Pro Gun and Anti Gun Websites

Pro gun control website:
http://www.ceasefireusa.org/blog
 This websites providing blogs and opinions on the mass shooting that so frequently take place throughout the United States. The names of some of these blogs clearly state the views of the author on gun control: "We want safer schools" and "We not accept this 'routine'", the second being a response to Obama's speech after the Oregon shooting.

The name of this website also clearly states what the aim of the website is, to try and create awareness of gun violence and attempt to try and bring an end to the tragedies we so often hear about. Furthermore, the slogan of this website, "empowering state advocates to save lives", sends a clear message about what this group are trying to achieve, the key term in this slogan being "to save lives". The creators of this website are clearly pro-gun control as they want to see an end to these tragedies and to see and implementation of stricter gun controls. 

This website also contains a page solely dedicated to explaining what this group are doing to help create awareness of gun violence and what members of the public can do to help bring abut change. This group, like Obama are clearly very angry and frustrated by these frequent mass killings and want to bring and end to it, a view that I share.

Anti gun control website:
http://gunssavelives.net/
This anti-control website outlines stories of how having a gun has saved people in potentially life threatening situations, for example, "gun saves woman being raped" and "gun saves couple from intruder". The site also contains a database that outlines these stories throughout all the states and for each state there are multiple examples of how guns have been an advantage for some people. The map found on the website also illustrates the sheer number of cases where an individual has been saved in a certain situation.

Even the title of the website explains what the site is all about. They are trying to convince those who are sceptical guns that they are a good idea. The people who made this website are of the impression that more guns in the country will make an overall safer place to live.

Rights Violated During Police Interrogation

During this video, the accused, Garreth Stephens who was 18 at the time, was charged with the murder of Steven Baldwin in Clark County, Indiana in 2013. Stephens was later found not guilty of all charges and was released. In the video, it can be clearly seen that the police officer interrogating Stephens is extremely angry towards the accused and is showing a lot of emotion. Later, Stephens attorney stated that during this interrogation, many of Stephen's constitutional rights had been violated.

http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/


The fifth and sixth amendments, which link to an individual being fairly represented when being charged with a crime, are clearly violated here by the police officer. Stephens was constantly asking for a lawyer to be present during the interrogation but his requests were denied by the officer. Americans take liberty and freedom very seriously so the fact Stephens was denied his constitutional rights made this case very controversial. Some would say he did not deserve a lawyer present, as he murdered Baldwin, but later he was found not guilty and acquitted of all charges.


I found this case very interesting as it really shows that all Americans are passionate about their freedom and liberty. This example can really connect back to the founding principles of liberty found in the Bill of Rights as it shows that today, freedom to ask for a lawyer and to have a fair trial is still of major importance, even if the said criminal committed a horrific crime.

POLICE BRUTALITY & POLICE STATE USA - ARRESTED for Entering a CHURCH

This video shows footage of two brothers being arrested after walking into a church in their hometown. Both men in this video maintain that they were doing nothing wrong, just exercising their rights on religion. Neither of them had anything dangerous or harmful on their person and both maintain that they were committing no crime, so why were they arrested?

The man filming these events states "if this isn't a violation of any kind of rights we've been fighting for, I don't know what is". Clearly these men are very angered by the situation as neither have done anything wrong, at least that's what they suggest. There is a possibility that, because we have only been given a snapshot of this event and we are only hearing the story from the victims, something else happened prior to filming, that potentially, these men were in the wrong. However, something tells me that due to the huge issue of police brutality in the US at the moment, the police were in fact violating their rights.

It begs the question, would this have occurred if the two men were white? Due to the issue of police brutality, especially towards black men, one must consider whether these men were arrested due to a crime or because of the colour of their skin? These men are correct, arresting them because they walked into a church is a violation of their rights, stated in the First amendment, they had, to our knowledge committed no crime.

Gun Control

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOFOFZxfiDc - Obama
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vzhbf-qKN98 - Trump

I have selected these two videos as they are both two entirely different opinions on the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Both from opposing ends of the political spectrum.

The first video features current President Barack Obama discussing how the Second Amendment has been a huge problem throughout his term. I feel as if he would have abolished guns if he had the chance judging by his tone of voice throughout the video. However, due to his political persuasion he would meet massive backlash from Americans who own guns (39% at last count in 2012). This number is extraordinarily large given the US is the country people look at in terms of being a haven for those fleeing oppressed nations and crime, like it was when the Pilgrims first landed. Obama discusses being able to do things differently without the Second Amendment in place. Instead the reason people blame for mass shootings is mental health. Which is a favoured excuse of those who are pro Second Amendment. Even when Obama called for tighter controls on who can own a firearm he received a massive backlash. What I find the most interesting is that during Obama's reign as President, those who are part of the NRA have grown from 3 million in 2008 to 4.5 million by the end of 2013. Which means even though Obama advocates change and is receiving support for it, those who oppose him grow as well.

The second video features President-elect Donald Trump after the Oregon shootings in early October 2015. While being a knee-jerk reaction to the events, it is evident that Trump is very pro Second Amendment. He advocates he would want teachers in schools to be armed as well as other employees in schools to stop this type of event occurring again. My first thoughts are that this is a very typical Republican response. Trump has also been on record as saying that more guns would make America a safer place.

The Second Amendment is one that diversifies opinion. Originally introduced as a method of maintaining peace during a time of radical change. However now in the 21st Century, I only seem to hear bad stories of gun violence in America, not once have I heard of a story with a happy ending that involves guns. However many Americans look past this, they may never need to use the guns, but the fact it's so easy to purchase a firearm, is making more and more people uncomfortable. Resistance to change is so strong however, so strong that Piers Morgan lost his job at CNN for being a slightly radical activist.

Execution violated inmate’s 8th amendment rights

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3_63OPrEWQ

Dennis McGuire was convicted and sentenced to death for the 1989 murder and rape of Joy Stewart, who was also eight months pregnant at the time.

Dennis McGuire's execution took nearly 25 minutes, a significantly prolonged death than the ordinary executions which would take just over 1 minute to complete. This new method was supposedly meant to have little pain and be over almost instantly, however this wasn't the case. McGuire experienced over 10 minutes of gasping and struggling for air before his eventual death.

The eighth amendment states "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" McGuire's execution is a violation of this amendment because he was being put to death using a combination of drugs that had never before been used as a method of a lethal injection execution. Therefore this can be regarded as a "unusual punishment" because it was practically an experiment to see whether the new drugs would work, which it didn't. To make matters worse the Federal Judge Gregory Frost rejected appeals that argued that the new drugs would cause excess suffering, therefore due to the execution taking such an excessive amount of time does challenge the eighth amendment because it becomes a much crueller form of death.  

However in the case of Glossip v Gross the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that states can continue to use midazolam in executions, this is primarily due to the fact that no other suitable replacement is available. In that respect it's fair to suggest that lethal injections are not a violation of the eight amendment but in the case of Dennis McGuire his death was prolonged to such an extent that it should be a violation on the grounds of a "cruel and unusual punishment". If the correct drugs are not available anymore surely the system should be revisited to find a new method or stick to previous methods, so that death is instantaneous. If this means returning to methods that have been judged unconstitutional such as hanging, electrocution, gassing or shooting then the system should be looked into further to prevent events like this reoccurring.

"Cops violating my rights!"

This video causes disputes regarding the home owner and the police department's interpretation of the Fourth amendment. The police officers seemingly enter and search Larry's home without a warrant or his consent. The Fourth amendment states, 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things being seized.'

It is clearly evident that the police officers in question do not abide by the clauses of liberty set down in the Bill of Rights, especially the statement, 'The right of the people to be secure in their...houses,...against unreasonable searches and seizures'. As this appears on face value to be an unreasonable search, Larry has a strong case for exclaiming that his liberties are being violated.

However, Larry's visiting brother is on parol which may give the police officers jurisdiction under the authority of state law. As Larry chooses to live in this state he abides by laws set down by the local and Federal Government concerning his state boundaries.

Interestingly, in the description of his video, the publisher(presumably Larry)writes, 'please share !!!! Please share!!!!!'. Such a plea with the massive potential audience of YouTube would suggest that Larry wants this video to be viewed by as many people as possible. The likely reason for this is that he feels as though this violation of his rights directly inflicts with his, and the majority of other Americans, identity and their respect for the Constitution and Bill of Rights. 

This common ground allows Americans to empathise with and interpret each others situations despite potentially viewing it on the other side of the continent within no tangible reach. Such a phenomenon makes the Bill of Rights a powerful, everlasting way of empowering the individual whilst maintaining the influence of the Federal Government.

John Winthrop

John Winthrop was born in England in 1588 to a puritan family and began his travels to the 'New World' in spring of 1630, sailing to America on the Arbella, leaving his small manor in England behind.

Winthrop is sometimes seen as a visionary Utopian, and also sometimes as a reactionary. During his time as governor of  Massachusetts (for which he was chosen 12 times between 1631 and 1648 proving that he was very popular among the people of Massachusetts) he would often urge other colonists to adopt discipline and individual responsibility throughout their colonies to help  tackle any disorder and disruption they may face. Winthrop also became a father figure among the colonists especially after his famous sermon "A Modell of Christian Charity" which is also referred to as the "City Upon a Hill" sermon. This particular speech is well known for arguing that the wealthy had a duty to look after the poor. This speech was also an early example of American exceptionalism and phrases from this sermon have been used throughout American politics since, JFK repeated phrases from the speech just after being elected as president and Ronald Reagan has cited him as a highly inspirational source.

Although he was liked by many he did face some opposition during his time in power. He was often more appreciated by those of a higher intelligence and some complained about some of his conduct such as the harsh way in which he dealt with religious dissenters. A clear example of this was when he exiled Anne Hutchinson for opposing his puritan state and having unorthodox views.

Anne Hutchinson

Anne Hutchinson was born as Anne Marbury and was baptized July 20, 1591. She was born in Alford, Lincolnshire and her father was a deacon at Christ Church in Cambridge. She was very well educated at home and developed a deep interest in theology due to the influence of her father. In 1612, she married William Hutchinson and they had 15 children. They attended sermons of John Cotton and became followers of the Puritans. Cotton joined the Puritan colonies in New England in 1634 and Anne and her family soon followed him later that year. They sailed on the Griffin, hoping for religious freedom and to live with others who followed the Puritan ways of life. Anne joined Cottons congregation in New England but tensions and differences began to emerge as Anne had very different ideas on how she wanted to worship God and believed in the freedom of thought. The beliefs of the Puritans were extremely strict and Anne struggled with these hugely.

The Puritans viewed women as inferior to men. They believed women were morally feeble who would lead men into damnation if they were allowed to form an opinion or express their own thoughts. Anne started a Women's club and she held meetings at her home where they discussed scripture, prayed and reviewed sermons but these meetings caused serious problems with the male Puritans. These women club meetings were seen as a threat to the authority and power of men and were against the fundamental ideals of the Puritan way of life. Anne was seen as a 'dissenter' by John Winthrop and he stated that these women meetings were "a thing not tolerable nor comely in the sight of God, nor fitting for your sex". Winthrop was determined to silence Anne so he went through the legal system to do so. Small women's prayer groups were allowed by law but larger groups listening to one individual leader were seen as disorderly.

November 1637, Anne was arrested and placed in custody at the house of the marshal of Roxbury in Massachusetts. At the time, Anne was 46 and pregnant. She was accused of violating the fifth commandment, "honour thy father and mother"and therefore was encouraging dissent against the fathers of the commonwealth. They also charged her with making the other women neglect the care of their own families. Anne was found guilty of heresy and was condemned to banishment by the civil court. With her followers, Anne left Boston in 1638 for the settlement that had been established by Roger Williams at Providence, Rhode Island. Anne and her followers established a home in Portsmouth and adopted a new government which provided for trial by jury and the separation of the church from the state. However, Anne and many of her family members were massacred by Native Americans in 1643.

I find Anne Hutchinson's strength and bravery extremely admirable. During this period in time, women were considered inferior and of no use except to have children and care for the family. Anne fought against this stereotype. She was well educated, a devout follower of God and a role model for all of the women that attended her club. Her significance for the establishment of a distinctive American identity is great as she was the first woman in America to stand up for "Women's Rights" and promoted women to be educated and to have a voice. Although I had never heard of her before now, her story is truly inspirational and must inspire many men and women in America today.

George Washington

With the exception of Franklin and De Crevecoeur,  choose any other colonial American of note and write a post outlining their significance for the establishment of a distinctive American identity

George Washington was born on the 22nd of February 1732 in Virginia. Most well known for being the first president of the United States from 1789 to 1797.

Born into a family running plantations in Virginia, Washington started in the rural regions of the state before joining the Virginia militia in 1753. Washington attempted to gain a commission in the British Army but failed, this is a very significant point, if he would have joined the US army, history could have panned out differently. Upon returning to Virginia, Washington entered politics, not being significantly involved in the colonial resistance until protests of the Townshend Acts in 1767. The acts primarily introduced to help fund the British war effort. Washington was then involved in many major acts preluding to the Revolutionary War including the Boston Tea Party. He was then nominated as commander-in-chief of the Revolutionary Army. Washington lost many battles as a commander but failed to allow his troops to ever surrender which showed the spirit he had instilled into his troops. Washington was voted unanimously  to be the first leader of the new nation in 1789.

To me, George Washington's effect on US Society during this period was significant. His ability to come back after being beaten down, such as after being denied entry to the British Army. He went back to start again as a politician, his perseverance and determination was  instilled in all revolutionaries at this point. Which is why it is less of shock that the British lost America. The American identity at this point was one of perseverance and determination, George Washington had these traits in abundance. To which he instilled in the public. This to me is why today many Americans have a sense of self belief and the mindset that they will succeed if they put the effort in.

William Penn

William Penn was born on October 14, 1644 in London, England. His father was an admiral in the English navy and a wealthy landowner. He received an outstanding  education, firstly he attended the Chigwell School and later had private tutors. At the age of 16, in 1660, William attended the prestigious Oxford University. 


William Penn was the founder of Pennsylvania (Latin for Penn's Woods). He was also the leader of a Quaker religious community that all human beings were possessed by an "inner light" that allowed them to communicate directly with God. Quakers were very controversial and were disliked by the British government. However they were one of the only religious groups that allowed women to fully participate in the religious services. He became a leader of the Quaker movement at 22 to such an extent that he was arrested regularly and spent a lot of time in prison for his religious beliefs. He was only released from prison because of his famous father.

In 1667 Penn and the Quakers received a land grant from King Charles II in payment for a debt he owed to Penn's father. William Penn envisioned Pennsylvania to not only be a Quaker land, but also a free land. Penn wanted freedom for all religions and a safe place for persecuted minorities to live. He even wanted peace with the Native Americans and hoped they could live together as neighbours and friends. Penn developed a Frame of government through a democratic system with freedom of religion, fair trials and elected representatives of the people in power and a separation of powers. It is these ideas that would later form the basis of the American constitution. 

The significance of Thomas Jefferson

THOMAS JEFFERSON

Thomas Jefferson was a significant figure in the colonial American landscape for many reasons. He was an advocate of De Crevecoeur's ideas, sharing and promoting the ideals of self reliance and liberty which have become a part of the American identity. Although, Jefferson managed to relate them to his own image of a progressive and independent America, stepping away from the stagnation of the yeoman farmer De Crevecoeur wrote about. 

Jefferson was a Founding Father of America and the primary author of the Declaration of Independence, he was also one of the signers. In continuation he went on to become the second Vice President and third President of America. An illustrious career. 

More importantly though, Jefferson was a champion of Enlightenment and i think this is his most significant accolade.

Jefferson was well versed in many languages and talented in the arts, sciences and politics, he even designed his own house as a classical architect. His multi-talented nature made him an impressive 'American' and allowed him to battle such European sceptics as George Buffon. Also in this period, Jefferson figured out how to cool cholera vaccinations in order to prolong their effectiveness in warm climates and most famously secured the Mississippi basin and Louisiana territory from the three powers in Europe, France, England and Spain. He is said to have doubled the size of America, in one day, for ten cents an acre!

The significance of this advancement is huge, it made America a 'proper' country that could compete with the Europe of its day. Further mapping and documentation of the continent - up to the pacific coast - was carried out by Lewis and Clark and funded by Congress under persuasion of Jefferson and others.

Thomas Jefferson was a man that symbolised democracy and lived as the true 'New American' that both De Crevecoeur and Franklin spoke of in their respective writings. Despite the stain of his dealings and scandal in slavery, Jefferson generally promoted equality and lived for the expansion and furthering of his nation. 

I perceive such ideals to be a part of the culture that twenty-first century Americans embody thus causing them to respect the likes of Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers whom installed them, so deeply, into the American identity.

New York

In 1609, Sir Henry Hudson, an english mariner working for the Dutch, re-discovered Manhattan Island and behind it the huge Hudson River, hence the name.

He went on to establish fur trading and brought the business to the European market which induced a migration of many more settlers to the colony. 1613 saw the sailing of Dutch ships up the Hudson, founding the trading post formally known as Fort Nassau. Later it was referred to as Albany, now the capital of New York State. The success of the trading here culminated in the setting up of the Dutch West India Company which began to send settlers in 1624 founding a colony on Manhattan Island between 1625-6, 'New Amsterdam'.

The Dutch surrendered what they had built to the Kingdom of England in 1664 at which time 'New Amsterdam' became 'New York' after James, the Duke of York - brother of the King. The province of New York, claimed originally as an English and then later a British Crown territory,  was large, including such present US states as: Delaware, New York, New Jersey and Vermont. Along with sections of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine and Eastern Pennsylvania.

The province was eventually broken up, scaled down to the valleys of the Hudson and Mohawk rivers and Vermont. (Later excluding Vermont).

Relationships with native Americans can be charted as far back as the dawn of 'New Amsterdam' when Peter Minuit bought Manhattan Island from local Indians for a value of sixty guilders, now known as 'the best real-estate deal in history'. This speaks of the colonial exploitation that native Americans suffered.

Iroquois peoples inhabited much of the East Coast pre-colonisation, more specifically the Mohawk tribe covered most of what is now Upstate New York, known as the 'keepers of the East door'. Relations between the two peoples became reasonable civil and they even formed an alliance to stamp out French privateering in New York City in 1757. Less than ten years later, a British agent to the Iroquois peoples promoted the establishment of  the treaty of Fort Stanwix which prevented intrusive settlement of English colonies into their lands.

New Hampshire

The first settlers in New Hampshire, during the 1620s and 1630s, were more interested in trading fur, salted fish and timber with England which they believed would help them become wealthy. The process of settlement in New Hampshire was a struggle as they fought over boundaries and land grants with Massachusetts. Land claims made by Massachusetts conflicted with those made by New Hampshire. These conflicts finally resulted in New Hampshire gaining more land in 1741, as they petitioned the King to settle the boundaries and land disputes between the two states.

During the early colonial years, the settlers within New Hampshire lived peacefully with the natives. Trade and friendly interaction took place between the two peoples but tensions began to grow when problems arose in Massachusetts. The natives fled to New Hampshire but from 1684, they were greeted with fortified garrisons to ward them off. Fighting broke out on the 7th June 1684 and many settlers were killed by the natives. This is also known as the Cocheco Massacre. From then on, friendly interactions between the settlers and the natives ceased to exist.

Massachuetts

In 1620, the Pilgrims on the Mayflower (one of the states symbols) landed in Massachusetts seeking religious freedom. This colony later became a leading colony in resisting British oppression and was the host of the Boston Tea Party in 1733 protesting against unjust taxation.

Due to the differing languages and cultures, the relationship between the Natives and the Puritans was difficult to say the least. In the eyes of the Puritans, the Natives were inferior mainly because of their primitive lifestyle which the Puritans didn't understand or approve of. The Puritans did, however, believe that the Natives could be converted to Christianity. The natives found that the Christianity conversion process to be intrusive and insensitive, and the acceptance of Christianity would result in giving up any links to other Natives in the surrounding areas.

In addition to insisting on the Natives converting to Christianity, the Puritans also expected the Natives to give up their land straight away, surrendering it to the Puritans to use when developing textiles production. The Natives were expected to give up their land because the British believed God had given the British the land and it was their duty to seize the land from the natives.

Rhode Island

Picture 1 - Wikipedia, Picture 2 - enchantedlearning.com

I have chosen Rhode Island because it is one of those original 13 that many people forget about. This is due in part to its size, Rhode Island being only 1,544 square miles, the smallest state of all. It is also partly due to the fact it is geographically sandwiched between Connecticut and Massachusetts, meaning it's not a state many people would drive through. However it is home to some of the wealthiest people in the country, with some house prices in excess of $10 million (Zillow).

Rhode Island was originally founded in 1636 by Roger Williams who had fled for religious reasons from the Massachusetts Bay Colony. The state itself had originally been home to the Narrangansett Tribe who were the biggest in the area that was also home to the Nipmuc Tribes. Both of whom were slowly pushed out of the region westward. Rhode Island then became a haven for people being exiled for religious reasons, predominantly by the Massachusetts Bay Colony. 'Plantations' or Colonies, were built up around the area, particularly nearer the bay area. One of the plantations was one of the first to abolish slavery among other things including witchcraft trials and capital punishment, very ahead of its time compared to many other states.

Rhode Island had been the first to renounce its allegiance to the Crown in 1776 and was the last of the original 13 states to ratify the US Constitution. Rhode Island had actually boycotted the original meeting to draw up the proposed Constitution.

New Jersey

New Jersey as we are more familiar with today was originally called New Netherlands by the Dutch in 1623. The first European settlers were the Dutch, Finns and Swedes; however in 1664 the Dutch lost control of the land to the British. The land became divided in half between Sir George Carteret who controlled the East side and Lord John Berkley who was in charge of the West side. The land then became known as New Jersey after the Isle of Jersey in the English Channel, where Carteret was a governor of the Isle of Jersey.

 Relations between the Delaware Indians (Lenni-Lappe) were very conflicted, which led to wars. Furthermore the diseases (smallpox, measles and tuberculosis), guns and alcohol the Europeans brought with them made the Lenni Leppe tribe struggle to survive, as a result of this they didn't survive for very long once the Europeans had arrived. However when the English took over from the Dutch the relations became less hostile. That being said Carteret and Berkley sold off the land at low prices. Even though the settlers gave the "Delaware Indians" political and religious freedom, this was particularly unfair as the natives are being told their rights on their own homeland. Seemingly selling this land for simple items such as a trinket. Over time there were  more deals with the Lenni Leppe tribe about buying land, as a result of this some members of the tribe moved north, others west to escape from the whites.

Where can you be gay in the USA?

The map above was drawn from statistics published by the US Census Bureau regarding the 2013 annual American Community Survey (sourced from www.businessinsider.com). It clarifies the spread of households headed by a same sex relationship across the fifty states of America.

At first glance, the colour coding indicates that the East and West coasts have the highest percentage of same sex households whilst the North Westerly states and a column through the West North Central states culminating in the Bible Belt have the lowest numbers across the continent. The two paradigms can be compared to learn the ideologies and values by which the inhabitants live.

The East and West coasts, specifically the Northern East coast, states have high numbers of same sex households relative to the other regions. This would suggest that these states hold a majority liberal philosophical identity, welcoming the progressive nature of social change towards sexual equality. In comparison, this demographic representation also shows that the low ranking states hold more conservative values to heart, morally opposing the change that the acceptance of same sex relationships brings to their social structure - viewing it as a break down in a system they are used to, a common view among Christian believers, numerous across the Bible Belt.

Furthermore, many of the states with high numbers of same sex households are home to more cosmopolitan cities which command large tourist markets and scrupulous media attention. With this being the case, it would be damaging to their revenue and reputation to reject sexual equality. Whereas, many of the pale states have smaller population densities with higher proportions of agricultural and small town locations. Such locations provide a healthy breeding ground for conservative views and ideologies regarding national conversations, which directly affects the physical manifestation of, for example, same sex households in a given region.

Having talked about how the map above explains some aspects of social variety in America, i would like to allude to the political consequences it has too. The philosophical identities of each state, whether they are liberal or conservative, have the ability to slant the political landscape. 

Comparing the map above to one from the 2012 political campaign of Obama/Biden and Romney/Ryan (left) shows how the liberalism or conservatism of a state concerning same sex households translates in an largely similar way to their political denomination. In the main Americans that align with Democratic politics seem to be more accepting of same sex households in their society, whilst the Republican states appear to oppose same sex households.

Death by Lightning

This map (taken from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) shows the number of people killed in the US by lightening between 1959 and 2007. This map suggests that not only are people frequently killed by extreme weather such as hurricanes and tornados, but people are also often killed by less expected extreme weather, in this instance, lightning. According to this map, the majority of people killed by lightning in the USA occurs throughout the south of the country with the highest numbers coming from Florida and Texas. It also strikes me as interesting that 206 people have been killed by lightening in Texas between 1959 and 2007, and in the same state since 1976, 436 were killed due to the death penalty.

Total number of Starbucks across America

This map is from an article called Here's the Starbucks of America by Joe Weisenthal in 2014. It's not surprising that the South west of America has the highest percentage of Starbucks across America particularly with states such as California in that area. It is a hotspot for tourists from across the world, America being a nation of coffee lovers 3651 alone in that area is significantly larger than the Midwest. The South west has double the amount of stores to the Midwest enhancing the difference in coffee drinking across the country. The sheer total of locations across the country show that Starbucks is a vastly expanding multinational company that is on a similar level to McDonald's restaurants. The range of numbers is so significant that even areas with the lowest totals are still a high total, such as California having the highest total of 2468 compared to Vermont with as little as 4. It just goes to show that Starbucks are everywhere and it doesn't matter where you are there will be a Starbucks somewhere nearby. On a wider scale the figure at the bottom states that the total number of Starbucks is 20,068 locations across the world, yet over half of that total can be found located just in the United States with 11,407 stores. This symbolises the impact that the United States has on consumerism both nationally and on a global scale.

I found this map from an article about expanding eligibility for Medicaid in the United States. It was from a magazine known as The New Republic, a liberal American magazine that was established in 1914. I found this map shocking as it shows how many states are not willing to expand Medicaid coverage to those who cannot afford expensive health care. The Affordable Care Act, passed by the Supreme Court in March 2010, allowed each state to decide on where they stood with expanding this form of health care insurance. By 2014, many states are against helping those who cannot afford health care and some are still considering whether or not they should. 

It is interesting to see that the Southern states are against the expansion of Medicaid whilst the majority of states in the West are willing to comply. It is shocking to see that within American society, many people do not wish to help those who are less fortunate and that many must consider the idea before doing so. This map seems to show that American society does not care for those who cannot afford certain things and are more interested in personal gain than anything else. 

Map of the USA

I have selected this map due to it's fairly weighty message it's sending to me, I believe that this shows the USA as not being the diverse and multicultural hotbed it claims to be and has claimed to be for decades. From looking at this map, it shows that there are still a large amount of white Americans who are living in white dominant communities. New England and the Midwest are evidently not as diverse as Texas or California for that matter, To me, I think that the large amounts of non white Americans in the south show that they are sticking together, closer to the borders. I can deduce from the graph that the south of the US is more diverse and possibly more 'welcoming' to non white Americans. I also believe that the great migration of blacks to the northern States wasn't overly sustained over a long period of time, I can see that large portions of the southern states, particularly South Carolina and Georgia (two states that were slavery hotbeds) still have a larger portion of black Americans still living in them, which shows that over the past 150 years since the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation, African Americans are still living in the same places as their ancestors. I believe this is mainly due to the white dominance in the north, particularly New England, where the communities are more than 60% white.