|
“Gun Salesman of the Year 2009” By Michael F. DeVietro As soon as Barrack Obama was declared the winner of the 2008 Presidential election, both the radical left and the radical right started screaming about guns. One example was Tom Diaz of the Violence Policy Center, a Washington DC based gun control group, being quoted saying that if he were an Obama advisor he “would tell him to shut down this valve that allows military-style assault weapons to be imported into the country. He can change that easily with an executive decision. Third, I would tell him to renew the debate about assault weapons. The 1994 law was a joke. The gun industry easily got around it because there were so many loopholes.” In fact Obama even stated on both his change.gov website and later on the Whitehouse.gov website that “Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.” “Gun Show loophole” is a term that gets tossed around a lot without much explanation. In short, the gun show loophole is private sales. Currently most states allow the private transfer of firearms from one person to another without the need of a firearms dealer or background check as long as both people involved are residents of the same state. All transfers across state lines must go through a federally licensed firearms dealer. To the pro-gun lobby, it maintains that private sales are important for a number of reasons ranging from allowing for gifts and inheritance from family to being able to purchase a gun “off the books” for privacy reasons. It is already illegal to sell a firearm to a person who you know is legally prohibited from owning a firearm. However many sellers make a point to ask few questions of their buyers. This has become a large issue at gatherings such as gun shows where several hundred private firearms transfers may happen in the same location on the same day. For this reason several states including Oregon have placed a threshold law saying that if more than “X” number of guns are for sale at a gun show then all transactions must go through the NICS background check system. Continued . . .
|
|
By Rebecca Rudawitz Eventually, we get tired of slur commercials and political commentary, of snap shots of politicians in awkward positions and in-depth analysis of their clothing budgets. Songs get reworded and people’s heads get pasted over other people’s bodies and by the end of the day you just want to toss your hands into the air and swear off the entire media charade. Yet, I think there was a valuable lesson to be learned about the media in the last election, something that’s been muttering, disgruntled, along the edges of the stage since the beginning of politics. Victory goes to he, or she, who best uses the media. The better website, the flashier commercial, the catchier theme-song, the prettier pamphlet, the larger network, the quicker downloads, the easier-to-use interactive media, the shinier buttons, the most annoying ringtone, the most extensive music list, the highest number of Facebook friends, or the most comprehensive collection of data. It has always been this way. The difference is that now we have brightly colored moving pictures and tantalizing hyperlinks instead of loudmouths on the tops of soapboxes or print-pressed paper bulletins. Would we have loved Superman less if his theme song had been timid and boring and his costume an eyesore? Would we be a less religious society if the first book widely printed and published hadn’t been the Bible? We use the media in a million different ways each week. But we live in an era of options. If I don’t like something, I don’t have to read it, listen to it, or watch it. With the assistance of the internet, I don’t even have to worry about those pesky commercials in order to watch ten minute segments of my favorite TV shows. You and I have the freedom to decide which mediums and which messages we want to receive. Yet this freedom comes with a price. |
 |
Vincent's Page - February 2009
By Vincent Berretta
The day was a hellish one. We were tired, hungry, and irritable. Twenty-four hours of driving and a minimal amount of sleep put us in a dreary mood. However we were hopeful as we stood in line for tickets to Dead Snow (or Dod Sno in its native Norwegian), a movie we had wanted to see before we even departed for the 2009 Sundance Festival. Standing at the front of the line, Tyler, Phil and I debated the concept of the film.
“I think they’re Zombie Nazis,” said Tyler, “that’s what it says in the byline.” I however wasn’t convinced. It seemed more logical that they were Nazi Zombies: that the Zombies just happened to have been Nazis before they were Zombies and hadn’t made a conscious decision at the time of their reanimation to sympathize with the Nazi cause. “Well we’ll just ask them at the Q and A,” said Phil, taking a tug out of his flask.
Was I arguing semantics? Sure, but what could be more important to understanding the depth of a film about six Norwegian medical students in the mountains getting attacked by the anti-Semitic undead then whether or not their hatred transcended life and death? This is what Sundance is really about, after all. Provocative questioning. The human condition. Real life.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
By Jolene Johnson
Daily a paradox confronts us. It surrounds us and at times seems to engulf us. This paradox is the contradictory message of the media. We desire health and both the energy and freedom it provides. Yet our society also promotes unhealthy choices that rob us of our health and thus our freedom.
Messages such as eat more junk food, drink alcohol, don’t relax, smoke cigarettes, and drink soda saturate our culture. The products that surround us are full of useless calories that do not create the health or the energy we desire. We make choices that break us down and contribute to the stress that deprives us of our peace of mind.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|
|
The Employee “Free” Choice Act
How much you need to educate yourself for union decisions
By Kelly Welch
Unionization was a fundamental tool toward the development of improved workers protections and rights during the early 20th Century. When workers banded together and fought mistreatment through solidarity, it helped usher in a new era of respect and enfranchisement for the people upon whose back this country is supported. But, through the years, changes have come in the conditions of labor and the nature of unions themselves. And now there is a discussion being centered on the Employee Free Choice Act.
This piece of legislation (which the AFL-CIO’s website is quick to point out is a bipartisan effort) aims to improve the ease of forming and joining unions, as well as mandating that an employer begin negotiations with such a union within ten days of its certification. During the previous Congress, the House passed the legislation, but it was stopped in the Senate. Now the current composition of the House and Senate, weighed heavier with union-friendly Democrats seems poised to pass this legislation. But is that necessarily a good idea?
One of the primary reasons that Democrats and unions love each other so much is the mutual benefits they give each other. Democrats provide legislation that aids union operations in the United States. In return, unions speak to their membership highly of the Democratic Party. It stands to reason that the primary rationale behind Democrat support of the Employee Free Choice Act is that it improves their standing with American workers – specifically laborers in manufacturing – when they pass legislation that “looks out for the little guy.” It would be unfair to accuse the Democrats of being the only party concerned with incumbency, but some of the things they do to insure that they stay in office are rather unnecessary, and perhaps counterintuitive.
Continued . . .- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -