into law in 2010. According to the American constitution, this reform is believed to be unconstitutional. Therefore, it is expected to have a number of effects to patients, doctors, and the general public. ACA has numerous provisions that provide additional rights to the citizens (Tate 85). The paper will mainly discuss a reform proposal for some aspect of the American political and government system.
Introduction
Since the signing Affordable Care Act into law, the government has worked with other responsible parties to establish major implementation precedence and offer the assistance required to prepare for the important improvements to Medicaid. The act ensures that there is minimum Medicaid income desirable level to all the poor Americans. For instance, the federal government stated that it will start funding all the desirable adults at the start of 2014. Additionally, it expects to phase down more than 90 percent at the end of 2020. Conversely, this reform is anticipated to have a number of effects to patients, doctors, and the general public hence this creates the need to have an attractive health care reform.
Health Care Reform
The most appropriate health care reform is the reduction of the authorities of the Congress to control, authorize, ban, or tax the personal health care insurance for any individual. The above reform will make the Act to be constitutional as it is currently considered as unconstitutional. Therefore, without the enactment and implementation of this reform proposal, Affordable Care Act is expected to have more effects in the patients, doctors and the general public.
The Unconstitutional of ACA
Affordable Care Act is considered to be unconstitutional because it does not have the severability clause which was supposed to be introduced by the Congress. Therefore, this law is currently being disputed in Florida case. The two disputed issues in the ACA include the provision that provision that every individual must purchase insurance and the expansion of Medicaid.
Effects of the Affordable Care Act
Affordable Care Act will have a number of effects to the doctors, patients and the general public. For instance, general practitioners will have to face additional government regulations and supervision. They will also entirely depend on the funds provided by the government, which is always considered as unpredictable. According to a number of researches carried out, many doctors are not positive about the future of medicine (Moffat, para 1). Some had also stated that they would consider moving out of the health programs organized and supported by the government. This Act does not significantly change the whole outline of the government’s system doctor payment. Instead, it improves their achievements and creates additional regulatory restrictions. For instance, at the start of 2010, a new law which does not have enough exceptions will ban medical practitioners from referring patients to their hospitals. Since the doctors will depend in the funds provided by the government, there will not be enough medicine to take care of the patients. Other restrictions on the doctors will also affect the general public since this is expected to affect the quality of health care.
Conclusion
Considering the numerous effects of Affordable Care Act, it would be necessary for the government to consider implementing the provided health care reform. This is expected to improve the quality of health care to all the American citizens. The reform is also anticipated to provide answers to the current debate on the viability of this Act.
Works Cited
Moffat, Robert. Obamacare: Impact on Doctors. 2010. Web. April 13, 2014. HYPERLINK “http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/05/obamacare-impact-on-doctors”http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/05/obamacare-impact-on-doctors
Tate, Nick J. Obamacare Survival Guide. West Palm Beach, FL: Humanix Books, 2012. Print.
Affirmative Action
Name:
Course Name:
Course Instructor:
Date of Submission:
Affirmative Action
Affirmative action is termed to be a subject that has an extensive public debate. Different people think that affirmative action is one of the policies not understood and characterized properly. This is not thought by the people opposing affirmative action, but also the defenders of affirmative action. This essay will try to define these delusions, expound why people consider them to be delusions and put greater defense of policies in affirmative action. Prevalent misrepresentations of policies in affirmative actions are challenged and examined in this paper (Edley, Pp 65).
These are both delusions about the various groups that these policies are created to benefit and the benefits to be achieved. In addition, misunderstandings on policies in affirmative action rationales are addressed. There are arguments that policies in affirmative actions are supposed to be understood as there are attempts to make equal various opportunities for different peoples’ groups confronting lack of equality in opportunities and institutional discrimination (MacKinnon, Pp. 50).
Arguments that surround affirmative action distort the scope of policies in affirmative action in various ways. One of the most disturbing misrepresentations is the prevalent tendency to understand policies in affirmative action as based on race alone and talk more about the African Americans as the group anticipated to benefit. The policies in affirmative actions are to put these talks as false ones. When the policies in affirmative actions were first put into effect, they were created to help members of other racial groups that had disadvantages rather than the African Americans. An example is that nearly two thirds of the learners admitted in Davis Medical School program of affirmative action challenged by the Bakke’s landmark case in 1978, were Asian Americans or latinos (Harris and Narayan, 2007).
The opinions made by the justices of the Supreme Court who considered this incident, discussed the affirmative action as if the African Americans were the main people to benefit. This was an unfortunate misrepresentation because in the United States racial history, such misrepresentations are dangerous. This is because it is easy to create stereotypes that are negative concerning these programs when the groups of African Americans are regarded as their main beneficiaries (Edley, pp. 115). It is vital for everyone to know that even if the policies in affirmative actions were primarily based racially, they were created to prepare the institutional exclusion of different groups that were racially disadvantaged.
In various institutional perspectives, policies in affirmative action have been extended so that they may cover areas concerning unequal opportunities and discrimination. Policies in affirmative action in various institutions like professional schools, have tried to promote the access of applicants who were working (MacKinnon, Pp. 98). A world whereby policies in affirmative actions are initiated is a world where quite a number of prestigious professions and institutions are enclaves of white people of the upper classes.
The dominant catastrophe to contemplate the number of people that policies in affirmative action have had benefits raises different objections to these affirmative action policies. For example, a big number of people argue that policies in affirmative actions are supposed to be class based as an alternative of race. This is because the people believe that African Americans in the middle class are not worthy of these affirmative action. This argument has various problems. The first one is that a large number of people supporting this argument position the matter as a choice amidst class and race, taking no notice that policies in affirmative actions are both race and class based (MacKinnon, pp. 121).
The second one is that the people supporting this argument believe that Blacks from the middle class are not suffering from the discrimination effects despite significant proof to the opposing. During 1980’s, studies made independently by Urban League and Grier partnership showed striking disparities in Whites and Blacks level of employment in Washington, one of the areas deemed as Blacks “best markets” (Harris and Narayan, 2007). The two studies made reveal that racial discrimination is one of the factors that leads to this difference.
A study conducted by the Urban Institute in 1990’s surveyed practices of employment in Washington and Chicago by sending Black and White applicants dressed identically and equally qualified to advertised positions in the newspapers (Harris and Narayan, 2007). In addition, the applicants were matched for age, work personal characteristics and experience. This study found that there was a repeated discrimination according to the advertised position level. On the other hand, the study exposed that White people are the ones who receive more job offers than the Blacks who are qualified. There are no suggestions that discrimination based on gender and sexism faced by the people in institutions is an end product of their status either middle or low class. Moreover, there have been defends that affirmative action provide special treatment to certain people of groups that are marginalized as reimbursements for the injustices they went through (MacKinnon, Pp. 157).
According to Harris and Narayan (2007), different people argue that a party paying a price for affirmative action has no responsibility for the injuries its beneficiaries have suffered. Other people argue on the specific payments involved. These critics strengthen the arguments made by showing that the policies in affirmative action may not be the equitable forms of compensations. This is because; the injured people are not the getting compensations as their injuries are due to them lacking the qualifications considered. Various attempts have been made to secure compensation rationale contrary to these objections. There are believes that this still remains as one of the problematic and inadequate affirmative action rationale.
By suggesting on affirmative action compensating individuals for damages done by sexism or racism, the rationale states that one of the problems is an individual who is damaged relatively than the problem itself because of the practices, structures and institutional principles within the institutions that obstruct fair valuations of American capabilities. Procedures and prevalent valuations are not used in gauging the abilities of people of given marginalized groups. This compensation model does not put questions on the normative valuations the institutions use. To add on that, the model does not encourage serious reflection on the assessment processes used in determining these qualifications (Sharma, pp. 94).
In addition, the model does not question how affirmative action involves special treatment. People consider this as one of the weaknesses as there is no challenges that policies in affirmative action lead to entry of individuals with less qualifications. This insists that preferences given on individuals with less qualification are vindicated as a compensation form. On top of that, this compensation also conflates basis for gender policies in affirmative action and race with that for the policies that endorse veterans’ institutional access (Sharma, pp. 106).
These veteran policies are supposed to be understood as ways of compensating their injuries, efforts and risks sustained while serving the nation. The risks, efforts and injuries may detract or impede the veterans from their educational or employment goals. People believe that their rationales for affirmative actions are stronger than the arguments of social utility proffered in the defense. According to Harris and Narayan (2007), Dworkin argues that policies in affirmative action giving preferences to smaller candidates are not violating the rights to Blacks getting equal treatment as the Whites.
In his arguments, Dworkin says that there will be violation of rights when a White person undergoes disadvantages when contending with Black people. This is because the race of the White people is the contempt’s object. In addition, Dworkin goes on to argue that the costs suffered by the White people applicants due to policies in affirmative actions are acceptable. This is because these types of policies endorse various helpful social ends. Other social ends that are beneficial and argued by Dworkin are attended by affirmative action including providing blacks with role models such as lawyers who will be willing to help the Black community (Harris and Narayan, 2007).
Policies in affirmative actions are justified as they are necessary in ensuring the right of any person of a given marginalized group to treatment. Rationale for the affirmative action also varies from societal utility arguments justifying these policies on a way they lead to great range of backgrounds and different perceptions inside academic institutions thus facilitating the process of learning. Diversity in the university can be improved by different people from various widespread backgrounds being admitted. In addition, these people must have different talents that are special (MacKinnon, 167).
Diversity commitment could substantiate policies promoting recruitment of abroad students from areas of the country said to be remote and those students that have interests that are unusual. Despite institutional reasons used in promoting diversity, no students need to have suffered from effects of institutional discrimination forms in United States. Hence, a quite number of students who provide diversity are not eligible to qualify for an affirmative action despite existence of reasons of admitting such students. Admitting large population of people working in these institutions that significantly under represent the people leads to an increase in institutional diversity in various ways (Harrisand Narayan, 2007).
In conclusion, these beneficial consequences are viewed as additional remunerations of affirmative action. While people believe that affirmative action has had consequences that are beneficial by making various work areas to be integrated along gender lines, class and race, these consequences are viewed as results used in treating people equally (MacKinnon, Pp. 175). Affirmative action has been condemned because it stigmatizes the people participating because they regard the affirmative action beneficiaries as people with low qualifications. On the other hand, the policies in affirmative action have been criticized due to the thoughts that they cause bitterness to the people who are qualified and denied entry due to these policies.
People believe that the two criticisms are as a result of failures of accurately understanding rationales for affirmative action. Many people who complain on the preferential treatment they have faith in affirmative action concurrences to the people in academia think that everybody is admitted in an institution due to merit (Harrisand Narayan, 2007). Confusions surrounding affirmative action surpass ideological categories supporters and critics, of all administrative stripes that have underestimated the importance of policies in affirmative action, joined in comparing affirmative action with special treatment and gave permissions to vital assumptions on ways institutions function.
Works Cited
Edley, Christopher. “Not all Black and White: Affirmative Action and American Values.” New York: Hill and Wang, 1996. Pp. 56-115.
Harris.C, Luke and Narayan, Uma. “Affirmative Action as Equalizing opportunity: Challenging the Myth of Preferential Treatment.”African American policy Forum. 25 February. 2007. <http://aapf.org/2007/02/equalizingopportunity/>Web. 8 June 2012>.
MacKinnon, Barbara. “Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues.” Stamford: Cengage learning, 2010. Pp. 25-175.
Sharma, Arvind. “Reservation And Affirmative Action: Models of Social Integration in India And the United States.” California: SAGE, 2005. Pp. 77-180.