Concealed weapons and heath care reform were top of mind for Wednesday’s American Morning audience. The majority were in favor of allowing those with weapons permits to cross state lines without penalty.

• Dave: I am A retired Police Officer. I don't even own a handgun any more, but I have a permit to carry, and just think that If I want to carry again, I can. I choose not to, but that choice if I have complied with the law should be mine, not just a national blanket NO you can't. Our cities have a track record for violence. Our officials have saw fit to some extent to allow that to happen. Now they are crying because people are starting to realize that the Police and Government isn't going to protect them. Criminals don't bat an eye about using violence. Law abiding citizens weigh the consequences of their actions. Defending one self is a natural instinct. Govt Bow out.
• Gordon: You guys missed the point in your story about the proposed concealed carry law in the Senate. Your story was about buying and owning guns. That is far different from having a concealed carry permit. How many CC gun owners have committed violent crimes. Not at Virginia Tech! Since Vermont does not have a CC permit law, would not that disqualify a Vermont resident from carrying in NYC, since the new law would require a permit in the state of residence? The Brady bill fro buying a hand gun didn't work! Concealed Carry background checks does work!
• Shayne: YES YES YES i think it is a good idea for citizens that have a weapons permit to carry them in any state!! The government is really good at taking away our rights; it would be nice to reward the GOOD Americans for once.
• Monte: the question of concealed weapons becomes one of "what can you do with it if you feel threatened? you cannot shoot somebody with it, regulation on deadly force should be taught to every gun owner. I feel that people who choose to carry a concealed weapon often get more aggressive in their behavior and feel they can pull the gun out anytime they want. that is not true! threatening people with a gun is a serious crime. people need to really understand the laws on gun use against other people.
• Dianne: I see no harm in licensed concealed gun owners carrying the weapon from state to state. As long as they also carry affidavits from at least five (5) different psychiatrist, confirming their sanity and common sense.

Where do you stand on this controversial issue? Are “illegal” guns responsible for the crime in America?

FULL POST

Editor's Note: American Morning's Tuesday audience was filled with political interviews and opinions on health care reform. Debate continued over who should pay for health care, with mixed opinion on taxing the “rich.”

Health care – Against Taxing the Rich

• Louise: We were dirt poor. We got a job, worked and earned and saved for what we have. We did not depend on others to work and GIVE TO us. Now you and Obama want me to give what we EARNED to you!!!!!
• Jessica: I speak for others like me in the silent minority of the top 1% earners. I believe strongly in health care reform and many other social programs. I voted for President Obama. I don't mind paying more taxes to help others less fortunate. But no one ever mentions that many of us have established lifestyles based on our high hard earned income. If I could sell my home and live in a smaller one to help others, I would, but right now most of us in the top 1% have lost a respectively larger percentage of our liquid assets and net worth, our homes are under water, our incomes are down and our expenses (mortgages, health insurance premiums, college tuitions not eligible for financial aid) are the same...you can't get blood from a stone – even a large one.
• Ken: There are many options to pay for health care: cut defense spending 10%, limit farm aid to 50k per yr farmers not millionaires, roll the taxes back to pre Reagan which was a 60% rate for incomes above 250k and 90% for millionaires and billionaires. Eliminate NASA trips to Mars and the moon. I never heard any whining about taxes pre Reagan, now 39% seems too unbearable to the rich. Give me a break.

For Taxing the Rich

• Roger: Yes the rich should pay more (their fair share for a change). When you factor in that Social Security tax stops at less than $100K and all of the deductions available, the effective tax rate for most high income earners is less than the middle class. I would like to see some reports on the effective rates of the rich rather than the posted rate on the IRS website.
• Victor: Somebody has to pay for health care if not the rich, it’s the poor. We know the rich run this country so guess who will pay?
• Bill: IF THE BENEFIT IS TO BE SPREAD OVER THE WHOLE POPULATION,THE PAYMENT SHOULD BE SPREAD OVER THE POPULATION. HOW MUCH DOES $500 PER PERSON RAISE ? OR HOW MUCH DOES AN ADDITIONAL 5-10 % TO THE ALREADY EXISTING MEDICARE TAX RAISE?
• A.R.: Health care.... When you give something free to a person, usually they abuse it or throw it away or give it to someone else. There should be no free health care, if you go to a doctor you pay $30. if you go to the hospital you pay $50. Every person should be required to pay something. If you have to pay something for your healthcare you won't be running to the doctor every time you get a cut or your child coughs. Give the poor some responsibility in the whole mess.

Who should pay for health care? Is it fair to tax those who have more money? Do you believe the “rich” are paying their fair share of taxes now?

Editor's Note: Monday’s American Morning feedback was solely focused on President Obama's health care reform. While the majority were in favor of reform, those opposed remarked that “the swampland of government we have” will not provide decent health care.

Pro-Reform

• Susan: The rich in this country have the ways and means to find all of the loop-holes so they don't pay the amount of taxes they should in the first place. It’s the middle class that carries this country, and being part of the middle class in this country, I have no problem with the rich paying more.......
• James: I listen to the news about health care reform and I hear our law makers say that people don't want reform, who are they asking? I spend over $1500.00 per month for my wife and I on health insurance and still have to pay the 20% that the insurance won't cover. The people we talk to are not happy with their health insurance the only thing I do not think is right is taxing the rich I am not rich but would be willing to pay tax's for health care. Base it on income.
• Haydn: I am very much for Obama's plan for health reform. Yes, the financing of it will always be controversial because the plan is helping the disadvantaged. The economic elite should see this as rather adding to the stability of the body politic. Its an important opportunity to reform Medicare and Medicaid so that people wont have to lose family assets because of a 'catastrophic' illness. Costs have got to be controlled in a reasonable way.
• Bob: The time to fix healthcare is now! With 47 million uninsured, the cost is passed on to everyone at a premium price when they receive care. The only way to stave off high health cost is to provide all Americans an opportunity to receive quality healthcare at a competitive rate.
• Ruth: Of course we should have coverage for 100% of Americans. Of course we should tax the wealthy to help pay for those who can't. When folks are healthy, they can work and pay taxes. When people's health costs come down, they can buy more products and services and these create and maintain jobs. Universal health is a no-brainer. Do we have the best health care in the world? Experts say, "no." Experts we have the most expensive! We should do this now! Thank you for your coverage of this issue.
• Sanford: I fully support President Obama's efforts to get healthcare legislation sooner rather than later. I do not object to taxing the wealthy in order to achieve this. After all, the wealthy have benefited from eight years of Bush tax cuts. Healthcare legislation must have a public option. Why shouldn't all of the American people receive the same government-supported health benefits that members of the Senate and House receive, even those who are against granting those benefits to the rest of us. It is time for some LBJ-style arm-twisting.
• Jerry: You keep framing heath care taxes as payment by the rich or with payroll taxes. Why not tax both? Just an idea from a retired person worried about Medicare.
• Maxx: We keep hearing the detractors complaining about the Health Care reform bill and how it will not pass but I do not see anyone one either side of the aisle offering any alternatives to the American Public, it seems that if you say no it will not pass that there should be a "but. . . maybe with these modifications or changes it could".

Anti-Reform

• Diane: This swampland of a government we have cannot give decent healthcare to our military or our veterans....so it is indecent to even consider giving healthcare to people here illegally.
• Niel: The healthcare push would have had better chance had not been preceded by a grab by the feds for control in so many areas. The populace is finally waking up to that socialization and are recoiling from Washington’s major control of such a massive percent of our economy.
• Tom: It's not that we don't want to see some sort of Healthcare Reform. But these plans which the President is trying to rush through are a disaster in the making, both for our economy and those just hanging onto their jobs, Taxing the rich is NOT the answer. Throw out the current proposals and start over!

What is your major concern about heath care reform? Share your thoughts with us.

Editor's Note: Most of American Morning's Thursday audience opposed the idea that President Obama should be meeting the Black community's expectations, noting that “a president is the president of all people,” and that Mr. Obama has only been in office for seven months, so “give him time” to meet expectations.

• Buddy: A question was asked of whether President Obama was meeting the expectations of Blacks. I do not recall Whites being asked if Bush met their expectations as a White President. A president is the president of all people. At least that is what it should be. When will people stop separating everything by race. This is the United States of America. I will be happy when people began to behave that way. It comes from the people and what they believe we are as a country. Why not ask if the people in the United States of America are having their expectations met? I do want to add that some people in this country in this century, still do not see Blacks as equals. Very sad. This is what we need to talk about. This is what we need to mend. We cannot be a truly united country until this is dealt with. No group of people should feel superior to another because of their race and/or color.
• Robert: AFTER SEVEN MONTHS IN OFFICE, HOW COULD THE PRESIDENT HAVE MET OUR EXPECTATIONS. GIVE HIM TIME , AND HE WILL.
• Dathan: Obama is not supposed to "meet the expectations of the black community." He is the President of the United States! America, not the black community! He is supposed to meet the expectations of all of us. It is important that we forget "meeting expectations" for groups and favoring race in our government. We can not have a judge, a President or even a local community leader, favoring one group over another. The government answers to all of us equally. So ask the question, "Is Obama meeting OUR EXPECTATIONS!"

How do you feel about the idea that President Obama must meet the expectations of the Black community? What do you think those “expectations” are or should be?

FULL POST

Editor's Note: Thursday’s American Morning viewers expressed strong opinion regarding the discrimination lawsuit by the Creative Steps Day Care against the Pennsylvania Valley Swim Club, with the majority opposed to the suit. Those opposed did not “see how the lawsuit will bring about any positive change to this situation.” Those in favor of the suit noted “this is 2009 and a lesson needs to be learned by anyone discriminating against anyone.”

Against Lawsuit:

• Aisha: My name is Aisha and as an African American I understand what the Daycare center is going through at this difficult time. You hope through everything negative something positive happens. I really do not see how the lawsuit will bring about any positive change to this situation.
• Glen: Does anyone have the understanding that "private" means just that "private'. They own the pool and they have the right to choose. It did not take them long to fire out the "lets sue" slogan.
• Jeremy: I am so tried of this swimming case! It had no need to go to court and life goes on. This group is out to make a profit.
• Lee: Regarding the children being denied access to the swimming pool, I find it an awful thing. My goodness, I thought such racism was over with and I'm speaking as a Southerner who is quite familiar with racism, sexism and homophobia. The owners of the pool should be sued out of business to make an example to others that such behavior cannot and will not be tolerated.
• Stephanie: Do not sue over the swimming pool mess. It does not teach the kids to work things out peacefully. A court room is just another battle field. If it is done again, then go to court....but give peace a chance.
• Jay: The whole idea that a public pool in Philadelphia would kick children out for being black is ridiculous. It's ALWAYS about race. It would not matter if there are other valid reasons. They will MAKE it racial. Racism won't die because blacks won't LET it die. Just another excuse to sue someone. Same story, different day.
• Pat: White people get blamed for racism, at the drop of a hat. I have walked in black businesses, and did not even get a hello, I just left. This country is ok with reverse racism, I hear it on TV. every day. We have a black president, they need to get over it.
• Dan: The lady you had on this morning from the swim club where the kids were expelled based on race. I disagree with the kids not being allowed in to the club. Equal opportunity; however, the comment the director made about one of the kids now suffering migraines from this is way out there. That is a bunch of bologna. Just a way to try and beef up the lawsuit.

FULL POST

Editor's Note: As Judge Sotomayor’s second day of Senate confirmation hearings prepared to commence, many of Tuesday’s American Morning viewers were carefully scrutinizing the first day’s proceedings.  Most remarked that empathy must absolutely be considered when interpreting the law.

• Ken: Yes, a judge needs empathy. If you just want a robot then replace all justices with a giant computer which will make all decisions. By the way why was senator kyle not wearing a jacket during the hearing. I think it was to be disrespectful to judge Sotomayor. Why don't you show his disrespect. What a smart ***.
• Vicki: Everyone- including lawyers, judges and politicians- synthesizes and interprets information through the lenses of their collective experiences. The mindsets, interpretation and application of the facts and laws, and decisions made by white males are greatly influenced by their collective experiences. That is precisely why the laws, prior legal precedent and public policy favors whites and why Republicans do not want it to change. Republicans want to protect the status quo precisely because whites are favored. It's stupid, irrational and illogical to think that an individuals values and belief systems do not influence their world views.
• Jim: In the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor, I believe she is prejudiced, and will legislate from the bench. There is no place for Empathy in a court room for a Judge. I want a Supreme Court Judge that follows, exactly, the Rule of Law, and one that actually understands our Constitution as it was written. I've not heard anyone say anything about Ms. Sotomayor being a Constitutional Scholar. Have you? But then I disagree with almost all of President Obama's agenda. BTW, have you noticed the lack of "Separation" between the "Powers" as of late?
• GJ: Please consider concept of "Accurate Empathy" Re: Sotomayor hearings: 1) revisit Jonah Lehrer's "How We Decide" p. 47: "patients >>unable<< to experience emotions...proved incapable of selecting the right cards (i.e., making good decisions). Emotional feeling is essential to decision-making. 2) Writing as psychologist, we have the concept of "accurate empathy" – the ability of therapist to >>understand<< a person's experience >>without<< the psychologist's bias interfering. Just the opposite from the way "empathy" is trying to be portrayed in debate over Sotomayor.
• Peter: As an American in Canada, I support Sotomayor as a Supreme Court justice. If personal backgrounds played no part in the Court's judgments, why aren't all rulings 9-0? Of course one's empathies and interests play a part in rulings. They should.

Is empathy and background important when interpreting the law of the United States? Should these factors be removed from such a process? What issues do you consider important regarding interpretation of the law?

FULL POST