Are More Guns the Answer?

 The search for sources to use in a campus gun control proposal led to a Newsweek article written by Suzanne Smalley on college violence and Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. Despite attempts over the past few years to stop Virginia Tech-style massacres, there was an incident at Northern Illinois University. Fifteen students were wounded and five were killed in addition to the shooter himself, underscoring the vulnerability of students and faculty in college. “Concealed Carry” aimed to change that by pushing legislation to allow students to carry licensed, concealed weapons. In the column, Suzanne presents the non-profit’s viewpoint in an interview with W. Scott Lewis, one of its board members and spokesman.  

Smalley paraphrased Lewis’ position on concealed carry laws as he used universities in Colorado and Utah as examples where the most lenient policies saw no incidents of violence. She then started the interview, asking Lewis about the benefits of licensed carriers on campus. He noted flaws in campus police’s response to class shootings and stressed the importance of someone being able to “mitigate” the situation the moment it starts. Smalley then asked for his answer to a Virginia Tech shooting victim’s opposition to concealed carry proposals because of students’ ages and use of alcohol. He countered, noting that the purpose of the law would be to allow people who already meet the requirements for a concealed license would be able to carry on campus, instead of those that are irresponsible and reckless. This is important because it gets to one of the main points of opposition and addressed its concerns, as well as clarifying the intention of the proposal. Although there is an assumption that everyone eligible to attain a license is emotionally and mentally sound, those that do are trained and prepared to handle weapons responsibly. The real question is whether or not more people just having guns is enough.

http://www.newsweek.com/2008/02/14/more-guns-on-campus.html

The Case Against Tax Cuts

The discussion in this week’s class turned to proposals. Proposals define a problem and its causes, present a step-by-step plan to address it, and convince the audience that the devised plan is the best solution. An article that used these elements effectively is James Kwak’s open letter to President Obama about the looming debate over whether or not to extending the “Bush Tax Cuts.” He starts by defining the expiring tax cut policy as benefiting the rich over the middle class and emphasizes its effects, even pleading with the President in his introduction. 

To further his argument, he analyzed the problem, citing how the top quintile of the population will receive over 65% of the benefit from the policy. He also weighed the policy’s effects on economic growth and the federal deficit. He then linked the deficit problem to the government’s perception on how to deal with Social Security and Medicare. Kwak laid out a detailed plan (in the form of a speech) for the president to take a position against extending the policy, and an explanation of how it actually benefits the middle class.

Kwak does an analysis of the costs and benefits of letting the tax cuts sunset, conceding that the middle class would lose an estimated $880 in returns. However, the plan would also create an estimated $3.7 trillion reduction in projected national debt. In addition, it would cripple the argument to make substantial cuts to Medicare and Social Security, which overwhelmingly help the middle class over the wealthy. The presidential speech example serves as the conclusion of the proposal. The closing argument looks to the future and takes a decisive tone to protect the social safety net, as well as tackle the country’s deficit and disparity problems now instead of forcing the coming generations to pay for them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-kwak/obama-bush-tax-cuts-compromise-_b_783356.html

Playing Both Sides in the War Against Obesity

There was an interesting article this week about the Federal Government’s role in an anti-obesity campaign while simultaneously working with corporations to sell high-fat, high-calorie dairy products to the American people. The article began with Domino’s Pizza and its slumping sales, as well as its sub-par reputation last year. Domino’s was able to kick-start a new marketing campaign with the help of a corporation called Dairy Management, after the company was panned for having some of the “worst tasting pies.” One could argue that the move was justifiable, given the need for businesses to thrive in a fragile economy, as well as benefit to consumers. The partnership was wildly successful, as consumers favored the heavier cheese pizza, restoring the company’s reputation and elevating sales to double digits. Dairy Management was created by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and was effectively able to not only make Domino’s pizza more attractive, but also sell cheese as a health benefit. Federal warnings about saturated fat progressively turned much of the population to low-fat milk and away from whole milk and other dairy products. In the article, the Department of Agriculture stated that decreased milk consumption across the U.S. made cheese an alternative, important source of calcium.

Problems with this argument come up with analysis of Domino’s new products, as well as the government’s interests in the dairy industry. For starters, each slice of Domino’s new pizza has two thirds of daily intake of saturated fat, and increases risk of heart disease. The Department of Agriculture leads the national anti-obesity campaign, which discourages eating large amounts of saturated fat and calories, like those in Domino’s Dairy Management-engineered products. The government created Dairy Management to support the dairy industry through marketing, and encouraged increased consumption of milk and cheese products as a means of weight loss. However, despite suggesting cheese as an important source of calcium, Dept. of Agriculture conceded that it is high in saturated fat. Also, a 2004 study by Jean Harvey-Berino, who chairs the Department of Nutrition and Food Sciences at the University of Vermont, found that the calcium increase from these products yielded no evidence of weight loss. All things considered, the joint venture gave Domino’s a crucial boost in the worst economic environment since the 1930’s, failed to warn consumers about the risks of its products. The campaign is uninformative at best and dishonest at its worst.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/11/07/1818826/watch-your-weight-and-pass-the.html