Sam Martinez |
Senior blog
October 14th, 2015 marked the day of the Democratic Presidential debate. The democratic debate was not as lively as the GOP debate, however it was popcorn worthy nonetheless. Unlike the GOP debate, the Democratic debate consisted of only five candidates. And out of these five candidates, only three really stood out while the remaining three candidates, Webb, The noteworthy performances fall unto Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Martin O’Malley of Rhode Island and the ‘so-called’ victor of this debate, Hillary Clinton. Unfortunately, Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee seemed to have missed their chance this time around but the race for President is a tight one and only the most resilient, strongest candidates have a chance at success.
Hillary Clinton. A lot of different things come to mind when one’s ears ring with sound of her name. According to factcheck.org, the public seems to believe that Clinton won the debate on October 14 2015. But I think it would be wise to review Clinton’s history in the federal government, as well as her display of character prior to this debate. In recent history, Hillary Clinton has been an intricate part of scandals and incidents that are kept in the dark to the citizens of the United States. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton possessed a private email address which stored all of the information transferred through that address on a private server. As a part of the federal government, one who is in office is obligated to turn over or present any/ all forms for communication to the ‘authorities’ on the day of office termination or prior to termination if need be. Clinton refused to turn over any emails that had traveled through her private server until two years after her term as Secretary of State concluded. Despite the fact that one cannot assume what was communicated through this certain email address, it appears ‘shady’ that Clinton refused to allow others to access those emails, etc. Clinton has provided a number of excuses for why she didn’t turn over her emails and why she had a private address with a secure, private, server; but none of these excuses seem to actually answer the question, “Why?” But this scandal was not the only occurrence during her time as Secretary of State. The 2012 Benghazi attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound also took place while Hillary was in office. For those of you unfamiliar to the 2012 attack, it happened September 11th of 2012 and it concluded with the taking of two American lives- one ambassador and one Foreign Service Information Management Officer. Accusations were made after the attack the Hillary Clinton and the Executive offices of the United States had knowledge of the attack prior and chose to not to act. Now, we will probably never know if Clinton knew of the attack prior, but the fact that an individual or group of individuals can make these said accusations and we find them plausible is appalling. Of course Hillary Clinton won the debate. She is the most seasoned candidate on that stage regarding public appearances and how to behave in said situations. But does her poise and professional dictation make her a better candidate for leading of country out of this state of limbo. I would ask the citizens of the United States to reconsider the character, the integrity, and the morals of this candidate for the President of United States.
0 Comments
Blog Post 5- The ‘Big Sort’ is a termed coined by author Bill Bishop. Bishop defines this term as a the sorting of individuals regarding things as insignificant and abstract as lawn ornaments all the way to income, political ideals, etc. One example that Bishop uses has to do with the urban density of different locations and these different densities correlate with the dominant political views of the said location. To me, this example is an obvious one. In Durango, Colorado the same statement stands to ring true. Despite the lack of factual data provided on this location, it is known that people who live out in the boonies, or away from city limits, have a more conservative or Republican view on political and social issues as in comparison to those who reside closer to the community or within city limits; where those who find home closer to their community seem to have more liberal/ democratic views. It may seem like a somewhat radical idea, however in 1899 a man named Alexis de Tocqueville wrote a book titled Democracy in America in which Tocqueville presents ideas that support those of Bill Bishop, however it was over 100 years prior to the publication of The Big Sort. Tocqueville writes, “But obviously without such common belief no society can prosper; say, rather, no society can exist, for without ideas held in common there is no common action, and without common action there may still be men, but there is no social body. (pg. 1-2)” Now, as Tocqueville wrote, no society can exist without a social body which is composed of individuals with the common beliefs. But is it possible that can be broken down even more? Let’s say that those who live farther away from the community create one social body, and those who live closer to the community create a whole different social body, but those two social bodies create one larger one, and so one and so forth. What strikes me as unusual is that I had a thought that I deemed the ‘Cell Theory’ that was ultimately the same concept but when I had the thought initially, I was applying the theory to humanity and our interaction with the environment. The fact that Bishop, Tocqueville, and I all had a similar thought brings me to the conclusion that there may be some truth to the soup. Blog Post 4- 09.23.2015
“The Nanny State” Sarah Conly of the New York Times wrote an article titled Three Cheers for the Nanny State. The content of the piece revolves around the idea that the federal government tends to ‘nanny’ the people of the United States. Conly reports on the ban the State of New York attempted to implement on large sodas or large “sugary beverages”. I have never been a huge fan of the government, but then again I have never grown accustomed to being directed what to do. Now, regarding my feelings towards the federal government, one may imagine my reaction toward a ban on large sodas. But my frustration with proposals similar to one like this only extends to a certain degree. I believe that banning large sodas is silly, I think that the impact of selected individuals consuming ungodly amounts of soda is ultimately personal to each individual. You need to pick your battles and I think the federal government may be over-stepping their bounds when claiming that citizens are forbidden from consuming more than 16 ounces of soda at a time. However, as I said, I might find the intervention of the federal government more excusable in a situation where the potential impact exceeds a rise in cases of type 2 diabetes. We may find it condemnable for the government to intervene if the actions of the people are potentially significantly enough to cause damage to neighbors as well as future generations. Now, some would attempt to justify the ban on large sodas as excusable because large amounts of soda, ultimately, negatively affect the human body. But individuals consuming large amounts of soda are only harming themselves, there are only endangering their own well-being. And that is what should dictate federal interference regarding issues such as this one- Are the actions of the individual impactful to only him/her? Or is this individual imposing on the well-being or the rights of others. In this case, I believe that the State of New York may have over stepped some power constraints set by the structure of the United States governmental system. Blog Post 3 – 09.22.2015
Marina Fang, the author of a Huffington Post article titled Women Are Underrepresented in Politics, But it’s Not For The Reason You Think, discusses why and how we have found ourselves with a lack of female’s in political offices as well as females running for political offices. After reading her article I have found myself believing that women are underrepresented in politics because of common belief. Whether it’s right or wrong, our modern society has composed a mindset where women are viewed as much sensitive, more emotional, and inferior to the male counterpart. Fang reports on a female who is particularly active in Politics known as Jennifer Lawless. According to Fang, “Lawless herself ran for a congressional seat in Rhode Island in 2006 and noted that she felt she was treated the same as male candidates in her race.” Now, she may have been treated the same, but perhaps she lost due to the common belief regarding the abilities and nature of females. Alexis De Tocqueville briefly discusses this idea of common belief and the effect it may have on an individual in the novel, Democracy in America. Regarding common belief, Tocqueville states that, “When the inhabitant of a democratic country compares himself with all those about him, he feels with pride that he is the equal of any one of them; but when he comes to survey the totality of his fellows and to place himself in contrast with so huge a body, he is instantly overwhelmed by the sense of his significance and weakness,” (Tocqueville 3). Now in addition to the already established mindset that our society has taken upon ourselves, there is a surplus of manifested discouragement directed towards females; not only in politics, but in general. Now, our government/ communities have made progress towards putting more women in office and increasing female representation in local as well as federal government systems, but there’s always more progress to be made. According to Wikipedia, the United States House of Representatives is composed of 20% women, 84 females of 435 total representatives. The only way to truly achieve equality in politics, it is going to take a mass change in mindset and beliefs of everyday Americans. This entails a change in media, in propaganda presented to youth, etc. All of these things are factors that contribute to the mindset directed towards women in politics and things will never change until people start to think differently and view the abilities of women differently. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/22/women-in-politics_n_5607061.html https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Women_in_the_United_States_Hou...
Poverty and Welfare- it’s an issue. Many who claim unemployment and receive welfare, food stamps, etc. are abled bodied individuals who simply do not want to work. I believe poverty & welfare to be an issue more pressing than others because not only does it affect the people of today’s society, but it affects generations to come. Our national debt has far exceeded 18 trillion dollars and is climbing every minute. With this being an issue, how can the government continue citizen aid without the ability to audit the said handouts? Ben Carson, a 2016 presidential candidate discusses this controversial issue and seems to take a strong stand on the same side of the fence as myself. In his novel, America the Beautiful, Carson states that there are three solutions. The solutions are as follows:
1. Tell those who don't work that they are on their own. 2. Take from those who have something and redistribute it to the individuals who aren't working. 3. Borrow from a 3rd party in order to take care of the nonworking individuals and leave the debt to future generations. Carson clearly distinguishes how continuing to freely give out handouts will not prove to be a sustainable solution. The ONLY sustainable solution is to deny aid to those who deny work. As Carson states in his novel, “Thus solution 1 is the only one that stands the test of logic and is the one upon which we should concentrate,” (pg. 88 – 89). But this is not the only time Dr. Carson has touched on this specific issue. On August 26 of 2015 Carson was quoted in a CNN interview stating,“The government programs have thrown money at poverty since the mid-’60's, $19 trillion. And we have 10 times more people on welfare, more people in poverty, more broken homes, more crimes." Government aid to citizens was initially created to aid citizens to get back on their feet, to gain back the ability to support themselves. It has done exactly the opposite by enabling citizens to continue being supported governmental aid. I do not believe in destroying citizen aid, as many individuals are unable to work, the aid is a necessity to achieve a quality of life in which all individuals can live prosperously. What that might look like I am not exactly sure; but I am sure that the system we are working off of now is not one that can promote and support our country and our economy. We have created a system in which individuals have become so accustomed to receiving. Sometimes, to get you have to give- and the individuals who 'simply do not want to work' refuse to give. We have composed a system in which we are in an endless cycle where that money will never be given back. Attached is a hyperlink to the text I used to respond to this issue of Welfare and Poverty- Source: America the Beautiful, by Ben Carson, p. 88-89 , Jan 24, 2012 Below is the article where I retrieved Carson's CNN Interview
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/09/08/ben-carsons-claim-that-we-have-10-times-people-more-people-on-welfare/
|
Samuel h.m.Question Authority. |