Truth is elusive

Are gangs able to operate in urban areas despite the community and leaders trying to eliminate them because the same people in the community don't want to identify or even admit that their own relatives and friends are gang members?

Is it that many people don't want to admit that it is their children, relatives and friends that are the problem?

In nearly every aspect of daily life, Americans seem to be infatuated with the minority and underdog. Gay rights are a daily news item yet the LGBT community makes up between 5-10% of the population depending on the study or poll. The Affordable Healthcare Bill was enacted to help 30-40 million people without insurance but has a negative effect on the remaining 300 million people through more taxation and higher costs. The Chicago Cubs are a beloved baseball team even though they haven't won in over 100 years. Even in our government where Senate rules allow one senator to shut down the working of the other 99. I am sure all of you can name many more examples.

So why is the US always cheering for the underdog and has such great concern for the minority in nearly every situation?

There are many places and services in the federal government that are being shut down due to not having the personnel to operate facilities. This is reasonable because of the federal shutdown. (Not arguing if the shutdown is reasonable). There also seems to be some things being shutdown simply to annoy the general public. Why is it necessary to shut down roadside observation parking areas in some national parks that are free to enter? This is being done at the Grand Canyon and in the Great Smoky Mountain National Park that I have heard so far. These are unmanned parking/scenic observation areas along roads that are remaining open. They are also closing down hiking trails which may make some sense because there would not be rescue workers if something happens but people hike at their own risk at all times.

So is it really necessary to close parking lots or are they doing to put anger the public so they will put pressure on Congress?

American (individually and collectively) are easily offended. There are people that are offended by words (N-word). There are people offended by symbols (Confederate flag, Swastika, gang symbols). There are people offended by religion and those offended by people of different religions. There are even people offended because other people are offended (political correctness, race card). Even as a country, we are offended by what others do. An example is Condoleezza Rice statement: Russian asylum for Snowden is a "slap in the face" to U.S.

Are Americans overly sensitive and easily offended or is this a universal trait which happens in other countries just as often?

I understand the original protests last year being called Justice for Trayvon because there was no trial to present the facts. Now there has been a trial and Zimmerman was found not guilty based on the evidence. The current protests seem less like "Justice for Trayvon" and more like Revenge for Trayvon.

Now that Zimmerman has been found not guilty by the jury will the Justice Department attempt to charge him with violating Martin's civil liberties or will they allow the verdict of the jury to be the final word on this case?

Many leaders of large urban areas with strict gun laws blame those outside the city for "importing guns" into their cities. Why? Isn't it the youth of the cities that are the gang members shooting people? Shouldn't the focus be on raising their children to respect the law and other people instead of blaming other areas or the guns?

It is often said that any one making more than $250k need to pay their "fair share" of federal income taxes. How much is their fair share? What is the "fair share" for the 40+% of people who pay no federal income tax? Please explain the "fair share" concept.

There have been an increasing number of towns that have made saggy pants illegal because this is "indecent". How is this different from women who run around with just a sports bra on? Aren't they both underwear?

The proposed assault weapons bill bans specific weapons from being owned by individuals with the exceptions of military, law enforcement and retired law enforcement.

The argument by those supporting this bill is that people do not need this type of weapon to protect themselves. Joe Biden even said that a person only needs a shotgun for protection.

If these are not needed for protection, why should there be an exception for law enforcement and retired law enforcement in particular? What situations exist for these exempt groups that entitles them to a greater degree of protection than any other individual?

One of the new executive orders by President Obama would "Address legal barriers in health laws that bar some states from making available information about people who are prohibited from having guns." I understand this as a way to bypass the doctor - patient confidentiality.

Could this cause some people who need mental health care to not seek help because they would be ineligible to own a gun in the future?

If not, why couldn't there be a system for allowing potential gun purchasers at gun shows or on the internet be required to get pre-approved background checks?

They all seem to be cross-functional. Many people have more than one of these and some people have all of them. Does it make sense to have all of them? Or which combination gets a good range of functions.

but have little to say about MSNBC?

Is it Fox News' slogan of "Fair and Balanced" or is a belief that MSNBC is unbiased?

Consider these ideas:

1. Most urban people are liberal while most rural people are conservative.

2. Most environmental ideas are an attempt to make things like it was in the 1800s prior to the industrial revolution. Liberals claim conservatives want to make the US like the 1800s.

3. Rednecks are the ultimate environmentalists. They put all the old junk in their front yards and pull pieces off the repair other items. This is the ultimate in recycling. Urban people send their old junk to the landfill.

4. Urban people cut down trees and tear up grass to build malls and building. Rural people grow plants for a living.

based solely on a promise of "Hope and Change". Obama gave no detail four years ago and has given little detail now. Even the Health Care Bill was not explained to anyone prior to it being passed. Why is it so much more important to have details now?

The government gives out projections or statistics on a regular basis and many people accept and repeat these numbers without questioning their accuracy. Later they revise the projections with much less fanfare and few seem to notice the changes. The statistics they announce often are based on descriptions or definitions that are not those most people would consider with the terminology used to make the numbers look more dramatic.

Why do people accept government information readily without questioning how those numbers are determined?

A society without racism would see people as individuals with individual talents, strengths and weaknesses without regards to race in every aspect of life. How do organizations or events that promote or cater to a particular race affect a society trying to eliminate racism?

"Surely we can give everyone in this country a fair chance at that great American dream"?