Not So Mysterious Roma Children

     This week in Greece, a girl named Maria was removed from a Roma family, because there was suspicion that the child was only being used to collect insurance money. The child was blonde, while her "parents" were both Roma, and DNA has proved that the child is in fact not their daughter.      
      Later, in Ireland, 2 children were removed by the authorities from their respective families, because they were blonde haired and blue eyed while their families, who are immigrants, were definitely of Roma descent. Both families protested that the cases of their children and of Maria were not related whatsoever, and claimed that the children were in fact theirs. Today, DNA has proven them correct, and Irish authorities will return the kids to their families.
     This disturbs me greatly. While I understand that protecting children should be an utmost priority, there should be undeniable proof that the children are in danger and are not actually biologically part of the family. The Irish police should have checked, I don't know, DNA FIRST TO DETERMINE THE CHILDREN'S PARENTS BEFORE TAKING THEM AWAY. A representative of one of the families says that their child and her siblings are having nightmares about this experience, and that the parents have not been able to sleep since the child was taken. There is sometimes a time and a place to act first and ask questions later, but that time is not when the situation concerns removing children from their families who are in no eminent danger. The least the police could have done was to monitor the family to make sure they did not run away while checking the DNA. If the children seemed to be in danger or had been reported missing, then yes I would agree with the police. However, as neither of the above was true before the case, I cannot back the police on this.
     The thing that disturbs me the most about these cases is that they sound like they could easily happen here in the US, with other immigrant families who do not have the right paperwork because they just moved here. As long as the children do not seem to be in any danger, police should wait and collect an airtight argument for removal before actually removing the kids.

Washington Redskins Name Change

Recently, the NFL team Washington Redskins has come under fire for their controversial name, which is seen as derogatory or offensive by many people. Owner Dan Snyder has dug his heels in and  announced that he would never change the name. While I respect his right to name his team whatever he wants, I do think that that the pro- name change people have a point. The name has been compared  to other racial insults, and is considered offensive by many Native Americans. I personally do not have a problem with the name, but I know a few people who do, and if so many other people have a reasonable problem with it, I think that Snyder should consider changing the name. I view this issue like this: I don't have a problem with people using swear words in public, but I do think that sports teams at least should not be named after them.
Also, the NFL owners are holding a meeting soon to discuss this issue and to decide whether a name change is warranted or not, which is a step in the right direction. I hope that Synder seriously considers changing his team's name.

Congress and the Federal Shutdown

Recently, I learned that during a shutdown of the federal government, Congress, the ones who caused the shutdown in the first place, would still be paid, while thousands of federal employees would be furloughed until the end of the shutdown. This is completely unfair, and honestly makes no sense. Congress is getting paid the same salary, which is a ridiculous amount to begin with, while every other federal worker is either working without pay or is on a forced, unpaid vacation. The shutdown is the result of congress members not doing their jobs correctly. In our world, if business leaders refuse to come up with a way to work together, they get fired or at the very least lose some of their money. In Congress's case, however, they get to make everyone else stop what their doing and wait on a compromise.
Another problem I have with Congress, besides it not doing its job, is that they are making innocent people who had no part in this shutdown suffer. For example, one of the programs that was hit the hardest by the shutdown was the food stamp WIC, or Women, Infants, Children program, which provides additional assistance to pregnant women, new mothers, and children. The WIC part of the food stamp program will not receive any additional funding, so the families that are part of this program will have to somehow manage without additional assistance until the shutdown is over. Also, the annual Naval Academy-Air Force Academy football game may not be played, and the rest of the service academies' athletics may not be able to participate in any more intercollegiate competition until the shutdown ends, because upperclassmen are considered military personnel and are subject to the restrictions associated with the shutdown. Both of these are examples of innocent people, not involved at all in the shutdown, being punished for Congress's incompetence.
While I know that the shutdown is not the end of the world, and that different factions of Congress are more responsible for the shutdown than others, I do have a problem with Congress disconnecting itself from the shutdown so that the members are hardly affected by it. Congress caused this shutdown, and they should at least feel some of the consequences of their actions. If the Canadian parliament gets to the point where they cause a federal shutdown, parliament is dissolved, and a general election is held to replace or reelect the members. I feel that this is a good idea for the American Congress: it did not do its job, and therefore it should have to answer for its incompetence immediately.

Secession From States

Recently, I have heard a lot about counties in California and Oregon wanting to secede from their respective states and form a new state, the state of Jefferson. This was really interesting to me, because it's not everyday that a new state joins the US, and I decided to look up more about the issue. Apparently, many counties across the United States are discussing secession. In Colorado, counties have set dates to vote on whether to pursue secession or not, while in Northern California, 2 counties have officially voted to pursue secession from the state. Momentum is growing for counties in southern Oregon and western Maryland to do the same. While the secession attempts are almost certain to be rejected, as Congress and the state legislatures both have to approve the move, they do draw attention to the divide between conservative and liberal parts of some states. Almost all of the counties attempting secession are conservative and feel underrepresented and ignored by the far away liberal state governments. But, there is always the chance that Congress and the respective states do feel that the counties are right and that the states are too big to so their job correctly or that he counties are too disconnected from the rest the state, so the 51st state may not come from Puerto Rico or another place outside the country, but instead from inside the continental US. It is another example of how divided the US as a whole is. If individual states are feeling the split between liberal and conservative ideologies to the point where people are trying to form their own state, how far will the divide in the United States go?

Gun Control Laws

While I was watching The Daily Show with Jon Stewart the other night, I agreed very much with one of the segments about gun control and the Navy yard shooter. Stewart talked about, in a depressingly funny way, how the shooter had been discharged from the navy for gun incidents, and had called the police a month earlier saying that his microwave was talking to him. This shooter is the ultimate example of how poor our federal gun laws are. While I don't think that the federal government should have all the power with gun laws, I do think that there should be at least a cohesive national background check system. If nothing else, can we at least make the gun laws to where the man with 10 years of documented, serious mental illness, 2 prior gun incidents, and a phone call a month earlier to the police explaining how he can hear his microwave talking to him, cannot get a gun?
Here is the video:
http://m.comedycentral.com/tds_video.rbml?id=depressingly-familiar-post-tragedy-analysis   
* disclaimer- slight liberal bias present.

Man in the Red Bandana

Yesterday marked the 12th anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks. I have heard and read articles and documentaries of what happened from eyewitnesses' perspectives and experts who have tried to explain exactly what happened and why. In the midst of all of this, it is easy to just pay attention to the evil that happened that day, which is rightfully so: 9/11 was one of the worse days in our nation's history, and we should never, ever, forget what happened, as well as always remember the thousands of innocent lives that were taken that day. I came across a ESPN documentary on a former Boston College lacrosse player who was working in the South Tower that day. It goes on to describe his heroic actions that day, and how he sacrificed his life to save the lives of others. This man, Welles Crowther, exemplifies the good that is inside humanity; how even in the days when our world is collapsing around us and when there seems to be no hope left, the good in people can stand out and help others, no matter the sacrifice they have to make.This weekend, fans are asked to wear red bandanas to the Boston College- Central Florida football game in Orlando, in honor of Welles Crowther and in remembrance of those who died that fateful day.

Here is the link to the video: 
http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/colleges/post/_/id/1008/video-the-man-in-the-red-bandana

Baby Messiah Name Change

This week, we have been talking a lot about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Reading and hearing about the amendments and the original Constitution made me remember a news story from Tennessee about a judge forcibly changing a baby boy's name from Messiah to Martin, because, according to the judge, there is only one individual deserving of that title. I have several problems with this decision.This judge asserted her own religious beliefs into a very personal and private matter, the naming of one's child, which I think a judge should have had no say in to begin with. She went against the ideas and rights of Freedom of Speech and the Separation of church and state, both key parts of the Constitution, and at the same time, she violated the very basic rights of that child's parents. A parent should be able to name their children whatever they want, and the government should have no say whatsoever in it. This judge violated those parents' first amendment rights to freedom of speech by restricting what they could name their children, and the right to the government not pushing religious beliefs onto its citizens by basing her decision solely on her personal religious beliefs. While I may not agree with the parents' choice of a name, I believe that they should at least have that opportunity to name their child what they want, without any level of government interfering.