Commentary on Colleague's Blog

When reading Hannah McKenzie's Political Parties blog, I was able to see the connections she made and agreed fully with them. I made a point in my commentary on the U.S. Government about the gridlock Congress has found themselves in due to political party division and what kind of effect Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump would have on fixing this problem. However, McKenzie makes a great point by starting with George’s Washington warnings against political parties and how they allow people to gather with others who share similar ideals, morals, and values. Yet, McKenzie also makes a great point that political parties have the potential to destroy our country. Something which seems to already be occurring with Congress’s inability to make political decisions due to party devotions and fixed votes. How is this something that can be fixed? The majority of Americans don’t associate themselves with a specific party because Republicans and Democrats are on opposite sides of the spectrum, yet there are many that fall on spectrum somewhere on the middle either leaning left or right. It is important for our country to realize that if we truly want the people to have the power to elect, then there has to be more options. There has to be more education for the lower class. There has to be more encouragement towards the younger generations to vote as that our younger generation votes less than the older generations. This is a problem for the future of our country, it makes it increasingly more difficult to make modern changes when the older generation makes the decisions (when it comes to voting). Of that older generation, they don’t want change as much as the younger generation does. The older generation finds comfort in falling into the liberal or conservative categories or the Democrat or Republican parties. While our generation do not agree with the idea of a binary party system (for the most part). I think it’s important that when this topic is brought up, that all factors be introduced and all possibilities be considered.

Commentary on U.S. Government

Our government is about to experience a great deal of change dependent on the result of the 2016 Presidential election. Many people consider what would happen to the United States if Donald Trump won, of those people, specifically the ones that do not support Trump, don't feel optimistic about the future of our country. There is a great fear of retrogression that surrounds Trump's campaign including his plans for policy changes, Trump's foreign policy being one of the more concerning issues. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton struggle to gain the support and trust of those that don't follow her, due to her involvement with scandals in the past as first lady to Bill Clinton and the "email" scandal. Some people see this as a choice between two evils and deciding which candidate is the worse of the two evils. Either way, our country will be going through drastic changes whether Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump wins the presidency. Especially regarding policy changes, whether it is public, foreign, or commerce policy. With the recent Brexit, how will that markets change? How will trade change? Then there is the Syrian Refugees issue. Many believe that it will make the U.S. look bad if Donald enforces his policy of refusing refugees during such a somber crisis. Another issue that the U.S. Government has been facing for a couple years now is Congress and the strong gridlock it has found itself in. Will Hillary or Trump be able to break this gridlock or will one of them simply make it worse? With this being one of the most interesting presidential races, our country is in for big changes and one can only hope that they will turn out for the better.

Legalize Cannabis Commentary

In Madison Bush Couch's blog post Legalize Cannabis, there were many valid, if not strong, arguments on why cannabis should be legalized. I feel one of the main issues that states' have with legalizing Marijuana has a lot to do with the economy, along with racial and partisan divisions within the state. The fact is, almost half of the United States has already made some sort of progression towards legalizing Marijuana to an extent, whether that follows decriminalizing possession or allowing medicinal/recreational use. Couch focuses the importance of Cannabis being used as a medicinal drug by arguing about its wide spectrum of diseases and pain that can be treated, without the concern of addiction that is usually a problem with prescription drugs. This was a major point made by Couch that I can fully agree with, the danger of prescription drugs and the importance of having awareness about them, her specific example being Xanax. I surprisingly know a lot of people that are prescribed Xanax, yet I feel like Xanax could be easily replaced with Marijuana due to it's similar side effects, the only difference being that Marijuana has been known to cause paranoia in some cases. Either way, the drugs that are legal in this country do as much, if not more, damage than what Cannabis has the ability to do. I believe everything can be dangerous if and when it's mixed with other drugs or alcohol, so that is not a strong argument against the legalization of Marijuana. Overall, I felt persuaded and in agreement with a lot of what Couch said in her post. It was informative, argumentative, and brought up valid points about the holes in our country's health system and the holes in the arguments against Cannabis. 

Trump's strategy to "Make America Great Again"

The hot question these days is “What if Trump becomes the next President of the United States?” I hear it in the grocery store, I see it posted on social media, and it even comes up in family conversations.  Because of all of this buzz around me I want to take some time to say what I think about Trump and his platform.

Trump seems to appeal more to men than women which is disturbing because his statements in the media have been completely misogynistic and it is scary to think that men “secretly” harbor beliefs that suggest that our society is no better now than it was before women won the right to vote.  I hope that this “majority” that Trump’s campaign refers to does not include me or any of my male peers because that would undermine everything I believe in as a man and an equal citizen with women.

Trump promises to “reindustrialize” America and revitalize small towns and bring back some sort of “golden days” of the industrialism era.  Does he remember what life was like during those so-called “golden days?”  Average wages were low, health care was non-existent and life-expectancy was far below what it is today.  How will having society return to a “working class” demographic help the average citizen?  It won’t!

I hope that my peers are not falling for Trump’s wild and far-fetched promises and ideas.  I hope that my friends, family and neighbors are not buying into racist, misogynistic dogma that has no foundation or basis in reality.  This “utopia” that Trump is promising America is really a dystopia where animosity, tension and rage will thrive.

I am an optimist.  I hope for the best for the future and the best future for our country is not to take steps backwards.  

Military Training is Not the Answer to Gun Safety, Nor Gun Control

Stanley McChrystal’s article strongly argues more government action towards gun control. In addition, the argument that “closing these gaps” in our gun control laws will not make a difference and that, “dangerous people will obtain guns in our country no matter what, and therefore… taking steps to make it harder for them is fruitless.” is a legitimate argument. McChrystal believes otherwise, specifically that such argument is “both poor logic and poor leadership.”, which is ignorant of the complexity of the gun control debate. His ethos appeal is strong, however, due to his credibility as a former commander of U.S. and International forces within the Joint Special Operations Command in Afghanistan. His participation in the Veterans Coalition for Common Sense, furthermore reinforces his integrity as well as his argument that more action towards gun control needs to be made. While he admits that it is not possible to stop every attack involving gun violence, he believes that at least trying would be worth it. What he does not bring up is the amount of resources, time, and effort that would have to be put forth to basically change the Second Amendment. People, the government, and many pro-gun organizations (such as the hugely influential lobbyist group, the NRA) would put up an intense fight to protect their rights. As McChrystal states himself, “We Americans are not a uniquely bloodthirsty people… We are not unique in facing down the threat of global terrorism and active shooters.”. While our gun death rate may be “uniquely” high, there are also other “unique” ways of dealing with this situation and there is always a compromise to be found. I agree that those that served in the U.S. military were “trained in the effective and safe use of firearms,” not everyone has access to or the motivation to receive the same intense training for simply obtaining the right to handle a gun. Yes, background checks should be modified to further the exclusivity of owning a gun, however that does not mean people who don’t have military experience should be excluded. I believe McChrystal’s theory that a number of our politicians and population “promote a culture of gun ownership that does not conform with what [he] learned in the military.”, is absolutely correct in the fact that gun ownership is not equivalent to military uniform ownership. People have a Constitutional right to own guns. How gun ownership is obtained, in any case, should be revised in regards to background checks. That does not mean that the citizen population should be subjected to military training.

Gun Control in relevance to the recent Orlando shooting

I disagree with Eugene Robinson’s post titled “Assault Weapons must be banned in America” for many reasons. The first line of his article states that, “the only reasonable response to the massacre in Orlando is to ban the sale of military-style assault weapons”, (Robinson). Military-style assault rifles don’t kill people; mentally unstable or criminal people kill people. The fact that an Islamic State sympathizer, that had been under investigation by the FBI at least twice, was able to walk into a gun store and buy an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle and a pistol is absurd. However, this does not mean American citizens should be banned from owning or purchasing an assault rifle. Many Americans would agree with this statement, undoubtedly with the majority being in the South. The author’s intended audience is clearly towards gun control activists, just based on his opening statement. Although Eugene Robinson has tremendous credibility, as shown by his works that have been published by The Washington Post for over three decades, I believe his opinion is brash and premature in regard to getting fast results. The issue of gun control is not one that cannot be solved easily, it is a complex problem infringing on the civil rights of American citizens. Assault weapons can be destructive, but they can equally be just a protective. I do not believe it is a matter of what kind of guns’ people can own or if they can own them at all, I believe it is a matter of bureaucracy (as much as I hate to admit it). If a person that has been watched by the FBI at any point in their life for “alleged extremist leanings or connections”, they should not have been able to buy a gun, especially so in the Orlando shooter situation. There needs to be more restrictions on purchasing guns. Just because a person can pass a simple background check does not prove that they are mentally contempt to own a firearm of any nature, or even “law-abiding” citizens. Stricter laws need to be implemented to purchase a gun such as, mental and psychological tests and more thorough background checks. When Robinson says “banning [guns] would not end mass killings, but it would mean fewer deaths”, is not absolutely, without a doubt, correct. The black market still exists; guns would still be available if a certain someone was willing pay the price. A person could have a pistol with a 30 round magazine, and do the same damage as a person with an assault rifle. Banning military-style assault rifles would do nothing but drive people to buy larger magazines for pistols, make more dangerous modifications, and buy assault rifles in a chaotic manor before they get banned. I figure it would be similar to that of the early 1900s prohibition: it would be a failure and a bigger issue than it was to start with. There are other options than taking away people’s rights.

How does a President's endorsement truly affect a political campaign?

Breaking news across the United States in almost all major political media has been Barack Obama's endorsement towards Hillary Clinton's Presidential campaign. What does this mean for her, the democratic party, and the presidential race overall? Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination in 2008 over Hillary Clinton, so, not only is he endorsing his former competitor, he is also endorsing the current winner of the Democratic nomination. His endorsement is extremely important, especially by influencing how the general public will view her as the next possible president. Obama may not have been able to achieve everything he promised, but we all know that being President is not an easy job. The fact that he admits this by saying, "I know how hard this job can be. That's why I know Hillary will be so good at it," is not only major compliment to her, but also what can be seen as proof of her character and work ethic (Washington Post). She has worked by his side for the past 8 years as his Secretary of State, so this is not a comment to be taken lightly. In addition to this, he spoke to Bernie Sanders and as a result, Sanders has stepped aside and Hillary now has the spotlight in this increasingly dramatic Presidential race against Trump.