After reading this article about the senseless Navy Yard shooting, I have several emotions and thoughts running through my veins.

The first emotion that I feel is an overwhelming sense of anger. I feel anger for several reasons. First of all, I feel anger that the security was not stronger at the Navy Yard. There is no excuse for there not to be greater security. The excuse that was given for there not being the usual number of security guards was because, they needed to spend less money due to government cutbacks. Clearly, we do have a spending problem in this country that we need to get under control, so thinking about cutbacks is a good mindset to have. However, given the unbelievable amount of money that the government wastes on a regular basis, could not they save money by cutting back on some of the rampant wasteful spending rather then putting lives at risk by decreasing security? Especially because this world is becoming increasingly dangerous and there are more lunatics out there than ever before. I guess that would make to much sense for the folks in Washington.

     Secondly, I was angry that this psycho still had security clearance. That is insane. This guy was clearly unstable. First, he had an incident at an airport and was almost put on a no fly list because he would not calm down. Also he was hearing voices in the walls, ceiling and floor. This guy had serious mental problems, and how he slipped through the cracks is beyond me.

   Reading this article, also made me think hard. Sadly, these unthinkable acts by lunatics are occurring at an alarming rate. From Sandy Hook, to the Aurora movie theatre and even all the way back to the Virginia Tech shooting, these tragedies should not be happening. So, whenever something this horrible happens, it makes me stop and think about the gun control debate.

I am an advocate of gun rights, responsible people should be able to buy a gun if they so choose. However, I see no problem with making people who want to buy a gun go through a background check. Also, we need to invest more money in mental health research. Maybe if those steps had been taken, this tragedy, along with many others, could have been prevented.

                                          I have a lot in common with John Stuart Mill. Not only do I share and applaud his view that blacks are not inferior to whites, but I also believe that some people are not meant to be governed by a Democracy.  I wrote about this very same concept for the rough draft of my first essay.

   This concept of Democracy has been a great concept ever since that masterful document known as the Constitution was drafted in that Summer of 1776. In my opinion, the Constitution is the best piece of writing in American history. That one document has guided our democracy for more then 200 years.

  Democracy is the best type of government in the world. It provides freedom, rights and the ability for anyone to live the American dream. However, some people and countries do not want to live in a democracy. The Middle East is a great example of this

   Even though it may seem logical to us that Democracy is the best type of government, we have to stop trying to enforce a Democracy on other people and other countries. Let people govern themselves.

                                                          THE END OF LOSER LIBERALISM
                                                              MAKING MARKETS PROGRESSIVE
                                                                             BY Dean Baker

(1?.Money does not fall up. Yet the United States has experienced a massive upward redistribution of income over the last three decades, leaving the bulk of the workforce with little to show for the economic growth since 1980. (2). "This upward redistribution was not not the result of the working of the market. Rather, it was the result of deliberate policy, most of which had the support of the leadership of both the Republican and Democratic parties"(Baker,1) (3). Few, people, especially those in important positions, know the cause of this upward redistribution.( 4). "People tend not to see the dark side of politics.

During the first few days of class, our discussion centered around two philosophers named Adam Smith  and Bernard Mandeville.    Adam Smith published a book called "The Theory of Moral Sentiments." I found that book interesting but, in order to gain as much knowledge as I could about Adam Smith, I read excerpts from another one of his famous works called "The Wealth of Nations." I really connected with this piece writing. One of the main themes in this book is Adam Smith's belief in competition in the free market leading to economic growth and prosperity. One quote by Smith that was in "The Wealth of Nations" was "wherever there is great prosperity, there is great inequality" Let me explain myself. This quote may be construed by some to be an awful, hateful quote, that may be disrespectful to the poor. However, I do not think that is what Smith meant. What he was trying to say is that capitalism and the free market help bring about economic growth. With that said, sometimes in a free market, capitalist society, there will be a varying degrees of wealth among people. You earn your success and fortune in a free-market, capitalist society, it is not handed to you. That is similar to the belief that most  Republicans of today hold.

               Bernard Mandeville wanted economic growth and prosperity as well, but he believed that government needs to play a bigger role in "assuring" economic growth.
      Fast forward to the 2012 Presidential election and, when you get down to the core of it all, regardless of what some people might say,  that philosophical difference of how much government should dictate was the main issue.
                 Romney, Republican candidate was an advocate of small government and a more free-market economy, just as Smith was. On the other hand, Obama was in favor of a bigger government, a good example would be the passage of the Affordable Care Act, and more government assurances, just as Mandeville was in some cases.
                 Who new that in hundreds of years the core political philosophies, that, to this day, divide people,for the most part, really have not changed.