Gerrymandering: An undemocratic process

I agree with Cameron’s proposal to eliminate gerrymandering through the implementation of the Split Line Method. In fact, I think any algorithm that eliminates party biases would be a step in the right direction. Gerrymandering is not only unconstitutional, it violates the sanctity of our democracy. As long as the American people fail to speak out  against the crimes committed by our government, we will inadvertently support injustices against minorities. The elimination of gerrymandering could possibly lead to more active participation by the American people, feeling that their vote is actually impactful on the outcome of any given election.

Gun Control

“Guns don’t kill,people do”, says my dad as talk of gun control rules the media. This statement is absolutely true, guns are merely a tool utilized by mentally unstable individuals who want to cause harm to others. What it fails to take into consideration is that laws are meant to protect the people, and the best way to do so is to take away the tool that can act against us, notably the automatic weapon. I understand that guns can be a hobby and that people have owned guns recreationally for decades without any major incidents. But, with mental illness on the rise, I think it’s time for our government to intervene and enact more strict gun control laws. There is no reason, recreational or otherwise, that an ordinary citizen should or would ever need to own an automatic assault weapon. So why is it that you can go online and purchase a gun with a dozen magazines without so much as a license?

    The main arguments against gun control are that the right to bear arms is written in the constitution and that people need firearms to protect themselves. The constitution is an archaic document that doesn’t properly address the problems of modern society so it’s use as justification for modern weaponry is invalid at its inception. If we want to advance as a society we need to address the fact that the blueprint of our government is still predominantly  based off words that were written some 200 years ago by a group of slave owning white men. Secondly, I don’t think that the answer to guns and violence is more guns. One of  the right wing responses to the increase in gun violence as of late has been to enact laws that enable students to open carry on college campuses. This has negatively impacted the learning environment for students through a loss of quality faculty out of concern related to retaliation by mentally unstable individuals. There is little evidence that open carry actually makes campuses safer.  In a study conducted by the CATO institute a couple of years ago, they found only 14 instances of a college student protecting themselves using guns. Many of these instances were against individuals not in possession of a firearm.

   I think it’s important to note that gun control does not mean that all guns would be taken away. The root of the problem is that there is a lot of finger pointing amongst the left and right about whose fears are more valid. Is it better to to defend oneself through more violence or to take the weapon off the table entirely? In order to enact any positive change we as a society need to decide what role we want our government to play in keeping us safe, and shift the paradigm from the antiquated ideals of our forefathers.

Blog Stage Six: Commentary on a Colleague's Post

I agree with Keith’s declaration that President Trump should not be able to appoint a Supreme Court Justice prior to the conclusion of the investigation against him, regardless if the outcome is in his favor. The accusations that have prompted this investigation in the first place are so deceitful to the American public that they should not be rewarded with important executive powers. That being said, I don’t think it makes any difference when or who gets appointed to the Supreme Court because it will be the decision of the GOP just the same. Trump is nothing more than a puppet to his administration, and with or without him their agenda will become the law of the land.

President Trump: A Corrupt Administration

In the New York Times article entitled, President Trump Is Asked to Show His Cards, the Editorial Board argues that Trump is not adhering to his promise to keep his administration free from individuals susceptible to venality. The article sites that within the first weeks of his presidency, Trump signed an executive order that required executive branch employees to adhere to rules designed to prevent misconduct. However, within this list of rules was a clause that allowed for waivers for the dismissal of ethical rules, rendering the order virtually purposeless.

  The author of this article emphasizes that during the Obama administration, more stringent regulation was implemented by the department of ethics on members of government who required waivers. This contrast is used to invalidate Trump’s claims to “clean up government” and “make it more transparent for the American people”. It is clear that the author disagrees with Trump’s methodology and this is demonstrated not only by the contrast to the previous administration but the citing of possible corruption within his own cabinet. Examples of this include Ivanka Trump,a white house senior advisor, whose business ties with China and Germany predispose her to bribery.

   I agree with the claims made by the author of this argument, although admittedly not because of any information present within this article. Like a lot of the American public I am predisposed to ideas about the corruption of the Trump administration because of what information I am fed by the media. That’s not to say that the claims made in the article are unfounded, but they are definitely skewed in favor of a democratic agenda. I think it’s important to take arguments in blatant favor of a particular party with a grain of salt, in order to expand one’s perspective. This author’s intended audience is most likely people who are distrustful of either government as a whole or the Trump administration in particular.

Working Mothers in America

According to a reputable political blog entitled, Politifact, the United States is the only industrialized nation in the world that doesn’t offer paid maternity or family leave. Following the birth of their child, most mothers return to work within two weeks because they can’t afford to be absent for an extended amount of time. Studies of European policies show that paid-leave programs can substantially reduce infant mortality rates contributing to higher IQs and income levels later in life, particularly for those of lower socioeconomic status. The United States should implement federal policy that requires companies to provide paid family leave for at least three months following the birth of their child.

    According to Business Insider, in 2004, California became the first state to implement a paid family leave program that enables Californians to receive 55% of their salary for up to six weeks. More than 90% of companies affected by the action did not disclose any significant differences in profitability or morale. It can be stated that 55% of one’s salary is not a living wage which would substantiate claims of exiguous difference in profitability or morale. Women were forced to return to the workplace prematurely due to low wages that did not allow them to support themselves or their families. When domestic companies do not provide paid maternity leave, this often leads to low employee retention rates. When working mothers are forced to leave the workplace, companies face increased expenditures of time and money to train new employees. Moreover, women in states with paid leave are less likely to use food stamps or other forms of public assistance. So not only does paid maternity leave incentivize mothers to return to the workplace following their leave, it reduces federal spending for welfare programs.

  The goal of any nation is to support and aid in the prosperity of its people. Trump’s campaign promise was to “Make America Great Again”. So what makes a country great? An educated public, easy access to health care, low poverty rates, and equality for all. These principles begin in one’s youth and are enhanced over a lifetime. Paid maternity leave is just one facet that alleviates the stress on working mothers, enabling them to raise healthy and socially conscious individuals who will then go out and make the world a better place.  

Moving Backwards

     On February 23, 2017 the Editorial Board published an article for the New York Times entitled, "President Trump Breaks a Promise on Transgender Rights". This article is a commentary on actions to take away transgender rights. Jeff Sessions, the attorney general for the Trump administration whose made it his prerogative to halt transgender students rights in using the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity; has championed this cause. The Editorial Board confers that this act on part of Sessions goes against what Trump promised the LGBTQ community during his campaign- to protect their rights.  It's hardly unusual for politicians to not stick to their word once elected but Trump, who has founded his campaign on getting his campaign promises done, has not only failed to retain the rights of LGBTQ citizens, but taken away the very rights he stood to protect. The article mentions that the rationale for the dismissal of transgender rights is that to executively order schools to protect these students, violates the sanctity of states' rights. This same argument has been used in the past to justify the protection of Jim Crowe laws and opposition of Women's Rights. While I agree with the author's point of view, president Trump IS as big a flake as ever, I don't understand the point of reading an article that enforces the views you already hold. The bias of this article is clearly very left-leaning, which means it will only reach people who tend to lean left politically. I think it's more important to read articles that are more objective than biased in order to form an educated opinion. The same is true of engaging in political discussion on a personal basis. If you only discuss politics with people who agree with you, then your scope will be too narrow and enacting change will be slow to occur. 

The Trump Travel Ban

    On Friday, NPR posted an article summarizing the U.S. circuit court of appeals decision to block an executive order on immigration. The article titled, "5 Key Points From the Appeals Court's Travel Ban Ruling", reviews the specifics of the travel ban and the ruling to appeal it. The travel ban terminates the admission of new refugees for 120 days and bars migrants from seven majority Muslim countries- Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Sudan,Libya, and Somalia- for ninety days. The lower court ruled to temporarily block the executive order on the following grounds, a) there is not enough evidence to support that the ban would prevent "irreparable injury", b) the government was being shifty about the exact terms of the ban, c) the Trump administration was arguing that the courts did not have the authority to arbitrate the executive action, d) states' opposed the action on the grounds that it would interfere with businesses and universities, and e) religious discrimination is unconstitutional. I think that this is an interesting and important article for all to read because it's important to stay educated about the acts of discrimination in order to combat them. The final line of our pledge of allegiance is "with liberty and justice for ALL", and any administration that tries to challenge the foundations of our country must be stopped.