Monday Matters #14

http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2008/may08/08-05-28.html
  In her column, Mrs. Schlafly presents a very open ended argument on the issuesof government spending revolving around legal and illegal immigrants. She notes how "today's low-wage immigrants and lower-wage illegals" simply don't earn enough because of their lack of American education to support themselves, and that "nearly half of immigrant households, 45 percent, are in or near poverty". This causes programs that support immigrants, who don't pay as great a sum in taxes, with taxpayer money from the rest of the coutry to arise. Such large-scale government spending is in part hurting the economy, but instead of taking solely one position, Schlafly argues that "walling immigrants off from government benefits once we've let them in is a fantasy" and that another solution must be found. Even though people "survived the Great Depression of the 1930s without a welfare state" and without social security and healthcare, such programs, she implies, are still essential and shouldn't be simply taken away, no matter how much they are damaging the economy. She leaves her argument open ended, offering each member of the audience to consider their own alternatives. Such a topic could be used for research that could be a continuation or a response to the argument, addressing such assumptions as that all immigrants earn low wages that she makes, or could focus on potential solutions, be it stricter immigration control, lower benefits for illegals, or educational reform that will allow immigrant children to earn higher wages in the future and not rest on the money of taxpayers.

Monday Matters #13

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2011-12-02/alabama-immigration-HB-56-religion-christians/51588034/1

In her column, Mallory McDuff, a professor at Warren Wilson College, notes that the recent HB 56 legislation in Alabama, an extremely strict anti-illegal immigration law that requires school to report possible illegal students and forbids the employment of, college education of, or property ownership or rent by illegal immigrants, only enlarges the state's record of shame. Even people raised in that state, she claims, "have a moral obligation to resist this legislation" as it is morally wrong and often results in racial profiling that would have been illegal otherwise. Her stance puts morality and faith in front of the problem of constant illegal immigration, and she implies that anti-illegal immigration, such as this one, can cross the line between national welfare and inhumanity. This is why the public has to resist and seek a more spiritual and moral path, so that such terrible things, such as "more than half the detainees [being] separated from family and children", with or without proper evidence and reason, at certain checkpoints, can be avoided, and the illegal immigration can be approached a different way. This kind of an issue is becoming more and more relevant today since in the past years, the country has actually not had enough effective anti-illegal immigration laws, and can be expanded into further research by monitoring issues with legal immigrants as well, an issue with personal meaning to me.

Monday Matters #12

From the three columns Steve Chapman has written lately on Obama's chances at re-election it is easy to discern that Chapman is not the type of person to pick sides. He presents the information on Obama objectively citing different resources such as members of congress, his Republican opposition, and political critics and gives it to the audience in a balanced manner, giving as much good information as bad. From the core, however, Chapman seems to support Obama because no matter which issues he addresses that seem to be prime reasons to mar his reputation, he still pulls out postivive elements from them, such as several economic reforms Obama pushed through as well as scrapping the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy in the army. However, being the realist that he is, Chapman notes that no matter how good of a person or a leader Obama really is, it is always hard to get reelected when the economy is at as bad a state as it is now, and with Obama's middle name changing slowly from 'Hussein' to 'Hoover', there is no better time to pull out of the presidential race than now. Chapman sees how overly critical society is of public figures in general and does his best to offer a moderate view by objectively analyzing the situation and offering a realistic way out.

Monday Matters #11

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-1009-chapman-20111009,0,7366395.column

Chicago Tribune's Steve Chapman once again discusses the Obama reelection issue, this time comparing it to Regan's presidency and the recession that had been going on during its first term. According to him, if one looks back, Obama still has a chance at getting reelected as long as the economy bounces back at least a noticeable bit. Towards the end of Regan's presidency, it did just that and he ended up winning 49 out of 50 states. The only problem is that not only is the economy in worse shape right now, but it also looks like it won't rebound back as well as Regan's did. Economists now are predicting barely any growth at all, and with only a year left to make any change (and that change, according to Chapman, being either out of reach or nonexistent) and no way to characterize the recession as something that was necessary--since inflation is still going up--Obama's chances aren't looking too great. The only thing that might save him is the fact that the Republicans look even less credible than he does, but that still won't make it an easy victory for Obama in any sense.

Monday Matters #10

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-chapman-obama-reelection,0,622512.column

Once again, Chicago Tribune's Steve Chapman discusses Obama's chances at reelection but this time, it isn't as much a question of will he be reelected or not; it's a question of "is it worth it?" The Republicans now have majorities in Congress, so even if Obama does get elected for a second term, he will, as Chapman says, be wishing for the good old days of 2011 when he didn't have to wrestle with the Senate and the House nearly as much. On top of that, since his approval rating is lower than ever and since many more will now not hesitate to contradict and criticize him, it would be best to hand the Demorcatic ticket off to someone who is more situationally suited for the role, a person such as Hillary Clinton. As Chapman notes, she would have to face the grueling task of getting the country out of a recession while Obama would just sit back, relax, and not have to worry about a thing. That point is valid, but knowing Obama, he won't simply hand over the nomination without a serious fight. One way or another, winning the nomination, according to Chapman, is only half the battle since, because of the losses the Democratic party is suffering due to the failing economy and high unemployment, winning against the Republicans will prove to be a serious challenge.

Monday Matters #9

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-0814-chapman-20110814,0,4936968.column

Recently, Obama's support and approval ratings have plummeted and he is being labeled as a weak president that is not capable of making the change that he promised during his 2008 campaign. However, according to Chicago Tribune's Steve Chapman, the biggest reason Obama is detested even more by those that had already detested him and is disliked by some that had supported him in the beginning is the struggling economy. Uncharacteristic of a 'weak' president, he made many firm decisions, such as 'scrapping' the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy against homosexuals in the military and the approval of the daring raid to kill bin Laden. Considering those actions as well as the aid he gave to the economy, there is ample reason to support Obama, but, as Chapman says, it is nearly impossible for a president to look strong in a weak economy, which has led to Obama being compared to Carter and being denounced for his lack of backbone in leading the country.

Monday Matters #8

http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2010/07/22/column-little-gun-control-would-be-good-america/

Rebecca Berg, who is a reporter, columnist, and editor in Missouri, recently went to study in the UK and provides several points to consider about how seriously the US takes gun control. After a mass-shooting incident in the UK, the people reacted by immediately pressuring the government for stricter gun control. She gives several statistics on how few deaths the UK experiences from firearms per year, but simply rules a recent scenario out of the statistics because it is simply 'uncommon', a serious blow to her credibility and argument. She does make a good argument, though, when she notes that at times, firearms actually infringe upon the Constitution by denying people the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The argument is strong, but she failed to mention how stricter gun control will affect law abiding citizens who use guns for self-defense against criminals--a significant percentage of the 'startling 9484' people killed in the US by firearms was criminals who had been shot by a law abiding citizen for self-defense.