Friday, May 11, 2018
Saturday, April 28, 2018
The Great Divide
Lately, it seems as if the United States is similar to neapolitan ice cream.
We have the white people, who are vanilla.
We have the dark skinned people, who are chocolate.
And then we have the other fellow minorities, who are strawberry.
The three flavors are not mixed together. Instead, they're each divided.
It appears that the election and implementation of Trump as the President has shifted America greatly.
Now, the US may have always been like this, but I believe it is more noticeable now. The racists, the white supremacists, the neo-nazis, and whatever else they're labeled, have come out of their shell. I believe this is due to having a president who agrees with them.
I've never seen such a great divide between different races until now. We have the people who believe immigrants are horrible. We have people who care more about the second amendment than the lives of other humans. We have people who praise the police and believe police brutatily is a myth. We have people who believe kneeling for the anthem is the worst possible crime.
We have people who feel entitled.
Now, on to what I wanted to spew (more of) my opinions on.... our president, Donald Trump.
Should he be impeached? Honestly, many people who don't support him would say HELL YES. However, although, I do feel that way, I would not want Trump to be impeached.
Yes, he's done multiple things wrong that would deem as impeachment... BUT, the line of succession, which is Mike Pence, would be no better. I believe Pence would be WAY worse. He would spew his religion all over the US, and he is openly against the LGBTQIA community.
Anyway, back to Trump. He's had multiple accounts of women coming forth and saying they've had affairs with him. I wonder, why his supporters never mention this or don't even pat an eye.
I'm not certain how we will fix this issue as a country, but getting rid of Trump isn't the complete soultion. There are still people who support him, a lot more than you'd believe.
To save the United States we just need to keep the younger generation, and get rid of all the older people. The baby boomer generation and people close to them ruined the economy. (Not all of them, you're cool Mr. Seago.) however, I believe the racism that lives and passes on each generation is due to the original and traditional elders. We can't get rid of them, but we need to start on a road to recovery. America is not great, nor has it ever been!
We have the white people, who are vanilla.
We have the dark skinned people, who are chocolate.
And then we have the other fellow minorities, who are strawberry.
The three flavors are not mixed together. Instead, they're each divided.
It appears that the election and implementation of Trump as the President has shifted America greatly.
Now, the US may have always been like this, but I believe it is more noticeable now. The racists, the white supremacists, the neo-nazis, and whatever else they're labeled, have come out of their shell. I believe this is due to having a president who agrees with them.
I've never seen such a great divide between different races until now. We have the people who believe immigrants are horrible. We have people who care more about the second amendment than the lives of other humans. We have people who praise the police and believe police brutatily is a myth. We have people who believe kneeling for the anthem is the worst possible crime.
We have people who feel entitled.
Now, on to what I wanted to spew (more of) my opinions on.... our president, Donald Trump.
Should he be impeached? Honestly, many people who don't support him would say HELL YES. However, although, I do feel that way, I would not want Trump to be impeached.
Yes, he's done multiple things wrong that would deem as impeachment... BUT, the line of succession, which is Mike Pence, would be no better. I believe Pence would be WAY worse. He would spew his religion all over the US, and he is openly against the LGBTQIA community.
Anyway, back to Trump. He's had multiple accounts of women coming forth and saying they've had affairs with him. I wonder, why his supporters never mention this or don't even pat an eye.
I'm not certain how we will fix this issue as a country, but getting rid of Trump isn't the complete soultion. There are still people who support him, a lot more than you'd believe.
To save the United States we just need to keep the younger generation, and get rid of all the older people. The baby boomer generation and people close to them ruined the economy. (Not all of them, you're cool Mr. Seago.) however, I believe the racism that lives and passes on each generation is due to the original and traditional elders. We can't get rid of them, but we need to start on a road to recovery. America is not great, nor has it ever been!
Saturday, April 14, 2018
No Wall!
I too agree with Bald Eagle's Truth and that the wall is quite foolish. The United States is already in a debt for trillions; therefore, constructing a wall that will cost $2.6 billion seems outrageous.
Some people believe the wall is a reasonable way to keep immigrants out. First off, not all immigrants are bad people--most of them aren't! With that said, I agree with what you said about border patrol being more informed that way they don't act inhumanly... reading a book is not enough.
The Berlin Wall was a great example. Our wall may cost $2.6 billion, but if we want to avoid an overnight collapse like Berlin, we would constantly have to tender to the wall. This would result in more money spewing out. Whereas, instead, we could use that money for other more purposeful reasons.
I do agree with you about the wall impacting both countries, therefore both should have a say.
Some people believe the wall is a reasonable way to keep immigrants out. First off, not all immigrants are bad people--most of them aren't! With that said, I agree with what you said about border patrol being more informed that way they don't act inhumanly... reading a book is not enough.
The Berlin Wall was a great example. Our wall may cost $2.6 billion, but if we want to avoid an overnight collapse like Berlin, we would constantly have to tender to the wall. This would result in more money spewing out. Whereas, instead, we could use that money for other more purposeful reasons.
I do agree with you about the wall impacting both countries, therefore both should have a say.
Friday, March 30, 2018
Not Your Body. Not Your Life.
Not your body. Not your life. Not your choice.
First off, let me clear up that Pro-Choice does NOT mean Pro-Abortion. Pro-Choice is simply supporting women to have the option accessible. Women should have the choice to their bodies, since they're the ones enduring the pregnancy. Many discussions nowadays include religion. Politics should not encompass religion; not everyone is religious.
With pro-life, women would have no choice but to give birth. Whereas with pro-choice, women would be able to decide. Supporting pro-choice does not necessarily mean I would get an abortion myself, but I support other women to have that option available. Stated above, their body is not mine; their life is not mine; their decision is not mine.
There are many reasons as to why a woman would consider an abortion. Some women may have been raped. In that instance, which is tragic, the women may not want to carry the child as a reminder of their rapist and/or traumatic experience. In a time where sexual assualt is more prevalent, why would anyone want to take away women's right to prioritize their mental health and overall well-being? Another reason a woman may want an abortion is due to health risks. Some women may be endangered or risk their physical health in order to give birth. In that case, knowing the mother may die, why would you want to give the woman or family only ONE option?
Other reasons would be parental pressure, partner pressure, social or economic reasons, and possible fetus abnormalities, etc. You may not support some, or any of these reasons, but once again, it is their life.
No one understands the circumstances another person endures.
Not your body. Not your. Not your choice. Support women and their decisions, or mind your business.
First off, let me clear up that Pro-Choice does NOT mean Pro-Abortion. Pro-Choice is simply supporting women to have the option accessible. Women should have the choice to their bodies, since they're the ones enduring the pregnancy. Many discussions nowadays include religion. Politics should not encompass religion; not everyone is religious.
With pro-life, women would have no choice but to give birth. Whereas with pro-choice, women would be able to decide. Supporting pro-choice does not necessarily mean I would get an abortion myself, but I support other women to have that option available. Stated above, their body is not mine; their life is not mine; their decision is not mine.
There are many reasons as to why a woman would consider an abortion. Some women may have been raped. In that instance, which is tragic, the women may not want to carry the child as a reminder of their rapist and/or traumatic experience. In a time where sexual assualt is more prevalent, why would anyone want to take away women's right to prioritize their mental health and overall well-being? Another reason a woman may want an abortion is due to health risks. Some women may be endangered or risk their physical health in order to give birth. In that case, knowing the mother may die, why would you want to give the woman or family only ONE option?
Other reasons would be parental pressure, partner pressure, social or economic reasons, and possible fetus abnormalities, etc. You may not support some, or any of these reasons, but once again, it is their life.
No one understands the circumstances another person endures.
Not your body. Not your. Not your choice. Support women and their decisions, or mind your business.
Friday, March 9, 2018
It Is Accomplished
The Dish published an editorial on June 26, 2015 titled, It Is Accomplished. Not everyone may know, but June 26th was the day marriage equality was passed, finally. Andrew Sullivan, the author, wrote his opinions about the legalization of gay marriage. I decided to go with a conservative editorial because I wanted to see another perspective. However, I was not expecting this to be a pro-gay article. I was surprised at first. There was a tremendous quote Sullivan included by Gandhi, "First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they attack you. Then you win."
I know this editorial is old, but it intrigued me. Sullivan is a known conservative, and primarily conservatives are known for sticking to their traditional ways. I believe his intended audience was other fellow conservatives who may not support equal marriage. There are plenty of people who aren't republican, and don't support gay marriage. However, in this case, Sullivan attracts republican readers, therefore he knew what sort of audience would most likely be exposed to his opinion.
Sullivan is credible because he was knowledgeable and knew about many events before, and during the legalization. Sullivan provided insight from the lefts and the religious right. It wasn't a rapid process, but it was worth it in the end. Sullivan included his experience during the dark times when many people were against gay marriage... and those who were gay were treated as, "second class citizens." Sullivan included facts from the Bush and Clinton Administration, as well as how the Declaration of Independence states the pursuit of happiness for all citizens.
In It Is Accomplished, Sullivan was stating he supported the legalization of gay marriage. He claimed homosexuals are no different than their heterosexual peers. "We are born into family; we love; we marry; we take care of our children; we die." I agree completely with Sullivan, and support the legalization of gay marriage was a necessity... and should've never been a debate in the first place.
I know this editorial is old, but it intrigued me. Sullivan is a known conservative, and primarily conservatives are known for sticking to their traditional ways. I believe his intended audience was other fellow conservatives who may not support equal marriage. There are plenty of people who aren't republican, and don't support gay marriage. However, in this case, Sullivan attracts republican readers, therefore he knew what sort of audience would most likely be exposed to his opinion.
Sullivan is credible because he was knowledgeable and knew about many events before, and during the legalization. Sullivan provided insight from the lefts and the religious right. It wasn't a rapid process, but it was worth it in the end. Sullivan included his experience during the dark times when many people were against gay marriage... and those who were gay were treated as, "second class citizens." Sullivan included facts from the Bush and Clinton Administration, as well as how the Declaration of Independence states the pursuit of happiness for all citizens.
In It Is Accomplished, Sullivan was stating he supported the legalization of gay marriage. He claimed homosexuals are no different than their heterosexual peers. "We are born into family; we love; we marry; we take care of our children; we die." I agree completely with Sullivan, and support the legalization of gay marriage was a necessity... and should've never been a debate in the first place.
Sunday, February 25, 2018
Let the Teachers Teach
On February 22, 2018, The New York Times published an editorial called, "Let the Teachers Teach". This article encompassed Trump's proposal towards minimizing mass shootings; Trump suggested, "arming 20 percent" of teachers. This would result in potential shooters deterring away from schools as their next target. Chris Magnus, a police chief in Tucson, was asked his perspective on the situation at hand, as well as his solution to it. Magnus responded to Trump's idea, "It's hard to begin to count the number of ways this is a bad idea." However, there are many people in society who would refute Magnus' opinion. Magnus supported his answer by stating how teachers are only human, and even highly trained officers miss at least two-thirds of the time. The percentage decreases to roughly 13 percent when officers are placed in adrenaline rushed gunfights. Personally, I agree with Magnus and wouldn't feel safer knowing teachers were armed. Teachers are human; anyone can have a bad day.
The author, The Editorial Board, probably intended to reach out to pro-gun audiences, in hopes of exposing them to the opposing views. Pro Gun-Control does not mean ban all guns. The Editorial Board is credible, due to providing information from an experienced official, whose occupation involves guns. I believe that The Editorial Board is arguing against the ideal of arming teachers, and instead is calling for, "banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines," as well as, "tightening background checks."
I agree with the author completely, and also believe a mental health assessment should be included in the process of obtaining a gun. If someone isn't willing to go through more requirements to acquire a gun, then maybe they don't want/need one as much as they think. Teachers have a sole purpose to educate their students, and adding the responsibility of a gun to their classroom would only add to the possible ideal of a shooting happening any day. Schools already take precaution to prevent shootings with lockdown drills, why add a gun? Seems like the reason for these implementations are solely due to guns themselves.
Friday, February 9, 2018
According to USA Today on February 1, 2018, China has been supposedly hacking into our wireless systems and listening in on phone calls. Now, don't worry, I'm pretty sure China has no interest in your phone calls with your grandma. With that said, there of course is still conflict with another country eavesdropping.
Trump has been pondering whether or not to nationalize the United States' 5G wireless network. Nationalizing the wireless network would hopefully limit the Chinese's influence, while minimizing the cyber threats. Sure, that sounds like a plan, but there's still realistic problems. For one, 5G phones and their cell towers won't be around until a few more years. Secondly, with the threat from China being diminished, would we have a safe network that protects us from our own government legally snooping?
Another major issue with this suggestion of nationalizing Federal 5G, is it potentially being monitored in Washington. This information wasn't announced, until a report exposed the leaked presentation made by a SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL MEMBER. If the government is incompetent to secure and protect their own officials, as stated above, how do they plan to organize and run a complete network for an entire nation?
Officials from the White House have denied the accusations for the plans of federal 5G as of now.
Classmates, this link intrigued me at a first glance because I had no knowledge of what federal 5G was. The government potentially having the capability to listen to our calls reminded me of people suddenly covering their webcams more now. How do we know our privacy isn't being violated already? Reading more into the article, I thought it was ironic how a member of national security got hacked and his information for federal 5G got leaked.
Trump has been pondering whether or not to nationalize the United States' 5G wireless network. Nationalizing the wireless network would hopefully limit the Chinese's influence, while minimizing the cyber threats. Sure, that sounds like a plan, but there's still realistic problems. For one, 5G phones and their cell towers won't be around until a few more years. Secondly, with the threat from China being diminished, would we have a safe network that protects us from our own government legally snooping?
Another major issue with this suggestion of nationalizing Federal 5G, is it potentially being monitored in Washington. This information wasn't announced, until a report exposed the leaked presentation made by a SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL MEMBER. If the government is incompetent to secure and protect their own officials, as stated above, how do they plan to organize and run a complete network for an entire nation?
Officials from the White House have denied the accusations for the plans of federal 5G as of now.
Classmates, this link intrigued me at a first glance because I had no knowledge of what federal 5G was. The government potentially having the capability to listen to our calls reminded me of people suddenly covering their webcams more now. How do we know our privacy isn't being violated already? Reading more into the article, I thought it was ironic how a member of national security got hacked and his information for federal 5G got leaked.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
I really enjoyed reading Acker's editorial because she provided valid solutions to potentially decrease gun violence in the United States.
I am very open-minded, and believe gun reform is a necessity. However, I also don't see an issue with having a concealed and licensed gun. I had not always felt this way, but one day in Church I thought... wow, if someone were to come into the church and shoot at us, there wouldn't be anyone to fend for us. Law enforcement wouldn't arrive in time, and we would all be left helpless. I then began to fear for my own safety.
With that said, I still do agree with Acker's post. It's not exactly getting rid of guns, but instead trying to identify issues regarding gun violence. Acker proposed having congress lift the Dickey Amendment, teaching overall emotional and mental health in schools, and allowing the CDC to get involved.
I believe Acker's approach is a wonderful first-step in reforming America.
I somewhat agree with Acker saying the second amendment should be lifted. I think automatic and semi-automatic guns should be banned from citizens. There is no reason any American would need such a powerful and dangerous gun. However, I don't think the entire amendment should be lifted. As I stated above, I wouldn't want to be left defenseless. There are many people that own guns and are cautious and responsible with them; not everyone should be punished.