Politics Explained: Lack of Women and Diversity in the Cabinet

There has been quite an interesting response to President Obama’s most recent selections for filling top cabinet positions. Women, such as Hilary Clinton have stepped down from their cabinet positions and President Obama has nominated only men to fill the vacated positions. The world of political commentators are perplexed because this is the kind of thing that liberals would expect from a Republican President. In fact, during the Presidential campaign, Mitt Romney got a lot of grief from the liberal media because he admitted of having binders full of potential women to hire. The liberal media used this as a means of saying that he doesn’t really interact with women to the point where he has to have a special file to let him know who is out there.

But now, Obama has not even nominated a single woman to possibly take a place of one of the vacant cabinet positions even though there are qualified women who could have taken the job.

Politics Explained: Obama with his all male cabinet with no female nominees

Obama with his all male cabinet with no female nominees

The defense that the administration and liberal media have taken up is the one that Republicans usually use when accused of discriminating against women. The argument for all male nominations is that, “well, these were just the best people for the job. We don’t look at gender, we look at qualifications.” This logic makes certain women advocacy groups angry at the suggestion that there was not even a single woman as qualified as one of the men he has nominated.

Some of you may be still scratching your head and thinking, “why does it matter? Why is it such a bad thing that there aren’t any women? I mean if all those men really were the right choice, isn’t that better than promoting a less qualified women just for the fact that she’s a woman?”

This is about so much more than making the President look like a chauvinist, as many are now deeming him. You don’t put women in top cabinet positions just because you feel like you have to to be politically correct, but because diversity is extremely important when it comes to making important decisions. You want people from a variety of backgrounds and upbringings when considering policy. That keeps you from overlooking details that may not adversely affect people that look like the decision makers, but may very well hurt those not involved in the decision making process.

The opinions of women especially should be sought after to bring a different and much needed perspective in making such important policy decisions. This is why Mitt Romney had those binders; he knew that he wanted women, not just to look politically correct, but because he knew that including women on important decisions would make for better decisions. So he created a system for keeping track of qualified women so that when he had to bring in new members of the team, he could quickly and efficiently add the proper diversity to his counsels and committees.

So, is it disappointing that the President did not nominate any women? Yes. But not because the cabinet pictures would look better with them, but because decisions would have been better with them, and at such a critical point in American history, good decisions from the executive is what we need more than anything else.

Advertisements

Politics Explained: The Vice Presidential Debate

After a widely proclaimed debate win by Governor Romney last Wednesday, the country now turns to the Vice Presidential candidates to see if Ryan will do to Biden what Romney did to Obama.

Politics Explained: Joe Biden and Paul Ryan go head to head at VP Vice Presidential Debate

The Contenders for VP: Paul Ryan and Joe Biden

In the days leading up to this next debate – as you will notice before every major debate – the parties start praising their opponents. To Democrats this week, Ryan is the brilliant congressional economist who will be able to present a lot of convincing information. To Republicans this week, Biden is the smooth, cool, experienced politician who has been preparing for this moment for a long time. But why do this? Why talk up your opponent? Wouldn’t it be more effective to try and lower his self-esteem (as undignified as that may seem)?

This is because, both sides are trying to lower expectations. By doing so, it won’t be as bad if their guy goes down in flames. What would the conversation in politics this past week have been like if everyone was saying that Romney had no chance and that Obama was going to shine? We would be talking an awful lot about how that didn’t happen and how Obama wasn’t the man we thought he was. Instead, because of this rhetoric that he is out of practice, we just look and say, “well, I guess you’re right.” So each side is going to try and raise expectations of their opponents with the theory that, the more you lift the up, the farther and harder they’ll fall.

Politics Explained: Paul Ryan Political Cartoon

The Democrat view of Paul Ryan

But do you think that anyone actually believes the rhetoric? Of course not. Republicans have been salivating at this opportunity for Ryan to take on Biden since Romney first accidentally introduced Paul Ryan as the “future President of the United States,” at his announcement in Virginia. On the same token, Democrats are just dying to see what Joe “Cool” Biden will be able to do with this young radical from Wisconsin.

So what’s it going to be? How is this debate really going to look?

To start, I first recognize just how difficult it is to predict debate outcomes. A week ago, no one would have expected Romney to come away with the biggest debate win in modern US history. That being said, we can look at the contenders and see what they’re up against.

Let’s start with Paul Ryan: He’s smart – brilliant in fact. He was chosen by Romney not for political purposes, but because he is a man who could be president on day one and really is qualified. He was on the House budget committee and was a main author of the House budget which has come to be labeled by the left as “radical.” He’s been apart of many debates on that very budget, and it will most certainly be apart of the debate on Thursday.

Now Joe Biden: He’s experienced. This man has been in Congress for many years. He’s known for being smooth with his words and quick on his feet – even if that means a gaffe every once in a while. But even think about those gaffes. The man is so likable that he has always bounced back from those awkward moments looking as cool, calm, and collected as ever. He has experience in the Vice Presidency.

No matter what they may be saying this week, Republicans see Biden as a bumbling fool, and Democrats see Ryan as a radical rightest whose heart is three sizes too small.

Politics Explained: Ryan and Biden go head to head at (VP) Vice Presidential Debate

Ryan and Biden: Different messages with different strengths

This won’t be an easy win for anyone. Ryan is going to come strong, with lots of numbers and data. Biden will have already seen those numbers and be prepared with rebuttle. He’s going to use his past presidential debate experience to distract from the evidence presented by Ryan and deflect to the idea that Ryan is heartless. Ryan is going to get ticked off at this. And this is the point that will make and break the debate.

If Ryan can keep his cool and keep the debate focused on substance like Romney did last week, then you will hear MSNBC making more excuses for why Biden didn’t do all that great. But if Biden is successful in pushing Ryan’s buttons and gets him to lose his cool and lash out, then Romney will have some catch up to do in the next debates.

As much as either side would like to believe on the inside, this debate is not going to be as easily won for them as they thought.

I would like to hear what you have to say. Leave a comment on, and be sure to LIKE, this blog’s Facebook page. You can find it by clicking here. You can also follow me on Twitter (@PPLvI ) by clicking here.

Politics Explained: Romney and Obama’s Convention Speeches Compared

The national party conventions are the most prime opportunity for a candidate to make his/her case for the presidency. The national news networks are finally all tuned in and giving their undivided attention. For the first time, they have a national audience, and they, the candidates, get to set the agenda. This moment was very important for both the President and Governor Romney but for different reasons.

Politics explained: Romney vs. Obama

Different Conventions, Different Speeches, Similar Goals

President Obama needed to stand up and convince America that he deserves four more years. He needed to explain why his leadership, that we’ve all seen, will be good for another term and then go on to explain what he’d do with it.

Governor Romney on the other hand had the task of explaining why he, the man without four years of presidential experience, would be that much better than the current option. He needed to lay out his plan for America’s future and show that America is not currently on the right course.

We’ll start with looking at Romney’s speech since he gave his first, and part of Obama’s speech was in response to Romney’s.

In the most basic terms, Romney’s speech was a success. Something that I’ve been noticing about Romney recently is that he is making his case for the presidency by acting presidential. After being introduced, Romney walked in from the back of the hall. To many observers, it was very akin to the way in which the president enters the House of Representatives, from the back, just before delivering the State of the Union address. There was a lot of hand shaking, hugs to friends, and one slightly awkward moment when Romney had to ask a lady not to touch his face because he was afraid of her ruining his stage make-up (before you laugh about him wearing make up, remember it was stage make up that helped JFK win in the presidential debates against Nixon. The debates were televised for the first time, and Nixon refused to put on make up…JFK looked better).

Politics Explained: Romney at Convention

Romney delivering speech to RNC

Then once behind the podium, he spoke to his purpose. Remember, that purpose was to make his case for the presidency. He started by first making the case that people should be considering a change in leadership. He asked the country to really ask themselves, “are you better than you were 4 years ago?” He supplied evidence to the fact that they weren’t. After getting people to consider new leadership, he explained what that meant. He laid out a five point plan to economic and job recovery which included energy independence by 2020 and stronger trade relations abroad. He ended by expressing his love for America, and all that politician fluff.

Exactly one week later, Obama spoke to his party. His entrance was a lot different, instead of coming from the back of a well lit room, he came from back stage of a dark room under a spotlight to the tune of a Coldplay song. The Obama people are really good at theatrical drama and evoking the most emotional response from their audience. This is no exception.

Politics Explained: Obama at convention applauding supporters

Obama applauds supporters

The speech itself, again, should have been aimed at laying out his plan for his next term as a way of convincing people that he deserves more time. He started with an acknowledgement of the historic nature of this election. He then went on to attack the speeches given by the republicans, throwing in the word God at every opportunity, just in case people still remembered how the DNC almost removed all instances of God from their party platform. He then laid out a long list of democratic party principles. He said that they could add thousands of jobs in multiple areas, and the only thing that he needs in order to do that is our help.

So what do we learn from this? Well, we just get confirmation of what we already know. This is a fundamental difference, in my opinion, between the Romney campaign and Obama campaign. Romney speaks to the country as a whole and offers a plan to help the whole; Obama seeks to divide and conquer.

Romney Speaks to the NAACP

Romney Speaks to the NAACP

Another great example of Romney doing well what he did at the convention was during his speech to the NAACP. There is an organization which is made up almost entirely of Obama supporters, but Romney went to them anyway. He realized that if he is going to be President of the United States then he will be president of all Americans, not just Republicans. He went into that meeting with the NAACP, and gave a very similar speech to those he gives all over the country. He was even booed at one point for saying some unpopular things. But the thing is, Romney will not pander. He will not change his message because of the color of people’s skin or their social standing. He is to be a president of all Americans.

Politics explained: Obama campaigns with strategy of divide and conquer

Obama seeks to divide and conquer

But Obama knows that in a system of winner take all, he doesn’t need all of America to agree with him, heck he doesn’t even need half of America to agree with him. He just needs more people to agree with him than with Romney. And so how does he do it?  Obama’s strategy has been to divide the people then gather up enough groups to secure his victory and save the needy and oppressed, as he feels that he is doing. This is seen in his divisive rhetoric against the business class of the country. He rallies the poor and middle class around the idea that the rich Americans don’t really care about the country or people who are under them. He attacks the successful for the purpose of gaining the support of those who want a share of their profits.

That’s what he did at the convention. If you listen, you’ll hear that he was speaking directly to his base. He was preaching to the choir to get them to sing louder. This wasn’t a speech for the undecided voter, like Romney’s was. If it was, he would have given more concrete ideas, and not abstract hopes and dreams for the future.

I would like to hear what you have to say. Leave a comment on, and be sure to LIKE, this blog’s Facebook page. You can find it by clicking here. You can also follow me on Twitter (@PPLvI ) by clicking here.

Politics Explained: Which of all Parties is Right?

Every day, on my way home, I enjoy listening to the National Public Radio station (NPR). They, more than anyone else, are able to provide the most important domestic and world news in a very clear and concise way with little to no spin or bias. Just yesterday, as I was listening to NPR, something that was said struck me and caused me to think. A story was being delivered by a NPR reporter who has spent considerable time with President Obama. In the story, the reporter said, in essence:

 

Politics Explained: Obama Campaining

Obama has sincere belief that he is the answer

“The President is very frustrated by the fact that the opposition is successfully portraying him as a radical more interested in his own agenda than in the American people. In his mind, Paul Ryan is the true radical who is set to destroy America as we know it…”

My knee jerk reaction was one of disgust. “How can you, Mr. President, really think that Paul Ryan is going to destroy the country and that you are really who is best for the job?” After my political reflex wore off, I was still left wondering, “Does he sincerely believe that the opposition will ruin the country? If so, what does that mean for his opponents who, with all sincerity say the same about him? Who is right, and how are we to know it?” This almost started to sound to me like a question of faith.

Most social scientists will agree that a person’s beliefs and value system are most often acquired in the home during child hood. We as people are influenced by the people who surround us. If we grow up in a Republican home, we are often Republican. Democrats beget more Democrats. And why is that? If we hear something from a trust worthy source, we are more likely to take it on faith. What if we didn’t grow up in a political home? Well, there are also cases where people say something that they may not necessarily be convicted to enough that soon it becomes their core ideology. “Oh, so that’s why Obama actually believes he is good for the country,” you may be saying. Well, not so fast. Who’s to say that you aren’t the one that has been indoctrinated past the point of recognition to the point where you rally behind things you may not have otherwise even agreed with?

There will be some who say, “It doesn’t matter because in politics nothing gets done anyway, so all you’re really doing is voting for a face, a face that will harm the country just as much as the next guy.” I don’t agree with that. Chances are slim to none that the plans presented (even if they are not entirely fulfilled) will result in the same outcome. But if that’s the case, how are we to know which plan will produce the most positive (or at least the least negative results)? How are we to discern between those who actually have the right ideas for the country and those who only have fooled themselves into a false conviction?

My answer may be too complicated in its simplicity; open your mind. Honestly ask yourselves the question, “Why do I believe that this is right?… Why do I think socialized medicine is good for the country? Why do I think it is better for the nation to outlaw abortion? Why do I support higher taxes on the rich? Why do I want to cut regulations on business? What are the results of my preferred policy? Am I better off because of it?” This is the only way that we, as a nation, are going to be able to solve our problems. We must all take the time to ask ourselves these serious questions before we get too involved in politics. And as we ask ourselves these questions, don’t be content just regurgitating the talking points from your party leaders. Be open minded enough to go beyond that. Ask yourselves why there even is a debate. If your side was so clear and so right, why are people even fighting against that position? Do you think that you are just inherently smarter and less blinded by the craftiness of politicians than over 150 million other capable Americans? Unless you take the time to explore the issue, you can’t be sure of your own belief.

Now, I understand that this takes a lot of time and effort. I understand that if you are reading this, it’s likely because you simply don’t have the energy to devote to exploring every issue in depth. But that’s why this blogs like this exist, to inform. Read what I have to say and ask questions until the point where you feel that you are confident in your understanding of both sides of the issue.

Too often, people just brush politics aside because it is simply, “too partisan” and no one really cares about compromise. It’s true. There is a lot of waste simply because the system has evolved into one of good guys and bad guys. How scary is it to think that someone with a brilliant idea for improving America may be completely passed over and ignored because it is not coming from the party in control? What would our constitution have ended up like if we rejected the idea of separation of powers because the person who brought it up was from the wrong party? What about the Bill of Rights? I think you get the picture.

The truth of the matter is, a change in the way we do politics is going to be a slow change. In the current system, there is no room for political contenders to challenge their own beliefs. To do so would be to commit political suicide. That’s unfortunate, but it’s just the way it is. That, however, doesn’t always have to be the case. We can change things. We can make the government a place of grand ideas again. We can create an atmosphere in Washington that is conducive to healthy debate for a better tomorrow. But that’s only going to happen if we choose to care. That’s only going to happen if we choose to not simply accept what we are told by the leaders of the party we feel we should belong to. We need to take the things that are said and think about them. Really listen to what they have to say, listen to the other side, then decide.

You may decide after all of this that you still fall into the category of one of the parties. Great. I know I do. But I will never stop asking myself the question, why does the party think this is really helpful?

If you’ve made it to the end of this article, that means that you really do care about what’s going on. I commend that. Keep it up. Never be content with the way things are when you know that they could be better and allow me to help guide you as much as I can along the way.

I would like to hear what you have to say. Leave a comment on, and be sure to LIKE, this blog’s Facebook page. You can find it by clicking here. You can also follow me on Twitter (@PPLvI ) by clicking here.

Politics Explained: What picking Paul Ryan as VP says about Mitt Romney

I woke up very excited as I got a notification from my “Romney VP” smartphone app, telling me that Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan was selected as Mitt Romney’s running mate. The thing is, this pick explains much and speaks volumes to the character and future presidency of Mitt Romney, and they’re only good things.

Politics Explained: The Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan VP Pick

Politics Explained: What picking Paul Ryan says about Mitt Romney

Before we can understand too much about what this says about Mitt, we need some background on the pick himself, namely Paul Ryan.

Paul Ryan is an ideological leader of congressional republicans. As a member of the budget committee, he has presented bold and innovative ideas for balancing the budget and reigning in out-of-control government spending – ideas that I will be discussing in future posts. The most important thing to note, is that Paul Ryan is no passive voice in the government. Obama knows who this guy is and knows that he’s a threat.

So what does this say about Romney. It says for one that he’s serious. If you have ever heard someone say, “Romney just does things to get elected,” this should support the opposite. If Romney was worried solely about being elected, he  would have picked Condi Rice, an African-American woman. Or he would have picked Marco Rubio, a Latino from Florida. Or he would have picked someone with a more bland political record, someone who won’t draw much fire from the liberal media like Ryan already is. But no, he picks Ryan. And why? Because being elected for Romney is merely a means to an end. For Romney, the end result is putting America back on track. The goal is to make America unquestionably prosperous again.

Some critics are saying that this pick is political suicide and that it draws attention away from Obama’s first term. Nothing could be more wrong, and in fact, the reality is quite the opposite. This pick by Romney shines a bright spotlight on the failed policies of the last 4 years and will bring the economic issues that face our country to the forefront of public debate instead of having them swept aside by distractions from the Obama people.

This is also a testimonial to the fact that Romney has the great ability to surround himself with the best people. At Bain Capital, Romney built his company by surrounding himself with the best and brightest in the field, and it worked. He has shown how he can do that in his political career as well. He made his decision, not based on demographics or polls, but on merit. He found the brightest, most articulate and talented person who understands almost better than anyone else, just where this country is headed economically, and he put him on the team. Imagine what this will mean for the future White House Staff and Presidential cabinet? This means that he won’t look at these decisions with a political lens  trying to decide which appointment will make him most popular. He will judge people according to the content of their character and their merits instead of any other test.

Selecting Paul Ryan as VP was Romney’s first major presidential decision, and he passed with flying colors. We can expect more of this great leadership and decision making from Governor Romney if we elect him as President come November.

Politics Explained: America's comeback dream team

Politics Explained: Paul Ryan truly makes this a winning ticket for America

I would like to hear what you have to say. Leave a comment on, and be sure to LIKE, this blog’s Facebook page. You can find it by clicking here. You can also follow me on Twitter (@PPLvI ) by clicking here.

Politics Explained: Negative Ads and Presidential Debates

Politics Explained: Negative Ads and Presidential Debates

The Great Debate

As the presidential builds up to its Autumn climax, we are bombarded with negative political ads as well as accusations being flung back and forth by various cable news organizations. As strange as this may sound, I want to take a moment to recognize the importance of these negative ads in the political process and give you hope for a more productive and constructive debate in the fall.

The purpose of a negative ad, also known as an attack ad, is to discredit your opponent’s ability to fulfill their promises or ability to even effectively function in the office they are running for. An incumbent, meaning the guy who already has the job, tends to use less of these simply because he can use his own successful past in the office to prove that he should be reelected. The challenger however needs to not only prove that not only is he qualified for the job, but that he can do it a lot better than the other guy. In this sense, a series of ads focusing on the incumbents weakness seem to make sense.

In the current presidential race, there is a lot of mud being flung from both sides. Obama’s campaign is noted for criticizing the allegedly incredible amount of attack ads coming from the Romney campaign. The Romney camp’s only real retort is, “hey, we’re not the only ones.”

Something like over 90% of advertising, from both sides, is negative. This frustrates Americans. However, if Romney is going to prove to the American people that it is worth cutting out President Obama after only one term, he’s going to have to have proof. He’s got to convince the American people that they are not better off than they were 4 years ago and they won’t be any better 4 years from now if Obama is re-elected. Obama on the other hand is responding by fighting fire with fire. He constantly attacks Romney’s business record, in a way trying to convince America that, “sure things aren’t great right now, but it could be worse with that guy.” I could write a whole separate article about that very mindset, but I’ll move on.

This myriad of  negative advertising, especially from the Romney side, has left a bad taste in people’s mouths. They’re asking, “Okay, so Obama is bad. But what are you going to do? What can you bring to the table to make this any better?” To those people, I say, hold out a little longer. Your answers will come. By that I mean that the substantive talk about more specific policy will come as we get closer to November. Now as our 44th President loves to say, “let me be clear,” and say that Romney has come out with specific plans. Obama is already criticizing those plans as proof to their existence. You can go to http://www.mittromney.com to read those plans. They exist. But they will become more apparent and the talk of more media organizations in the near future. Why is that?

That is because right now, Mitt Romney is working hard to convince America that this is possible, that it is possible to remove Obama from the White House. Especially after a typically brutal primary campaign and republican infighting, most American’s figured that Obama had it in the bag and that there’s really no hope for change. Americans have felt that if they have to choose between two evils, they would rather choose a known evil. This is why Romney has been working to hard to make a case for not only his election, but Obama’s removal. And with every attack on Obama, there is a rebuttal and an attack in return. It’s a nasty war that is being fought on the TV screens of unsuspecting residents of swing states.

But don’t worry, there is a light at the end of the tunnel. That light is studio lights of red, white, and blue, lighting the stages that will hold the 2012 Presidential Debates. That is where the real progress will be made. As it stands now, we have the candidates and their supporters filling the air waves with accusations and attacks against their opponent. Every time, the accusation is supported by some sort of “fact.” But facts are a fickle thing since any number can be twisted to mean whatever you want. Don’t believe me? When the August jobs report comes out, just watch how the democrats use it as “proof” that Obama is succeeding and the republicans use the same report as undeniable “proof” that Obama has failed. Though slightly informative, this type of debate is extremely ineffective.

Politics Explained: Presidential Debate

Politics Explained: The ever important debate stage

On the debate stage, it becomes much more difficult to throw out some number or “fact” and have it be blindly accepted. Their opponent will be standing just feet away from them with their own “facts” which will also be examined and attacked. In such a manner we get closer to the heart and truth of the issue at hand. Yes it’s messy, yes sometimes it’s uncivilized, but it’s debate. This type of debate, without teleprompters and inspirational music in the background will finally show us what these candidates are made of.

At the debates, Romney will finally come out swinging and make his case for the presidency. He will remind us that it isn’t over ’till it’s over and that he is the man to replace Barack Obama and bring about the change that America needs. Obama is of course going to try and prove him wrong, but the only way he will be able to make a strong enough case is by running on his record. The American people are tired of excuses.

So the next time you hear an angry talk show host, or news anchor, or even candidate slinging mud to the other side, try to recognize its role in the process and remember that the debates aren’t far away.  We look forward to the debates, not because it’s another excuse for the candidates to yell at each other, but so that finally we can hear some actual substance that must be backed up by acceptable facts.

I would like to hear what you have to say. Leave a comment on, and be sure to LIKE, this blog’s Facebook page. You can find it by clicking here. You can also follow me on Twitter (@PPLvI ) by clicking here.

Politics Explained: The Batman Theater Shooting in Colorado

As you woke up this morning, the first thing you likely heard when you turned on the news was that there was a shooting in a pleasant, unsuspecting town in Colorado during a viewing of the highly anticipated new Batman movie. Being in Moscow, Russia, I was awake as the story broke, and have been following the developments closely. I have made some interesting observations which I would like to share.

Politics Explained: Batman Colorado Theater shooting

Politics Explained: Scene of the Crime

It was so sad to me how quickly this became a political issue. To quote someone who left a comment on the New York Times article on the issue, “this is not a time for politics, it is a time for mourning.” With that statement, I couldn’t agree more. What happened last night was horrible. We should be sending our thoughts and prayers to the families of the 12 dead and 50+ wounded (not to mention the rest of the audience which has been psychologically assaulted), instead of throwing around accusations with incomplete knowledge. To be quite honest with you, I’m going to have a tough time fully enjoying the movie, knowing that is exactly what these defenseless victims were trying to do at the moment of their untimely demise.

Gun control advocates jumped all over the issue from the very start. I believe that the gun control debate is one that should be brought up, and I will be writing about that later, but I think that there is something much deeper in the heart of the issue.

Politics Explained: Batman Theater Shooting in Colorado

Not so fast, Mr. Media

We can argue gun laws all day (and I have a feeling there will come a day when we will), but you have to ask yourself, how could a person do this in the first place. There are those who suggest that it is because the 24 year old shooter possibly listened to Rush Limbaugh who has been attacking this movie as being liberal propaganda. The thing is, there is no evidence yet speaking to the shooter’s motives. Anti-Rush Limbaugh people just think, guy had gun, republicans like guns, republicans listen to Rush Limbaugh, Rush Limbaugh hates Batman, therefore, this is Rush Limbaugh’s fault. I think that is completely ridiculous, but at the very least, we are getting away from the “he had a gun, therefore he wanted to use it” argument. The thing is, there is nothing we can definitively say until a full investigation has gone into this shooter’s background.

Politics Explained: Think of the children

Think of the Children

No matter what is found in the investigation, no matter what comes of the renewed gun control debate, one thing is certain, we need to better educate our children. We need to do better at teaching kids that violence is never the answer. I want to underline the fact that the primary place this education should be happening is in the home. Parents have a responsibility to raise their kids right. Unfortunately, not every kid has good parents, which is why we need to be providing this sort of education in the schools.

No matter how strict gun control laws become, guns will never disappear from our country, and this propensity for violence in our culture will not immediately vanish. Let’s take this moment to not only mourn for those who so tragically lost their lives in Colorado and think of the children.

I would like to hear what you have to say. Leave a comment on, and be sure to LIKE, this blog’s Facebook page. You can find it by clicking here. You can also follow me on Twitter (@PPLvI ) by clicking here.