As I was browsing around I came across Matthew's Blog Post about Trump's ridiculous and inaccurate Tweet that I wanted to share with you guys.
Matthew, you really hit the nail on the head with this post. I remember seeing something about this about a week ago but honestly I didn't pay it much attention until now. I find it hilarious just how incorrect he was on this issue, even to the extent that the source he got it from doesn't even exist. Although looking into it further, I discovered that the picture was actually taken from a white supremacist twitter account, which personally only makes this funnier for me.
Although real quick, when you were comparing the Trump data with the FBI data the chart you posted isn't accurate, you need to move the numbers around. At first I was confused but eventually I realized that you had just put numbers in the wrong column.
As far as why he is leading on the Republican platform, I think the simplistic answer is for a lot of those people he's speaking to a part of them that's not only scared of the world around them, but also afraid of the changes in our society as we progress. And them not being able to see whats really going on around them can be explained through conformation bias.
Friday, December 11, 2015
Commentary on the U.S. Government Blog #7
I think it's important to make a commentary on the high levels of corruption within our government. More importantly, the legalized corruption that poisons our democracy. Hopefully I haven't had so much brandy that I get carried away.
I think the biggest thing that's hurting us essentially legalized bribery in the form of lobbying. I really frustrates me when our politicians are able to make massive amounts of money and essentially forget about the people they are supposed to work for. What baffles me is that this is in no way considered treason despite everything about this is treasonous. Ignoring the will of the people and not doing whats best for the country all for money should not only be illegal, but have the harshest of penalties.
When it comes to changing our society and joining the rest of the developed world, I believe addressing the gross amount of legalized bribery is essential. We need our leaders to be doing whats best for the people, not their pocket books. And going perfectly with Blog #5, I think this would be the perfect bipartisan position to finally unite the people.
I think what really makes this a bipartisan issue is the fact that a vast majority of politicians, both Republican and Democrat are guilty of working against the interest of the country. Really. this would best be combated by overturning the Citizens United court case that essentially declares corporations and businesses as people.
Although I do agree that there are certain protections corporations and businesses should have, because after all they are owned by individuals with rights just like anyone else. But that does not mean that those corporations should have more influence over the voice of the people. Reasonably, businesses should try to secure whats in their best interest. My family owns a business, so I know this more than anyone. But that doesn't mean that my family's business should be allowed to work against the best interest of the public by lobbying for certain bills to get pasts that only benefit my families business. That is not a democracy, that is not what we as a society should strive for.
The fact that our politicians are even willing to take money in exchange for favors is disgusting. Even if we were to pass laws to stop lobbying, I would want to clean house and remove those who are guilty from office. They have already shown that they will abuse the system if they know they can get away with it. The only place they should governance over is which side of the mattress to sleep on in their jail cell.
And I'm pretty sure that's not the brandy talking, but who knows.
I think the biggest thing that's hurting us essentially legalized bribery in the form of lobbying. I really frustrates me when our politicians are able to make massive amounts of money and essentially forget about the people they are supposed to work for. What baffles me is that this is in no way considered treason despite everything about this is treasonous. Ignoring the will of the people and not doing whats best for the country all for money should not only be illegal, but have the harshest of penalties.
When it comes to changing our society and joining the rest of the developed world, I believe addressing the gross amount of legalized bribery is essential. We need our leaders to be doing whats best for the people, not their pocket books. And going perfectly with Blog #5, I think this would be the perfect bipartisan position to finally unite the people.
I think what really makes this a bipartisan issue is the fact that a vast majority of politicians, both Republican and Democrat are guilty of working against the interest of the country. Really. this would best be combated by overturning the Citizens United court case that essentially declares corporations and businesses as people.
Although I do agree that there are certain protections corporations and businesses should have, because after all they are owned by individuals with rights just like anyone else. But that does not mean that those corporations should have more influence over the voice of the people. Reasonably, businesses should try to secure whats in their best interest. My family owns a business, so I know this more than anyone. But that doesn't mean that my family's business should be allowed to work against the best interest of the public by lobbying for certain bills to get pasts that only benefit my families business. That is not a democracy, that is not what we as a society should strive for.
The fact that our politicians are even willing to take money in exchange for favors is disgusting. Even if we were to pass laws to stop lobbying, I would want to clean house and remove those who are guilty from office. They have already shown that they will abuse the system if they know they can get away with it. The only place they should governance over is which side of the mattress to sleep on in their jail cell.
And I'm pretty sure that's not the brandy talking, but who knows.
Responding to my Colleague Blog Post #6
Here I would like to respond to a colleague of mine in one of his blog posts concerning the Islamic State problem, which you can read here Insight on the U.S. Government
So personally I find a lot agree and disagree with. I partially agree that we should be more aggressive towards the Islamic State. I wholeheartedly agree that there is something that should be done to stop and eliminate the Islamic State. However, I do have some concerns regarding on how that should be accomplished.
First off, he is absolutely correct when he says that the Islamic State arose out of the power vacuum that was left behind when we, America, destabilized the region when we brought down the Iraqi government. And while the idea crippling the Islamic State to the point where an opposing group takes over sound appealing, I don't think that that would solve the problem. My biggest concern is that new group that takes over becoming "Islamic State 2.0". I think the best solution would be having an already established government (as terrible as it sounds, Iran or Turkey might be the best one to fill this role) to take control. I say this because as an already established government fills power gaps nicely. One of the reasons I support Russia in the backing of Syria in the Syrian Civil War is NOT because I am in favor of the Syrian Regime (I absolutely loathe the Syrian Regime), but because I believe they are our best bet in securing any type of stability in the region.
Ideally, I would prefer one of the pro-west rebel groups to take control of Syria and spread democracy, but unfortunately there is just so way of saying for sure that they would be able to stay in control and not fall to terrorist group who then would take control. In the case of the Islamic State, I think backing another neighboring country (through air strikes, but not send any money or supplies) in an invasion of the Islamic State territory and then letting them control the new region is the way to handle the situation. I wouldn't suggest giving the territory back to Iraq, as I personally don't think Iraq would be ready to be able to stop another group like the Islamic State from rising up in the hole that the Islamic State would leave behind.
But as my colleague says, America needs the support from countries in the region if there is to be any hope of stopping the Islamic State.
So personally I find a lot agree and disagree with. I partially agree that we should be more aggressive towards the Islamic State. I wholeheartedly agree that there is something that should be done to stop and eliminate the Islamic State. However, I do have some concerns regarding on how that should be accomplished.
First off, he is absolutely correct when he says that the Islamic State arose out of the power vacuum that was left behind when we, America, destabilized the region when we brought down the Iraqi government. And while the idea crippling the Islamic State to the point where an opposing group takes over sound appealing, I don't think that that would solve the problem. My biggest concern is that new group that takes over becoming "Islamic State 2.0". I think the best solution would be having an already established government (as terrible as it sounds, Iran or Turkey might be the best one to fill this role) to take control. I say this because as an already established government fills power gaps nicely. One of the reasons I support Russia in the backing of Syria in the Syrian Civil War is NOT because I am in favor of the Syrian Regime (I absolutely loathe the Syrian Regime), but because I believe they are our best bet in securing any type of stability in the region.
Ideally, I would prefer one of the pro-west rebel groups to take control of Syria and spread democracy, but unfortunately there is just so way of saying for sure that they would be able to stay in control and not fall to terrorist group who then would take control. In the case of the Islamic State, I think backing another neighboring country (through air strikes, but not send any money or supplies) in an invasion of the Islamic State territory and then letting them control the new region is the way to handle the situation. I wouldn't suggest giving the territory back to Iraq, as I personally don't think Iraq would be ready to be able to stop another group like the Islamic State from rising up in the hole that the Islamic State would leave behind.
But as my colleague says, America needs the support from countries in the region if there is to be any hope of stopping the Islamic State.
My Opinion on the U.S. National Gov. Blog Stage #5
Currently, I have a lot of mixed feelings right now about the U.S. National Government. I think the simple term to describe everything is frustrated. And, as I think a lot of others would agree, there is a lot to be frustrated about.
I think what frustrates me the most the ever growing divide between the Republican and Democratic parties. Which, as a moderate, is increasingly frustrating. The divide is causing the American people to become so polarized that no one is either willing or able to have a conversation and actually discuss other points of view. Where this really causes problems is instead of listening to the plights of fellow individuals, we essentially dehumanize them and call their problems either insignificant and nonexistent. And what really is sad is that in some cases, there are positions in which both Republicans and Democrats can easily come together (such as laws to end legalized bribery, which in my opinion should be treated as treason).
While this isn't really something new in our government, I'm tired of seeing our government continue to keep us divide with the political parties. And rather than trying to come together and reach an agreement on policies, they shut everything down.
Another thing that has been frustrating me has been how the situation in the Middle East has been handled. There is no simple answer, if an answer at all, at what is to be done about everything there. Putting boots on the ground risks more lives in a conflict that I personally believe is "Vietnam Round 2". The bombing runs we've been doing seems to only be radicalizing more people, essentially meaning more people are joining terrorist organizations that we are killing. Of course, as a red blooded American, I'm not a big fan of just doing nothing about what all is happening, but I really don't see a clear cut solution. And I'm tired of the seemingly lack of teamwork in our government about what should be done.
Of course, the same thing can be said about Syrian Refugee Crisis. Two groups of opposing ideas spouting rhetoric that only divides us. Luckily, I think our government is making the right decision to let them in, but I am disappointed that rather than everyone in the government coming together and working a solution that everyone agrees on, everyone is throwing mud at each other. Which only further polarizes the people rather than bringing us together.
I'm sure I sound like a broken record, just giving examples of how our government has failed to unite us. But when we have candidates like Trump who is playing off the increasing divide to fuel his campaign, I think we are beginning to lose our democracy.
I think what frustrates me the most the ever growing divide between the Republican and Democratic parties. Which, as a moderate, is increasingly frustrating. The divide is causing the American people to become so polarized that no one is either willing or able to have a conversation and actually discuss other points of view. Where this really causes problems is instead of listening to the plights of fellow individuals, we essentially dehumanize them and call their problems either insignificant and nonexistent. And what really is sad is that in some cases, there are positions in which both Republicans and Democrats can easily come together (such as laws to end legalized bribery, which in my opinion should be treated as treason).
While this isn't really something new in our government, I'm tired of seeing our government continue to keep us divide with the political parties. And rather than trying to come together and reach an agreement on policies, they shut everything down.
Another thing that has been frustrating me has been how the situation in the Middle East has been handled. There is no simple answer, if an answer at all, at what is to be done about everything there. Putting boots on the ground risks more lives in a conflict that I personally believe is "Vietnam Round 2". The bombing runs we've been doing seems to only be radicalizing more people, essentially meaning more people are joining terrorist organizations that we are killing. Of course, as a red blooded American, I'm not a big fan of just doing nothing about what all is happening, but I really don't see a clear cut solution. And I'm tired of the seemingly lack of teamwork in our government about what should be done.
Of course, the same thing can be said about Syrian Refugee Crisis. Two groups of opposing ideas spouting rhetoric that only divides us. Luckily, I think our government is making the right decision to let them in, but I am disappointed that rather than everyone in the government coming together and working a solution that everyone agrees on, everyone is throwing mud at each other. Which only further polarizes the people rather than bringing us together.
I'm sure I sound like a broken record, just giving examples of how our government has failed to unite us. But when we have candidates like Trump who is playing off the increasing divide to fuel his campaign, I think we are beginning to lose our democracy.
Blog Stage #4
Hello all, hope everything is going well for you!
Today I came across an article that I really enjoyed as it was from The Christian Science Monitor concerning the split between both congress and the President with what should be done about the Islamic State.
Today I came across an article that I really enjoyed as it was from The Christian Science Monitor concerning the split between both congress and the President with what should be done about the Islamic State.
The article itself started off the way I had expected it too, painting President Obama in a negative light while seeming to favor the Republican platform. However the article wonderfully spins around and points out that, save for some differences, Obama's and other Republican canidates' positions (primarily, more bombings on the Islamic State) are the exact same.
This specific quote that was presented in the article particularly stands out to me, " “A Republican president right now would probably be doing the same things that Obama is doing, but maybe with a little more stronger strategic messaging..." ”
I find it interesting how both sides of the political spectrum seem to have similar positions on things, yet try to appear as if they were totally apart. Like the quote says, the Republican base is looking for more or less the same thing, but with stronger messaging.
The article then goes on to show a divide not between Left and Right parties, but between various political figures on how to handle the Syrian Civil War. They go on to explain the Hilary Clinton is in favor of a no-fly-zone over Syria, while Obama administration has opposed such a policy. And who of course is in favor of Hilary's position? According to the article, many Republicans are. Not that they'd necessarily admit it. I think here what we could be seeing is various groups trying to distance themselves from how the Syrian Civil War has so far been handled. Which in my opinion is a reasonable thing to do, because, once again in my opinion, I do no think the Civil War has been handled very well.
I find it interesting how both sides of the political spectrum seem to have similar positions on things, yet try to appear as if they were totally apart. Like the quote says, the Republican base is looking for more or less the same thing, but with stronger messaging.
The article then goes on to show a divide not between Left and Right parties, but between various political figures on how to handle the Syrian Civil War. They go on to explain the Hilary Clinton is in favor of a no-fly-zone over Syria, while Obama administration has opposed such a policy. And who of course is in favor of Hilary's position? According to the article, many Republicans are. Not that they'd necessarily admit it. I think here what we could be seeing is various groups trying to distance themselves from how the Syrian Civil War has so far been handled. Which in my opinion is a reasonable thing to do, because, once again in my opinion, I do no think the Civil War has been handled very well.
At this point the article says that more and more Democrats are looking for a "forward leaning strategy", and still riding of the anger of what happened in Paris, that is not to unsurprising of an opinion.
The two main issues that still are a part of traditional left/right divide seem to be the question of putting "boots on the ground" and the Syrian Regugee Crisis. Although I wouldn't be surprised if we see more and more Republicans and Democrats begin to pull from positions traditionally held by the other.
Wednesday, October 7, 2015
What's this? A double post? Yup, that only means you, the reader, get more delicious opinions of mine. Enjoy!
So I'm not entirely sure why I picked this article, or rather, this blog in particular. But I found this interesting article by Ann Coulter about her response to the perceived responses of liberals about the Oregon shooting.
I don't necessarily agree with the position Ann takes, and long story short, I think her positions are misguided simply because she doesn't understand the arguments others are making. Her blog is aimed towards the far right, so for those leaning left, you might want to buckle up.
Ann starts off her article attacking leftist media for essentially agenda setting. She asserts that the leftist media overemphasizes shootings done by white males while under reporting shootings done by minorities. To quote her, "...Chris Harper-Mercer, was a half-black immigrant, so the media are refusing to get too specific about him. They don't want to reward the fiend with publicity!". She even gives us a formula for how it works, " If possible, blame it on angry white men; when that won't work, blame it on guns."
Personally, while I can see where one could make that argument, I think there are better ways to explain this media bias she is experiencing (I do not actually think the media is doing this, I only know of 2 mass shooters by name, that's Jame Holmes and Dylan Roof. Sure they're both white, but I think it makes more sense to say that its just a coincidence rather than agenda setting). If anything, I would argue it's something that all media, left or right, is perpetuating. Each side takes mass shootings and uses it for their own goals. So I think that raising the finger at leftist media is really just the pot calling the kettle black.
Next she points our attention to the claim of the Oregon shooter being mentally ill and how "the liberals" are quick to defend the rights of the mentally ill. She pushes the blame on the therapeutic community who defends people with mental illness. Saying, "When will the public rise up and demand that the therapeutic community stop loosing these nuts on the public? After the fact, scores of psychiatrists are always lining up to testify that the defendant was legally insane, unable to control his actions. That information would be a lot more helpful before the wanton slaughter."
What she doesn't seem to understand is that in a lot of these cases, we don't know people are mentally ill until after a tragedy happens. So it's not as if these people are walking around already documented. And for those that are, we can't always be sure if they are going to unleash a wave of violence. Also worth pointing out, saying somebody is "mentally ill" is actually pretty vague. She goes on later to specify that the few mentally ill people who go on to commit acts of violence are "paranoid schizophrenics". She doesn't really back that claim up with any data, but I'm assuming she is just picking the most stigmatized mental illness out of the air and not actually making a matter of fact claim. Regardless, if she plans on attacking people with mental illness, she needs to understand how people with various mental illnesses cognitively operate. I think we can agree that not all people with mental illness should be deemed innocent when faced with judgement from violent crimes (for example, if someone has an anger problem), but in the case of the paranoid schizophrenic, they literately do not have a grasp on reality. They literately do not understand what really is happening around them. And in those cases, I would like to think she would agree with me that not all individuals with mental illnesses should be punished when they are acting within a condition that causes one to have irrational actions. But unfortunately she doesn't quite understand mental illness, and because of this her positions is really absurd.
When you couple this with her "right/left us vs. them" mentality, she is unfairly attacking a group of people who can't really be held accountable for their actions, and then shoving that blame on "the left" for trying to stand up for them. Ultimately, its a really intense shift of blame on a tragedy like this. And while I get she is trying to stand up for gun owning straight white Christians, I don't believe her argument is effective at doing that.
The argument "the left" is making is that a lot of people are getting their hands on guns without a background check or having a mental evaluation done. If someone fails a mental evaluation, they should receive the proper mental health services to that they wont commit acts of violence in the future. This does mean stricter gun laws, but not an outright ban, or even limiting the types of firearms available. They just want laws to ensure that people who should not own guns not be able to legally obtain them. But this isn't something Ann seems to understand.
So I'm not entirely sure why I picked this article, or rather, this blog in particular. But I found this interesting article by Ann Coulter about her response to the perceived responses of liberals about the Oregon shooting.
I don't necessarily agree with the position Ann takes, and long story short, I think her positions are misguided simply because she doesn't understand the arguments others are making. Her blog is aimed towards the far right, so for those leaning left, you might want to buckle up.
Ann starts off her article attacking leftist media for essentially agenda setting. She asserts that the leftist media overemphasizes shootings done by white males while under reporting shootings done by minorities. To quote her, "...Chris Harper-Mercer, was a half-black immigrant, so the media are refusing to get too specific about him. They don't want to reward the fiend with publicity!". She even gives us a formula for how it works, " If possible, blame it on angry white men; when that won't work, blame it on guns."
Personally, while I can see where one could make that argument, I think there are better ways to explain this media bias she is experiencing (I do not actually think the media is doing this, I only know of 2 mass shooters by name, that's Jame Holmes and Dylan Roof. Sure they're both white, but I think it makes more sense to say that its just a coincidence rather than agenda setting). If anything, I would argue it's something that all media, left or right, is perpetuating. Each side takes mass shootings and uses it for their own goals. So I think that raising the finger at leftist media is really just the pot calling the kettle black.
Next she points our attention to the claim of the Oregon shooter being mentally ill and how "the liberals" are quick to defend the rights of the mentally ill. She pushes the blame on the therapeutic community who defends people with mental illness. Saying, "When will the public rise up and demand that the therapeutic community stop loosing these nuts on the public? After the fact, scores of psychiatrists are always lining up to testify that the defendant was legally insane, unable to control his actions. That information would be a lot more helpful before the wanton slaughter."
What she doesn't seem to understand is that in a lot of these cases, we don't know people are mentally ill until after a tragedy happens. So it's not as if these people are walking around already documented. And for those that are, we can't always be sure if they are going to unleash a wave of violence. Also worth pointing out, saying somebody is "mentally ill" is actually pretty vague. She goes on later to specify that the few mentally ill people who go on to commit acts of violence are "paranoid schizophrenics". She doesn't really back that claim up with any data, but I'm assuming she is just picking the most stigmatized mental illness out of the air and not actually making a matter of fact claim. Regardless, if she plans on attacking people with mental illness, she needs to understand how people with various mental illnesses cognitively operate. I think we can agree that not all people with mental illness should be deemed innocent when faced with judgement from violent crimes (for example, if someone has an anger problem), but in the case of the paranoid schizophrenic, they literately do not have a grasp on reality. They literately do not understand what really is happening around them. And in those cases, I would like to think she would agree with me that not all individuals with mental illnesses should be punished when they are acting within a condition that causes one to have irrational actions. But unfortunately she doesn't quite understand mental illness, and because of this her positions is really absurd.
When you couple this with her "right/left us vs. them" mentality, she is unfairly attacking a group of people who can't really be held accountable for their actions, and then shoving that blame on "the left" for trying to stand up for them. Ultimately, its a really intense shift of blame on a tragedy like this. And while I get she is trying to stand up for gun owning straight white Christians, I don't believe her argument is effective at doing that.
The argument "the left" is making is that a lot of people are getting their hands on guns without a background check or having a mental evaluation done. If someone fails a mental evaluation, they should receive the proper mental health services to that they wont commit acts of violence in the future. This does mean stricter gun laws, but not an outright ban, or even limiting the types of firearms available. They just want laws to ensure that people who should not own guns not be able to legally obtain them. But this isn't something Ann seems to understand.
Hey all, so I thought I would share this article from MSNBC highlighting 5 points about the second republican debate. I liked this article particularly because a lot of the feelings I had about the debate were expressed in it.
First point the article talks about is the performance from Fiorina. I thought she appeared as a very strong canidate, and I was pretty pleased with how well she was putting Trump in his place, speaking of which....
I very much agree with the statement that Trump "... felt like just another candidate.". He was definitely not on his A game here. The first debate, while I absolutely disagree with him on pretty much everything, he dominated his opponents. I'm not talking in terms of him having better ideas, but in overall presentation. But this time around it seems that his extreme enthusiasm wasn't enough to save face. However, he's not out of the race just yet. For his supporters, at least his performance wasn't as bad as Walker's.
Walker is a sinking ship. To be honest, looking back at the debate I don't really remember much about him. I really don't have much to say.
Bush is surprisingly still holding up. I was quite pleased with how he was able to somewhat stand his ground against grand master of slander Trump. And this time around he seemed prepared for the debate. Way better than the first time around.
Kasich is my personal favorite from the debate. He didn't have as much of a flash as Fiorina, but honestly he was the most moderate. It was pretty pleasing to see a republican candidate support gay marriage and the Iran deal. And as a moderate, I greatly appreciate the understanding he seems to hold on those issues despite him having some disagreements about them. It does pain me to know he probably wont get the Republican nomination, but that still wont stop me from hoping he does.
First point the article talks about is the performance from Fiorina. I thought she appeared as a very strong canidate, and I was pretty pleased with how well she was putting Trump in his place, speaking of which....
I very much agree with the statement that Trump "... felt like just another candidate.". He was definitely not on his A game here. The first debate, while I absolutely disagree with him on pretty much everything, he dominated his opponents. I'm not talking in terms of him having better ideas, but in overall presentation. But this time around it seems that his extreme enthusiasm wasn't enough to save face. However, he's not out of the race just yet. For his supporters, at least his performance wasn't as bad as Walker's.
Walker is a sinking ship. To be honest, looking back at the debate I don't really remember much about him. I really don't have much to say.
Bush is surprisingly still holding up. I was quite pleased with how he was able to somewhat stand his ground against grand master of slander Trump. And this time around he seemed prepared for the debate. Way better than the first time around.
Kasich is my personal favorite from the debate. He didn't have as much of a flash as Fiorina, but honestly he was the most moderate. It was pretty pleasing to see a republican candidate support gay marriage and the Iran deal. And as a moderate, I greatly appreciate the understanding he seems to hold on those issues despite him having some disagreements about them. It does pain me to know he probably wont get the Republican nomination, but that still wont stop me from hoping he does.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)