T9 Worth the Crime?

"Alright I'll be there in a few, ttyl!" This is an example of an average text message sent by millions of Americans across our country each day. The popular way of communication started off as a trend for college and high school students but has now grown into a common way of contact among friends, colleagues, and families. Parents are now aware of how to text message and often prefer this way of communication rather than a phone call. The problem is texting is now becoming a major problem on our roads.

Parents and kids alike underestimate the dangers of texting while operating a vehicle. A recent New York Times article states "the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute found that truck drivers face a 23 times greater risk of crash or near crash when texting than when not doing so." My question to Americans is this: "Is it worth someone's life to send that text message to your friend while driving?" I'll be honest; I've sent hundreds of text messages while driving in the past. However, after the recent news of deaths on the road because of this, I've become much more aware of the danger I'm putting others in.

The problem has gotten so bad the Government is now taking action. Text messaging while driving is currently illegal in 14 states, including California, New Jersey, and Washington D.C. The bill is currently awaiting a signature from the Governor of New York to become a mandate in the nation's third most populated state. I believe all states should acquire this law in order to protect the safety of our citizens. New York Senator Charles E. Schumer stated "Studies show this is far more dangerous than talking on a phone while driving or driving while drunk, which is astounding." Schumer makes a logical and scary point. To know that texting while driving is legal in the majority of our states and that it is more dangerous than drunk driving should make Americans afraid to get behind the wheel. The Government has declared that states who choose not to ban texting could owe "hundreds of millions of dollars in federal highway funds under legislation." This type of enforcement is a great start to solving the problem we are faced with. Every American must be informed of the dangers of texting while driving. If the message is that important, pulling over to the side of the road to finish your sentence should be your decision rather than putting others lives at stake.

Loving Your Neighbors

Community service is an area our Government often overlooks. A great example of my point is on display in this editorial from the New York Times. A few months ago Congress approved the Serve America Act, a program designed to let Americans participate in community and national service. However, after the budget for next year was released it was shown that $90 million dollars was missing from what President Obama was promised for this program. After reading this article I’m left to believe the editor of this New York Times blog is speaking directly to the American public. He is calling for our voices to be heard and challenging us to let the Government know that we will not stand for this sort of behavior. Although the author of the blog is not given, we must give the editor a great deal of credibility simply because of the newspaper he or she writes for. The New York Times is one of the most accredited newspapers in the world.

The editor is trying to explain to the American public that despite the hard times of our economy, it is crucial that our Government does not shortchange U.S. citizens when it comes to national and community service. The editorial states “Most egregious, the House omitted $41 million sought by Mr. Obama to expand AmeriCorps next year by 10,000 members, who would be put to serious tasks like mentoring at-risk students, cleaning up parks and responding to emergencies.” These are just a few areas the Act is continuing to help. It is clear our President has called us to serve our country from this article as well. The editor of the New York Times article makes a valid argument in his piece. His call for the House to provide the money they promised our President makes logical sense. We as American citizens must now act on what the editor is trying to tell us and let our Government know that we care about our community. Without community service we will simply let millions of people live their lives without an opportunity to be able to achieve their goals. A little help from each person will go a long way into improving the nation that we live in today.

Hold Your Fire

A recent article from the New York Times Opinion section argues over a gun law that is trying to be passed in the senate. Senator John Thune, a Republican of South Dakota, is trying to get an amendment passed that would “force states with more restrictive standards to accept concealed carry permits from states with less stringent rules — in effect giving the lax rules national reach.” The editor of this column strongly disagrees with the purposed amendment for public safety reasons and police officer confusion. Evidence has shown that in the past two years people holding concealed handgun licenses have killed more innocent civilians than in any other two year span. Also, with the new law being passed, it would cause confusion among policemen because it would be harder to determine who is carrying a legal or illegal firearm.

The author of this editorial is targeting the general adult public. He wants the readers to understand the danger the purposed amendment could cause. He respects what the senator is purposing, however he strongly disagrees with the law he is trying to have passed. Although the editorial does not mention an author, I give a great amount of credibility to the composer because of his well formed arguments and use of credible sources. The author is not against the purposed amendment simply because it is his opinion; he gives evidence as to how the past two years have been the most deadly for concealed gun holders and how loosening up the gun laws between states will only cause more problems. The claim the author makes is that the less intense gun laws between states would make our country less safe than it currently is. I have to agree with this statement because it makes since logically. Making it easier to acquire concealed gun licenses and transport firearms between states will only cause more people who are not qualified to purchase and possess a gun. This will cause for more unnecessary violence and possible deaths. The article states “Between May 2007 and April 2009, people holding concealed handgun permits killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens, according to a new study by the Violence Policy Center, a gun control advocacy organization.” This evidence is enough to convince me that if anything we should be stricter about our gun control policies in the United States. Loosening the policies on firearms is the opposite of what we need in our country.

Is Sotomayor Fit for the Supreme Cour

The Supreme Court is a vital piece of our American Government and has been for over the past 200 years. One would think the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices would consist of the greatest judges our country has to offer. However, after reading an article from the Los Angeles Times I'm beginning to question our President's latest Supreme Court nominee.
Sonia Sotomayor was questioned on Wednesday about her opinions on many different subjects including gay rights, abortion, and gun rights. The federal judge simply avoided answering the questions that were thrown her way and would not let the Republicans gain any new information from her. Sen. Tom Coburn asked about a woman who was 38 weeks pregnant and discovered the fetus had a "small spina bifida sac . . . on the lower part of the back." He asked: "Would it be legal in this country to terminate that child's life?" Sotomayor responded with "I can't answer that question in the abstract."
Sotomayor also avoided questions about gun rights. "Sotomayor refused to say whether she thought the 2nd Amendment's "right to bear arms" applied to state and local laws." Finally, Sotomayor wanted nothing to do with questions involving same sex marriage. The article states "Sotomayor also steered clear of questions involving the federal Defense of Marriage Act and bans on same-sex marriage."

This article is worth a glance for a number of reasons. The officials elected into the Court make thousands of important decisions for the citizens of our nation. It's crucial to have members of our Supreme Court that are not afraid to speak about what they believe in and not be intimidated by what others will think. Sonia Sotomayor does not appear to have the confidence required to take a position in the U.S. Supreme Court.