Blog Review

Again I'll say, we have a smart class! I agree with Alex, but also love to play Devil's Advocate, you can read more here.

We have a smart class

I really enjoyed reading through everyone's blogs, and for time's sake only commented on one. I agree with Ben's overlying sentiments, and thought this may open up more dialogue of what it means to protect one's self. You can read it all here.

Trump is Bad, but Pence is Worse

Since Donald Trump announced his run for Presidency, there have been plenty that started a search for any reason to take him out of the office should he win it. When he did take the win, to the surprise of many in the general public, the search intensified and special committees were set up to start the process of what could eventually lead to his impeachment. 

As it stands today the chances of Trump being impeached are strong, however, the chances of both Trump AND Pence (the current Vice President) being impeached are very weak. If Trump is to leave office, it is almost guaranteed that Pence will step up to bat. Trump may be bad, but in my opinion, Pence is substantially worse. 

Since the start of the colonization of North America businesses have been prevalent in the growth, and success, of what was to become the United States of America. President Trump has left a bad taste in many American's mouths with his generosity to corporations over the middle class however, that is nothing new in our country. As a people, we have many times been left as the underdogs to industry and it's hard to think that will change. Trump is doing nothing in this regard that hasn't been done before. 

That being said, Pence has remained rather quiet on the business aspects of politics and largely vocal on the religious aspects. From the background I could get through on Pence, it seems that the majority of his decisions have been based on one of two things: 1) His (and his wife's) religious beliefs, and 2) His relationship with the Koch brothers (who are well known for their libertarian views that include deregulating any industry they are a part of).

The history of the United States includes many presidents who were willing to speak out on behalf of their religious beliefs but always seemed to stop short of taking their own beliefs and forcing them onto the country. We have already seen what Pence is willing to pass in defense of his beliefs (specifically speaking to the laws he passed while Indiana Governor from 2013 until he became VP) including but not limited to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and H.B. 1337. 

As a woman, I am astounded that a man that follows the Billy Graham rule, meaning he will not spend time alone in a room with a woman who is not his wife, or dine with any unmarried women without his wife, is able to hold such a prominent position in a government that is not supposed to discriminate against anyone.  Trump is bad, but for anyone in the country who isn't a white Christian male, I think Pence is substantially worse. 

We should listen to kids...but only the ones that are saying things we agree with

Trying to better understand the national issue of gun control I ventured out of my personal political comfort zone I visited the "RedState" political blog to see what the "other side" is saying about the Parkland shooting victims and survivors. 

In the article, "In The Midst Of The Parkland Student Media Spectacle, Kyle Kashuv Is The Only One I Respect" written by Brandon Morse, we see one person's view as to why Kyle Kashuv is the only Parkland shooting survivor worth listening to. RedState is a heavily right-leaning blog and Morse is a contributor who seems to like to write about any, and all, hot-button issues. In the article, Morse uses the argument that the "students" from Parkland are only marching on D.C. because left-leaning organizations have come to help these kids organize, find funding, and show them the ropes to a scenario that few kids in America, actually few people in America, have had to figure out before.

Ironically, in his argument Morse begins his article with the statement that "to this day I believe that young people do have some value to add to the national conversation." However, he goes on to belittle the kids that are speaking " often ill-informed commentary" on the NRA and their contributions to Republican politicians. 

The argument that Morse makes is based on nothing other than pathos, expecting his reader to take his word that many of the Parkland survivors are nothing other than mouthpieces for a left-leaning organization, and not speaking their own feelings and thoughts. 

The idea that the only people worth listening to are the ones speaking your own ideas seems to be the biggest pitfall of politics. Nothing will be achieved until BOTH sides realize that the most important people to listen to are those that have the opposite ideas of yourself, and to have open and transparent lines of communication. 

Actually....

In the article, Actually, there is a clear link between mass shootings and mental illness by Grant Duwe and Michael Rocque, information is given to suggest exactly what the title states; there is a clear and concise connection between mass shootings and higher rates of mental illness. With gun debates being the most discussed topic of this week (or possibly of the decade depending on who you ask) it was not hard to find articles stating all kinds of opinions on the topic.

The intended audience of this article, coming from the Los Angeles Times, isn't initially clear, but it could be said that the intended audience is every American who is chiming into the newly sparked gun debates and those who may not be publicly sharing their opinions but who are aggregating data to be able to do so with a basis of education. 

With such a large potential audience, the authors used empirical data to make the argument that the perpetrators of mass shootings have higher rates of serious mental issues. The argument is a heated one right now, with politicians at the highest level saying that mass shootings, more specifically the one that occurred last week at a Florida high school, are not "gun issues", but "mental health issues". This article does a good job of explaining how such a tragedy can, and most often, is an issue of BOTH. 

Being the hot-button issue it is, I believe the authors approached the subject in the best way that it can be addressed, with cited studies that contain empirical data to back up the main argument that the heighten issue of mass shootings is both a gun problem and a mental health problem. There are several studies cited throughout the article, and I believe the authors did not rely on a pathos approach to gun violence, as so many want to do in the wake of a tragedy, nor did they rely on facts alone, being careful to include hypothesis as to why the data looks the way it does. 

The conclusion that the authors came to, and convinced me is a beneficial approach to this issue that is currently splitting the country more than it already is, is that "we need to invest in research to develop evidence-based solutions", and that progress cannot be made "until those on the mental health side and those on the gun side find common ground that's rooted in empirical reality".

 I fully agree, and hope that we can all find our way to the empirical reality we are living in.. 

What is this new spending bill about?

With the government in the midst of finding a compromise to avoid a second shutdown of 2018 (yes, we are only into the second month and having to discuss how to avoid another shutdown) it is time to look at the proposed changes to the budget and what it includes. In the NY Times article, What's Hidden in the Spending Bill there is a decent breakdown of what is included in the proposed changes to the budget that will go to a vote this evening (or has been voted on already depending on when this is being read). This was a really helpful article to understand what is being proposed, although it is slightly left-leaning, with more information given on topics that will benefit the populous and less on the politics of why things are being proposed.  To understand why Republican supporters are not fully behind the proposed spending bill I looked into the National Review article, Against the Spending Bill. This article talks about how the proposed changes will risk the Republican hold on the Senate and how this bill could prevent them from making any additional "wins" to their ledger before November when general elections could change the balance of parties in the Senate and House. With the two primary parties finding a compromise, no one will be completely happy. It is my greatest hope that partisan politics will be set aside, and the greater good of the country will be the main goal of finding a compromise.

Let's get this started...

Looking forward to learning a lot about US Government and why they do the things they do (or don't do things in this case, as I write this in the midst of a shutdown!)