#5 Understanding: Affirmative Action

In honor of African-American History Month I wanted to write about a topic that is controversial, while also touching base on the importance of what this month brings. The Affirmative Action is defined as the policy favoring those who tend to suffer from discrimination especially in relation to employment or education. The pro side of the Affirmative Action is that it grants fair acceptance into institutions for those of different ethnicities, which could help raise the diversity in companies or colleges. Some people believe that many who are of different races are discriminated against and don't have the same opportunities that whites receive, regarding jobs or education. Others on the con side of the Affirmative Action argue about how the intention of the act actually creates more racism than it wards off; it allows those of different ethnicities to be favored and specialized over others. Many also argue that students or adults are being accepted into colleges or companies not based on merit, but primarily by the color of their skin. I have posted a very interesting video about students at Berkeley College in California who held a bake sale to get a point across about the Affirmative Action. One group of students baked a numerous range of baked goods and sold them at different prices. White students who wanted to purchase a pastry had to pay two dollars, Latino students who wanted to purchase a baked good only had to pay one dollar. As you can see these set of students were on the con side of the Affirmative Action with the reasoning that while it has the intention of creating an equal balance, it actually creates the opposite. Another group of students that held a bake sale sold their baked goods for free, demonstrating their beliefs on the pro side of the Affirmative Action, and how it generates equality. Through this video, one can receive a visual of unique illustrations of how two sides perceive this political topic.

Understanding this debated topic sociologically, we can see how it affects people. Many people are on the pro side of this act because they feel as though some races have been extremely discriminated against in U.S. history by whites. Therefore, they believe that we now have the responsibility to "make up" to those who were discriminated against and give them a more equal shot at freedom. When talking about discrimination in the past not only are we talking about slavery, but we can also refer to the Jim Crow laws that pretty much took any level of freedom away from the African Americans after the Civil War. Whites did not let them drink out of the same water fountain, they forced them to sit on the back of the bus, and they couldn't even shake a white woman's hand. Many feel as though the horrific events that took place in America's past must be evened out through this act. The guilt may be prevalent because some of those who were discriminated against are now in the lower income classes of society. Lots of people feel as though whites are one of the main causes of poverty of African Americans. However, now let's take a look at the con side of this policy. Many on this side of the argument believe that it should not be enacted because it only creates more discrimination. The key word is favoring. Favoring a race that does not include whites for beneficial reasons can be considered the exact same thing as discrimination. You are now just favoring Latinos over caucasians, by still creating an unequal playing field. Another reasoning on this side of the policy is that people will now be accepted into jobs and colleges based on their skin color and not by merit. Those who work hard, may not be accepted because someone of a different skin color, but lower GPA, got in. Many also feel as though this policy can lead to laziness. Those who qualify for exceptions may then aim for lower grades and not put as much effort into school or work because they know they have an express train to success. Those who are honored in Black History Month are partly regarded because of their break in society due to their skin color, but also because they had the power to prove that they were more than that.

#4 Understanding: CVS vs. Cigarettes

For this weeks post I've decided to take a break from the popular political debates and talk about an issue that may be hidden from public eye. I came across this article that talked about how CVS will stop selling cigarettes and other tobacco related items by October, 2014. This out of the blue declaration have got many concerned, mostly because now consumers will have one less drugstore to buy cigarettes from! What caused this sudden action?  CVS has decided to take a step towards providing better health care. As many know, CVS has MinuteClinics that supply vaccinations to people and helps with minor illnesses. By having cigarettes in the store it sends off a hypocritical vibe to the public. Get the flu vaccination and other preventive medicines in our MinuteClinic, but don't forget to pick up our tobacco products on the way out! Such signals keep the direction of this drug store company at stagnant. The ideal goal of CVS is for other related companies to emulate their actions and take the same initiative to stop selling cigarettes. The executive vice president and chief medical officer of CVS understands, "that the average person will just find somewhere else to buy cigarettes," but also understands their prescience of climbing in a direction of promoting health care by limiting the products of cigarettes, which can lower the number of smokers. By limiting the access to lethal products, it can ultimately lead to a decrease of premature deaths. Many may be thinking that if CVS stops selling cigarettes then their sales will decrease, right? Well CVS realizes this and hopes that their future decrease in revenue will be balanced through a newly created "smoking cessation program". This program, created by the CVS company, has a goal to get Americans to stop smoking, which they will market towards insurance plans whom would pay for this health program.

Now, lets put on our sociological lenses and see if we can find the core problems that arise from this. One of the most obvious controversial red flag is waving; rights! Where are the rights for the citizens of America? Many look at this and see their privileges being taken away; one less available option to purchase tobacco products. The many common questions are, "Why should companies or the government decide if I should smoke or not?" "Why can't I make that decision on my own?" and "I should be able to make the choice of if I want to damage my own health." Another way to look at it from a rights perspective would be from the views of those against the selling of cigarettes. Many times people are smoking in front of other people because it's a "free country", which can cause secondhand smoke and be a factor in the limitation of citizen's rights for those against the production of tobacco products. A person's health can be affected when they haven't consented to it. As you can see there are two different perceptions of where rights stand between citizens. Through this decision you can also see CVS developing as a company. CVS took a huge risk in deciding to not sell tobacco products in order to promote a health awareness title for their company. However,  if we take a closer look we can also infer that if CVS knew that ceasing to sell tobacco products would result in a major economic loss for the company, they probably wouldn't have taken the jump. Which makes you question if it was an economic step or a health awareness step. Their sale revenue from their tobacco products must have been low, or at least low enough to know that their company wouldn't sink big time. At the end of the day a company wants to make money, and they won't take a step to helping others if they didn't benefit from it too.

#3 Understanding: "ObamaCare"

With my second topic comes a lot of confusion. Health care is not a simple topic that can be understood easily. Even if you ask most adults I'm sure many of them are not entirely comprehensive of the many intricate details that comes with this topic. I am in no way close to understanding this complexity and know it will be a long time until I finally do, but with a little help I can begin to grasp the broad understandings of what it entails. This video by Kahn Academy helps give a better representation of "ObamaCare," also known as, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This video covers the four sub topics of Health Care which helps break down what the policy is and how you can benefit, or not, by it. The first of the four sub topics, is individual mandate, which talks about how you either have to get the health insurance or pay a tax. Those who aren't paying insurance at the moment and are receiving care at the emergency room are adding to the bill of those who are already paying insurance because they have to be treated. When the mandatory tax becomes issued out, those who don't have health care and will choose not to receive it, will be paying the tax which, essentially, is supposed to compromise for the health care they are already receiving. The second sub topic includes pre- existing conditions. In this category insurers will charge someone who is healthy and someone who is not, located in the same place, the same price. Thirdly, the insurance exchanges category will potentially make clear the type of insurance that one is advertising and the policies within it for the purchasing customer. Lastly, the final sub topic includes subsidies. This will increase medical costs for those with larger incomes to make those with lower incomes able to afford this health care plan. This video is a broad overview of the very complex health care act that helps one who is blurred on this topic, including me, understand the basic background of it.

< PPACA or "Obamacare": Basic overview of what is sometimes referred to as "Obamacare"

Now, looking through this topic with a sociological lens we can see where problems can occur. For starters one of the many debated parts of the policy lays in the first sub topic, which is if people should be forced to receive health care. Should people be required to pay and be given health care? Does this go against individual rights? If America is about equality and giving equal rights, then I agree that everyone should be given equal health care. But it's not easy to distribute something as costly as that, the manor in which such a thing is prosecuted is not simple. In the pre-existing conditions sub topic it can be looked at as something similar to a flat tax. Someone who is sick and someone who is healthy can, essentially, pay the same health insurance without the cost increasing for someone who is ill. With equal pay, both can benefit. A person with an illness will not have to pay increased medical revenues and can pay the same as someone who is healthy. This goes along the lines of natural rights and the idea that everyone should be treated equally under the law. Why should someone receiving health care be given a higher price because they had or have the misfortune of experiencing an illness, and how will this increased cost for health care benefit them? Another controversy that is debated is held in the final sub topic. Should those who can well afford medical care have to pay extra for those who can't? Many would state that they work hard for their money and shouldn't have to be taxed more just because they make more. To many it does not necessarily seem fair, and it almost leads into what we have discussed in class regarding the idea of sharing the cost. In this case we would be socializing health care. Do we help pay for the well being of others? As a mostly capitalistic country a shift in this nature would lead to mixed opinions and views. We also have the concept that well it's my money, I worked hard for it, I want to spend it on my me and my family and I don't want my money paying for someone else when it could have been spent on other things that would have benefitted my family and I. Should the well being of a community override the individual? Should the individual pay in regard to the idea that the fortunate should help the unfortunate? Or should the rights of an individual decide where their money is going when paying for a policy? The difficult development of this act can, in a way, be noticed as a shift in form of government, which leave many unhappy of where the structures of the American society is going. As one can clearly see, this policy has the goal of goodness for all, but the implementing of it can be difficult, intricate, and quite controversial.

#2 Understanding: The Gun Control Debate

On my first topic of politics I wanted to incorporate a debate that has been on the hot seat for many years now, one of the most heated political controversies that just seems to not want to be resolved. The Gun Debate. This heated conflict has spread throughout the country, with polar opinions on both political parties. The article that I have chosen to read on gun control stresses the high disagreement between parties. The republican view on this topic is that there should be lesser laws on gun control and no background checks for private gun sales. On the other hand, democrats are in support of stronger gun laws that make purchasing guns more difficult. In the article, both parties are taking steps to advocate their different points of view, and to make sure their voices are heard. An example of such took place in Washington State where pro gun control supporters gathered 225,000 signatures that could win a vote which would mandate background checks for private gun sales. Conversely, those in support of the second amendment created groups and campaigns that would fight government involvement in gun sales. However, after the tragic shooting that took place in Newtown Connecticut, gun control supporters are showing their top game in order to pass a bill that could increase gun restrictions. Years before the event, gun control supporters were fighting for a far off goal, but since the shooting they have recharged their opinions and regained their passion for fighting. After the shooting, evident changes were made in the states of Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware, and New York that allowed thorough background checks when applying for a gun. In other states, changes in gun legislation were made restricting gun possession of the mentally ill. However, these changes were moderate at best, leaving the nation split. It seems like when one party takes one step, the other makes a point to go two steps further.

Why is it that this is a continual debate that never ceases to become resolved? Why are these two parties so stubborn in their opinions that they can't compromise? Through a sociological perspective the answer lies in our past. If we look prior to the American Revolution we can see how the oppression presented through the government of a British monarchy lead to the amendment of the right to bear arms. Unfair taxation and monopolies consumed the colonists. Because of this difference in power between the colonists and Great Britain, the ultimate quest was to make sure that most citizens held inalienable rights that would allow them to act freely. After the American Revolution the people wanted to create a fair and balanced government, thus, drafting the Constitution and later adding the Bill of Rights. In the Bill of Rights they put in one of the most controversial amendments. The colonists added the second amendment, the right to bear arms, because of their lack of protection previous to the revolution. The British government took away the colonists rights to bear arms, because they didn't want an uprising to occur. Therefore, in our Bill of Rights, the right to own a gun was included because not only were our rights to own a gun previously striped, but at the time there was no police department to protect the colonists against crime. There was no other form of protection, besides allowing citizens to own guns. In the 238 years since the revolution we have gained a stronger army, a police force, and many other forms of protection. Thus, the question of why people still need to hold the possession of a gun is debated. Our own history is what led to the reoccurring debate on gun control, which makes it difficult to balance the individual rights to bear arms versus protecting the public.

#1 Intro to Understanding Politics

Many are scared when they hear the word, "politics". It may be because of the strong opinions held in each major political issue that one is scared to get involved. However, politics surround our daily lives and in order to stop fearing this seemingly complex topic, one must face it. That is why I chose politics as my blog subject, because I want to better understand this topic and all that it entails. By taking on this abstract topic, I can begin to learn more about it and all of its incredibly broad features. Sociology is studying someone and trying to uncover the laws of life altogether. While, political science deals with the government organization of society. Sociology and politics are interrelated in a sense that sociology studies how the state is providing for the people and their values, while understanding how people live as a whole.