"He's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now"

Could there be a Batman out there?

He is the most realistic superhero known to man, he has no super powers and is just an all around bad ass. He has technology and gadgets that help him to fight crime and is fully human. He is my favorite superhero hands down. But how realistic is this notion of a vigilante?

Very I would say. Someone who is advanced enough, smart enough, and physically fit enough can easily pull this off. Bruce Wayne by day and Batman by night, any typical human being can do this as long as he fits the qualifications. He could help the local police force to fight crime and make the cities and streets a safer place. Plus he is free to the city and maybe even more effective, saving the city a lot of money and making it a more effective way to clean up crime.

Would this man be a billionaire? I would assume so because they need a lot of money in order to afford this advanced technology. For all we know there is a Batman out there, like George Clooney or Mitt Romney or Donald Trump.

How helpful is this man? Pretty damn helpful because he would have done a lot. However, if we don't know if this man exists, do we deserve to have this man protecting our citizens? OR should this idea be saved for the government officials. We should take pride in the average citizen, Batman or not, who takes civil action. He is simply a good citizen and the citizen that we need to further our American values. For example, the rich celebrities aforementioned  are not actually Batman (although George Clooney does play him). However, they contribute to society and are good citizens.

Place Your Bets

March Madness is finally here! Time to join your work place and friend bracket groups in order to compete for bragging rights and glory. If your good at guessing or have a lot of knowledge on NCAA basketball then this is an easy way to make some quick cash from winning the pool or part of the office pool. The odds of winning are extremely low and there is a science behind bracketology. Don't pick the exact same as everyone else nor the exact same as the "experts". The chances of you winning if you have the same picks as everyone is lower then. But simply put make good choices, don't pick the number 16 seed to win it all.

Also, one must do research before filling out the bracket. Listen to ESPN and read sports analyses. As stated, only 1.8% of the country has Texas winning, yet experts say they have a 5.8% chance of winning, thus making it a good choice. Very few people will have it and its chances are decent and making them the most undervalued team. It is good to go for undervalued teams because it increases your chances. (These statistics are based in 2011).

There is much needed analyses that need to be looked at and careful considerations needed. These careful thoughts could be the difference between winning and losing. This is now a cultural identity for Americans and a tradition in the work place. Time for a little slump in work place productivity.

Just some tips I heard on ESPN: Most years, all final 4 teams were ranked between 1 and 4 in their respective sections. Only once did the final 4 consist of all top seeded teams. So choose a top team, but don't always choose the most top team.

Keep Calm, Carry On

One of the biggest and most controversial issues in America today is gun control. How should the government regulate guns and how can we limit mass shootings?

Well unfortunately, mass shootings will never be stopped even if there was to be an entire ban on all guns because people can still access them. So what should we do? Well some gun laws are necessary and in fact I agree with all the laws present on http://www.tracetheguns.org/#. I think these laws don't prohibit guns or impede on the constitution or on my personal rights. They are simply safety checks that hold people responsible and accountable. Accountability is a major aspect that needs to be used. \

However, the current suggestions by congress and President Obama, I strongly disagree with. Background checks are a must, but limitations on magazine rounds are pointless, when one can reload a gun just as quickly anyways. Also, a semi-automatic weapon ban isn't much useful either. While there is no "real" need for them by the public, they are nice to have and add to a sense of security by civilians. Many criminals choose to use these and no matter if they are banned or not, criminals will still have access to them. They do now anyways and criminals don't follow the law anyways (hence they are criminals) so what makes us think they will in this case then. THEY WON'T! (98% of guns used in shootings are obtained illegally)

When looking at recent shootings, guns are used in self-defense purposes (hence the reason many civilians carry). For example in the Aurora, CO shooting. The shooter picked the one movie theater that was within a mile from his home which banned weapons (there were more than 8 other options). http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/10/did-colorado-shooter-single-out-cinemark-theater/

As the article notes, all mass shootings since 1950 have occurred in gun free zones. These criminals are smart and know that in gun free zones there is less chance of being stopped. Clearly by disarming the population even more, we are only left more vulnerable to criminals with guns.