Response to Mary Parks' "Unity in the Midst of Crisis"

I chose Mary's post because what she says is so relevant, and it ties in very well with my previous post on gun violence. Besides the fact it concerns current and very recent events, it is relevant to any human to have existed: "It would be smart ... for countries around the world to stand together against these terrorist groups".

In her post, Mary discusses recent terrorism attacks, including Paris in Nov. 2015, Brussels this March, and Orlando this June. All atrocities, all needless losses, all tragedy. After mentioning her personal sentiments towards these horrific events, she expresses her appreciation for resulting global unity. Many international communities share their condolences and show their support after such events.
I fully appreciate these acts of kindness, but I sincerely question their long lasting effects. Terrorism has been on the rise in recent years, so perhaps a more concrete global union will form soon; however, as Mary says, "this support should not have to be temporary". How true! We seem to have fluctuations in international comradery. The world seems to be right on a tipping point for growing violence and chaos, especially looking at recent terrorism. As such, there are some partnerships forming to fight as one (Wiki: Military Intervention against ISIL).

Apart from the UN, NATO, and a few others, not many international coalitions have lasted much beyond the end of crises. Would a more permanent force against terrorism be a good thing? Mary and I both seem to think so. She implores the formation of "an alliance with governments around the world to stop these horrid terrorist groups". As an ironic misfortune, we humans tend to unite extremely well after mind-numbing crises like the ones we've seen. We must make good fortune of the bad and unite! Unite to stop terrorism and solve the world's problems from now to beyond. We are one race on one planet with less and less chances to come back from the brink of destruction.

The Violence and The Guns (Blog 7)

Shootings, violence, warfare are commonplace in this modern world of ours. More so than I, and many fellow humans, would like. These facets of humans and society are a given now, but they still have extreme ramifications on our populations. Obviously, numbers of casualties climb, reports on mass shootings grow more common, bombings across war-torn lands continue. These are outlandish events in their own right, but their frequency has diminished that significance. It is significant that people are fighting for their own or fighting to end others' lives day after day. Our global society exudes violence day in and day out. 

What's to be done? 

There are many, many underlying causes to the tides of violence that come in every day. However, in the past years, crime rates have actually been decreasing (National Review report). Violent crime in the US hit a peak in the 1990s, but has been steadily falling since then. This may be surprising, just like it is to many "Americans polled believe crime is up". This is likely due to media influence and general culture surrounding violence. So what is really going on with violence in America? Unfortunately, I can't really answer. Perhaps, we can attribute lower rates to better policing and lower growth rates across America. And perhaps we can attribute the crime craze with societal changes and perceptions. 

Most recently, gun control has become a hot topic again in the House of Representatives. Democrats staged an over 24-hour sit-in to bring attention to gun control following the shooting in Orlando (end of sit-in). Several gun control bills had come up in the House and failed to pass. Speaker Paul Ryan said he would not revisit the bills "that would bar suspected terrorists on no-fly lists from buying guns and impose universal background checks". Whether the Democratic sit-in was more publicity than sincerity is still up for debate. Still, in the end it highlights the fact that government (some members of it) seeks to involve itself in matters of violence and gun control. Even if this recent story continues developing or fades away, the high-profile issue of 'violence and gun control', be it over-dramatized or not, still remains in the public eye. 

1) "Careful with the Panic: Violent Crime and Gun Crime Are Both Dropping". "Nov. 30, 2015. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/427758/careful-panic-violent-crime-and-gun-crime-are-both-dropping-charles-c-w-cooke 

2) "Democrats End Gun Control Sit-In After More Than 24 Hours on House Floor". June 23, 2016. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/democrats-end-gun-control-sit-after-more-24-hours-house-n597741 

Response to Sydney's post on equality

My classmate, Sydney, wrote a great blog post about the state of equality in America. To say the least, equality is not in a very united state. It makes me pause when I realize it's been over 150 years since slavery was abolished and almost 100 years since women's suffrage passed... and we still have many discrimination and race problems in our country today. It makes me pause, and it makes me sad, and it makes me question America's future.

Sydney describes how our government simply cannot keep up with the changing times. The government is a "Rube Goldberg machine" that "cannot keep up with the cultural shifts occurring daily". I agree, given the size and diversity of the American population, the innerworkings of culture are constantly changing. It's rather unsurprising the government can't keep pace, but that doesn't solve the problems. As Sydney points out, many subgroups of our population are discriminated against, and sometimes legally.

A currently relevant example of discrimination is the Select Services and military draft, which do not involve women. She says such policies send a "message that women are less than men; in value, in strength, in American society." I had not thought about it that way, and I'd really never thought of the unisexual draft as discriminatory. My view on gender might differ from the common conceptions. I believe all genders are equal, in a humane and societal way; people of all genders deserve equal representation and right to express themselves. However, genders, specifically the natural bodies of males and females, are not biologically equivalent. On that point, my view is relevant. In many cases, being drafted calls upon your physical faculties, and men are physiologically better equipped for warfare and physical labor. I know not every person drafted does the same job, sees the same facets of war, etc., but the draft was gender exclusive for a reason-- just like our hunter-gatherer ancestors had roles split between the genders. That of course, does not mean social norms and laws aren't subject to change.

How the military draft example can extrapolate to the general population is this: maybe the question of gender restrictions shouldn't be asked by our governing institutions, but rather the people involved. If a woman wants to enlist and join the service, what say does the government have to stop her? Except for the draft laws currently being reconsidered, no say. What say does the government deserve in issues or policies like these? If the outcome were to negatively affect others as a result, then our lawmakers may be the ones to lead. If it causes no damage and is an arbitrary change in culture/society, should people or government decide?

Moving forward, I know everyone will take their stances on issues-- there's no avoiding that. However, we "cannot be fair-weather Americans", as Sydney puts it. I interpret that as 'we must seek to be kind, considerate Americans to our fellow Americans and humans'. So our government must "[try] to keep up with us" and "Future policies will hopefully involve anyone who wishes to have America defend their rights". I agree with Sydney: we must work together towards a government with equal laws and freedoms for everyone.

Oil and Gas' Throne in Government

Our country has a long history of success through capitalism and self-interest. Many individuals have seen worked to attain riches and lifestyles beyond the imaginations of most. Now, I am a proponent of the capitalist/democratic system the US has established. In theory, people will receive the fruits of their work, given they work and try enough. However, that system has failed us. As industries and individuals have grown in wealth and power, the negative externalities and collateral have grown and grown. It's beyond question that corporate influence has changed public attitudes and legislation, favoring those with the funds to 'support' our public officials and legislators. That has led to disenfranchisement, tax and financial law changes, industrial regulation leniency, etc. 

Above all, one outcome supersedes them all: The environmental destruction and pollution these companies have engineered for their own benefit, in pursuit of profit and disregard for the rest of humanity. 

Decades of huge spending and corporate lobbying have affected the generations of Congress and how they approach environmental legislation. Decades of unsustainable industry practices (especially oil and gas) have produced the current climate change crisis the entire world now faces. Decades have gone by since they've known they were destroying Earth, our home (1). In 1946, the Smokes and Fumes committee was formed to research the effects of fossil fuels on pollution and environmental quality. This comes almost 30 years after the founding of the America Petroleum Institute (API) in 1919; API was formed to address the public relations of pollution and policy issues. The oil and gas industry knew the dangers of oil, gas, pollution, and climate change, but they still worked to conceal these revelations from the public. In fact, they even did extensive research on cutting emissions and electric cars (2). Beyond that, they have fueled dispositions towards climate denial within our culture and Congress. ExxonMobil ceased funding climate denial groups just in 2008-- groups that "question the science of climate change [that] may have hindered action to tackle global warming." (3) Even after 'pleading guilty', our legislators are still in bed with these companies and their past actions; five senators, including Ted Cruz, now want to stop inquiries into these companies' climate denial schemes and lies (4). The oil and gas companies have unbearably heavy and apparently enticing checkbooks that have corrupted governments worldwide. 

This abuse needs to stop. It is abuse. Powerful oil and gas has made its own rules, produced horrible environmental disasters (5), polluted our atmosphere, and caused catastrophic climate change. This all needs to stop... but it can't when our government is not transparent, but instead a deep, oily black. Corporations, nor anyone, do not deserve this level of influence and coercion in a government entrusted with protecting and serving its people. The world doesn't work based on who's deserving and who's needing; it's based on the ones with power and money. 

I do not want to in a world where such atrocities happen, but I do. That is why our people and our governments need to cleanse themselves of these corporate parasites. 

1) The Guardian, 20 May 2016. "Oil company records from 1960s reveal patents to reduce CO2 emissions in cars". https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/20/oil-company-records-exxon-co2-emission-reduction-patents 

2) Smokes and Fumes: https://www.smokeandfumes.org. 

3) The Guardian, 28 May 2008. "Exxon to cut funding to climate change denial groups". https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/may/28/climatechange.fossilfuels 

4) The Guardian, 26 May 2016. "Senators demand US halt inquiries into climate denial by oil companies". https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/26/senators-climate-change-denial-oil-companies 

5) Popular Mechanics May 7, 2010. "10 Biggest Oil Spills in History". http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/g1765/biggest-oil-spills-in-history/?slide=8 

What Trump really says after Orlando

    Tyler Prendergast wrote an article about Trump’s response to the Orlando shooting and how it links to the likely presidential race between Clinton and Trump. So, this post can obviously be directed towards Trump and Clinton supporters and presidential election followers in general. There is some comedic, informal writing; on the other hand, the poster cites the manuscript of Trump’s Orlando response—pleading us to read the words alone. This gets to the main point of the post: Trump is bad for the country and certain voters need to step up and oppose Trump.

    As I said, the post has ‘blog’ aspects, like Prendergast making fun of Trump: “the hair, the ‘tiny hands,’, the stock character mannerisms we love mocking so much”. By citing and recommending you read Trump’s manuscript from TIME magazine, the poster gives us key evidence for his post’s claims. Evidence of Trump reigniting the ‘muslim ban’ debate and how it will improve the country and prevent violent tragedies like Orlando. The main claim and purpose is to push all those reading to 1) read his manuscript, AKA “doublespeak nonsense” and 2) vote for Hillary, because “votes for Bernie, votes for third parties, and decisions not to vote are as good as votes for Trump”.

    Predergast gradually brings the argument away from Trump’s response to Orlando to what readers should do to defeat Trump. He states that he cannot add anything new to the Orlando discussion, other voices have done better. He goes on to call for gun control reform; extrapolating to progressive change in general, he says Trump will be a huge obstacle for that change. Nearing the post’s end, he talks to the “straight, cis, white, male, millennial support. This group is what could decide Trump’s fate; they are largely unaffected against the hurtful rhetoric Trump has used against females, latinos, etc. As a part of that group, I see his point. We compose a lot of votes in America, and a lot of votes that Trump will target and hope to win. Predergast spurs the millennials, the Bernie supporters, and the cis-white-males to unite in an effort to defeat Trump. As a member of each of those groups, I have to agree. Even if I can’t have Sanders be president, there’s no way I want Mr. Trump.

Presidential Nominee Response to Orlando Tragedy

I chose this article, which is about presidential nominees Clinton and Trump's responses to the Orlando terrorism tragedy. The two gave very different responses, which have implications for the upcoming general election.

Mr. Greg Sargent wrote this opinion article about the nominees' comments in the Orlando tragedy, occurring yesterday, claiming 50 lives and injuring 53 as well. Seeing as this shooting is the largest in the nation's past, this article really serves to inform every citizen. How a presidential nominee addresses national events like this is a key indication of their behaviors as president.

Credibility is met throughout this entire article. Sargent backs up his claims and observations with links. It's not too hard to be credible when all the evidence is written online, like on Twitter. Trump and Clinton's stances on terrorism and gun control haven't remained a mystery in past campaigning months either.

Trump ended up using the massacre as evidence for his being right. Trump's discussion of the topic favors him in polls, he states. As such, he mentions the apparent 'congrats' he's received in response to the massacre. His campaign has long had anti-Muslim and exclusionist principles, while also blaming the current president for these attacks. Sargent remarks Trump is "incapable of even contemplating the possibility that a general election audience might take a dimmer view on this sort of response." It's hard to disagree when a presidential nominee uses death and despair for his gain and ego.

The article goes on to explain Clinton's response to the recent disaster. Clinton was sympathetic and sought to give support to those affected, as any respectable American and public official should. With such a contrast to Trump's response, new doubts appear about his adequacy for presidency. Sargent pointed to a poll indicating that Americans "say the next president should take core not to implicate all of Islam". If Mr. Trump doesn't listen up, it may cause him the election he's paraded in for so long.

The author uses simple evidence that really speaks for itself. There's not much to disagree with him about when he mostly points to credible sources and actual quotes. Trump's actions really speak for themselves and his ability to handle the presidential office.

Obama, Sanders, and the next few months

Today, President Obama met with Sen. Bernie Sanders in the Oval office. As of Monday, Hillary Clinton became the presumptive democratic presidential nominee. I will be forthcoming and say that I am a Sanders supporter, and this post is definitely not impartial.

Speaking of being impartial, President Obama has been impartial about his support for Hillary Clinton. Very recently he announced his assumed support for her. With these occurrences, Sanders sought a meeting with the President to discuss his campaign's future and their party's future.

In short, the article discusses Sander's staying in the race, his and the party's plan to defeat Trump, and Clinton's plans. Sanders said he will continue in the race to see D.C.'s primary results and the official count for California's primary (July 15). In his meeting with Obama, he stated his plans to work with Clinton to defeat Trump. The Senator also plans on meeting with Clinton to discuss plans for a Democrat victory and a Trump defeat.

This entire presidential race has had 'unexpected' outcomes, to say the least. One of those outcomes was Bernie Sanders to get rather close in delegate count to Clinton. Early in the race, many polls were heavily stacked against Sanders. However, over the past months, Sanders has gained major ground, won an admirable amount of delegates, and competed with the Clinton political machine. Those are pretty substantial accomplishments for a low-profile socialist candidate. Sanders may be unconventional, but convention has led to the bureaucracy and corruption our current government embodies. Not to say Trump isn't also unconventional, but he is in no way the right leader for America. When we're stuck between Democratic establishment and Republican racist candidates, Sanders seems like the only logical choice to me.

Politics isn't only logical. That is why it's the political circus. America has succumbed to a state of standstill. Our government needs change, and that change should be Sanders.