This post will be a discussion on a post made by fellow classmate, Elena McAdams. The post I'm referencing can be found HERE.
In the post, titled "Florida House passes bill that makes it harder for ex-felons to vote", Elena discusses recent developments in the Floridian senate focusing on the rights of convicted felons. This is a topic I haven't seen discussed much and honestly knew little about before reading Elena's article. However, she provided plenty of details and explained the situation so thoroughly that I now feel like I left her post with more knowledge than I came into it with. This is really helpful, as I know I do not keep up with the news very well and often, even when I am up to date, it's only on certain topics that receive the most publicity. In her article, Elena refrained from including any personal opinion, and this was also a nice touch. She simply presented facts. I believe I agree with the decisions being made in Florida, ensuring that felons may vote provided they complete the terms of their sentence. The way Elena laid out the facts was clear and concise, and allowed me to form my own opinion on the matter. I also appreciated how when facts were not known, this was elaborated on and explained. Overall it was a very informative piece by a fellow classmate, and I am happy to have read it!
Tuesday, May 14, 2019
Legalization Expansion
It's no secret that more and more U.S. citizens are siding with the pro-marijuana movement, one that has been around and active for decades. The impact of this movement is, consequently, no surprise. Many states have taken to legalizing weed, be it complete recreational legalization or the acceptance of medical marijuana. While this mass legalization has caused some controversy, it seems by and large to be a successful way to increase revenue in the states that have managed to control the production and a safer route for the number of citizens who currently smoke weed illegally.
With states legalizing marijuana, they obtain much of the control over regulations on how the plant is processed, as well as how it is sold. This results in safer weed becoming easily available to the general population, as well as providing a tax on popular past time. Many states are suspected to, in the near future, legalize weed where it has previously been criminalized. Some of the states expected to make the leap include New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey. I believe this is a good thing for the country. People are going to smoke weed whether it is legal or not. The worst impact of illegal marijuana use is the growing prison population that suffers at the hand of a law that is constantly being debated and threatened to be changed.
Prisons in the United States are not only a major financial burden, but the ethical dilemma of whether or not prisoners are properly cared for is one that is presented time and time again. To legalize marijuana, a drug that has not been linked to any deaths or overdoses and many find beneficial for medicinal use, seems like any easy solution to a number of growing problems. Besides, isn't this supposed to be a country by the people, for the people?
With states legalizing marijuana, they obtain much of the control over regulations on how the plant is processed, as well as how it is sold. This results in safer weed becoming easily available to the general population, as well as providing a tax on popular past time. Many states are suspected to, in the near future, legalize weed where it has previously been criminalized. Some of the states expected to make the leap include New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey. I believe this is a good thing for the country. People are going to smoke weed whether it is legal or not. The worst impact of illegal marijuana use is the growing prison population that suffers at the hand of a law that is constantly being debated and threatened to be changed.
Prisons in the United States are not only a major financial burden, but the ethical dilemma of whether or not prisoners are properly cared for is one that is presented time and time again. To legalize marijuana, a drug that has not been linked to any deaths or overdoses and many find beneficial for medicinal use, seems like any easy solution to a number of growing problems. Besides, isn't this supposed to be a country by the people, for the people?
"US Gov fun times" Review
The article I will be discussing in the post was written by a fellow classmate. The original post can be found HERE.
The title of this blog post by Madison Galvan really caught my eye and was the reason I decided to do my commentary on her post. "US Gov fun times". While the title is not very specific, the article is actually very well developed and makes quite a few great points! Maddie starts off her report by introducing her topic, the U.S. government and how it has adapted over the years, clearly and concisely. With this introduction we also learn her stance on how she believes change is essential to society, a statement I back wholeheartedly. As we learned in the beginning of the course, treating a government institution like an untouchable, almost holy establishment is dangerous to the advancement of society.
Following her introduction, Maddie provides a solution to a problem she has found within our government, a disappointing lack of participation in politics. I believe her solution is well backed up as well as well documented. She suggests the implementation of electronic voting, something we have discussed previously in a discussion board post. Electronic politics seems like the best possible advancement, especially considering our modern dependence on technology. Maddie also finishes her post with a fun comment, "The constitution and other rules we abide by were written over 200 years ago when they didn’t even have septic systems. Its time for a change." This is both comedic and a strong call for action. I believe her blog post was very well executed!
The title of this blog post by Madison Galvan really caught my eye and was the reason I decided to do my commentary on her post. "US Gov fun times". While the title is not very specific, the article is actually very well developed and makes quite a few great points! Maddie starts off her report by introducing her topic, the U.S. government and how it has adapted over the years, clearly and concisely. With this introduction we also learn her stance on how she believes change is essential to society, a statement I back wholeheartedly. As we learned in the beginning of the course, treating a government institution like an untouchable, almost holy establishment is dangerous to the advancement of society.
Following her introduction, Maddie provides a solution to a problem she has found within our government, a disappointing lack of participation in politics. I believe her solution is well backed up as well as well documented. She suggests the implementation of electronic voting, something we have discussed previously in a discussion board post. Electronic politics seems like the best possible advancement, especially considering our modern dependence on technology. Maddie also finishes her post with a fun comment, "The constitution and other rules we abide by were written over 200 years ago when they didn’t even have septic systems. Its time for a change." This is both comedic and a strong call for action. I believe her blog post was very well executed!
Abortion in Alabama
[ABORTION TW] This topic is a sensitive one. Please read at your own discretion and know that I mean no harm when discussing my stance on this topic. I have nothing but respect for either side of the argument and know that it is controversial for good reason. Thank you!
Alabama has been in the news lately for their controversial bills passed outlawing almost all forms of abortion, for almost any possible reason. I believe this is something that is incredibly dangerous, and a move backwards in not only the women's rights movement, but for victims of sexual assault and doctors who take their practice seriously. Abortion has been hotly debated for as long as I can remember, most people sighting the Roe v. Wade (a supreme court ruling from the 1970's) as the true breakthrough in the debate. Roe v. Wade granted a woman's right to choose whether or not to go through with an abortion and also her right to privacy in this decision. The government of Alabama has directly stated their intent to overturn this supreme court ruling, one that was justly declared and has stood since it's decision in 1973.
I have a problem with the decisions being made in Alabama. This bill, passed in the Alabama senate, bans abortion for any reason other than the pregnancy presenting a "serious health risk", which on it's own already appears to be wording that can be interpreted in a number of ways. Rape victims were also explicitly denied the right to an abortion. A ruling on this exemption took place and failed due to the Republican majority in the Alabama senate. The apparent and outright obvious lack of respect for victims of sexual assault, who have been so terribly wronged already, by the government which is supposed to be put in place to protect it's citizens is appalling. I understand that the Republicans who voted for this bill value life, but I believe it is not valuing the life of the victims to make them live with something they had no say in to begin with.
Doctors in Alabama now face charge of life in prison if found guilty of completing abortions, and rights seem to have begun being stripped away. This is a dangerous spiral, something that can lead to more drawbacks to our human rights. I hope that the state of Alabama finds it in their heart to rethink the decision they have made with the passing of this bill, and I hope that the pushback from the citizens can show that we as a society are not satisfied with such a ruling.
Alabama has been in the news lately for their controversial bills passed outlawing almost all forms of abortion, for almost any possible reason. I believe this is something that is incredibly dangerous, and a move backwards in not only the women's rights movement, but for victims of sexual assault and doctors who take their practice seriously. Abortion has been hotly debated for as long as I can remember, most people sighting the Roe v. Wade (a supreme court ruling from the 1970's) as the true breakthrough in the debate. Roe v. Wade granted a woman's right to choose whether or not to go through with an abortion and also her right to privacy in this decision. The government of Alabama has directly stated their intent to overturn this supreme court ruling, one that was justly declared and has stood since it's decision in 1973.
I have a problem with the decisions being made in Alabama. This bill, passed in the Alabama senate, bans abortion for any reason other than the pregnancy presenting a "serious health risk", which on it's own already appears to be wording that can be interpreted in a number of ways. Rape victims were also explicitly denied the right to an abortion. A ruling on this exemption took place and failed due to the Republican majority in the Alabama senate. The apparent and outright obvious lack of respect for victims of sexual assault, who have been so terribly wronged already, by the government which is supposed to be put in place to protect it's citizens is appalling. I understand that the Republicans who voted for this bill value life, but I believe it is not valuing the life of the victims to make them live with something they had no say in to begin with.
Doctors in Alabama now face charge of life in prison if found guilty of completing abortions, and rights seem to have begun being stripped away. This is a dangerous spiral, something that can lead to more drawbacks to our human rights. I hope that the state of Alabama finds it in their heart to rethink the decision they have made with the passing of this bill, and I hope that the pushback from the citizens can show that we as a society are not satisfied with such a ruling.
Ann Coulter Article
The article I will be discussing in this blog post is from Ann Coulter's website. The link to the post can be found HERE.
Ann Coulter is well known Republican author and spokesperson. She has appeared on countless talk shows and news stations, brought in to speak on political topics with a wide range. While I may not agree with her point of view, I think she has made it clear from the near cult following she has amassed that she is a credible author, even graduating from the ivy league university, Cornell with honors.
In the article I will be dissecting, Coulter makes her stance on the "reefer madness" propaganda film and it's affect on the way society views marijuana use today. She is adamantly against marijuana use. To support this claim she identifies one book written by a New York Times reporter. This book, "Tell Your Children: The Truth About Marijuana, Mental Illness, and Violence" discusses the mental impact of psychedelic uses and how they negatively impact the brain. This book seems to be a credible source, however, it also appears to be the only thing Coulter bases her argument around.
She also makes several claims that simply are not backed by evidence. When discussing emergency room visits, she tries to imply that there are an increasing number of deaths related to marijuana. This is simply not factual. Her deceit at this point in the article is when I began to question the credibility of anything she had said before. I believe Ann Coulter twisted facts to support the statement she was trying to make instead of finding facts that actually did back up her argument.
Overall, she makes a weak argument for the ban of marijuana use, and the increase in support for marijuana helps the opposing side of the argument. She even states this increase in support in her article, though she doesn't elaborate on it and tries to make it seem unfounded. She also uses discriminatory language like "pot-heads" when discussing marijuana users, which is incredibly unprofessional and only further derails her argument. While the article actually started off somewhat strong, I believe she ran out of credible evidence and this is where her argument fell apart.
Ann Coulter is well known Republican author and spokesperson. She has appeared on countless talk shows and news stations, brought in to speak on political topics with a wide range. While I may not agree with her point of view, I think she has made it clear from the near cult following she has amassed that she is a credible author, even graduating from the ivy league university, Cornell with honors.
In the article I will be dissecting, Coulter makes her stance on the "reefer madness" propaganda film and it's affect on the way society views marijuana use today. She is adamantly against marijuana use. To support this claim she identifies one book written by a New York Times reporter. This book, "Tell Your Children: The Truth About Marijuana, Mental Illness, and Violence" discusses the mental impact of psychedelic uses and how they negatively impact the brain. This book seems to be a credible source, however, it also appears to be the only thing Coulter bases her argument around.
She also makes several claims that simply are not backed by evidence. When discussing emergency room visits, she tries to imply that there are an increasing number of deaths related to marijuana. This is simply not factual. Her deceit at this point in the article is when I began to question the credibility of anything she had said before. I believe Ann Coulter twisted facts to support the statement she was trying to make instead of finding facts that actually did back up her argument.
Overall, she makes a weak argument for the ban of marijuana use, and the increase in support for marijuana helps the opposing side of the argument. She even states this increase in support in her article, though she doesn't elaborate on it and tries to make it seem unfounded. She also uses discriminatory language like "pot-heads" when discussing marijuana users, which is incredibly unprofessional and only further derails her argument. While the article actually started off somewhat strong, I believe she ran out of credible evidence and this is where her argument fell apart.
Vaccination Conflict
The article I will be responding to can be found HERE. This article is an editorial piece from the Los Angeles Times and is made up of submissions from readers who have similar opinions on vaccination policies.
There is a lot of debate in society today about whether vaccinations (especially vaccinations for children) should be required, and whether or not this ruling is necessary as it could be related to a public health crisis. "Anti-Vaxxers" as they have been labeled are those who believe vaccinations harm their children, usually with the response given that vaccinations cause autism. This is not backed by scientific research.
In this article, "Help a cancer patient -- reject anti-vaccine nonsense", the stance taken by the contributors is clear just from the title. Three different writers submitted their stance on why vaccinations should be taken seriously, and why they should be required by law. The first piece was written by Stephanie Strout, a widow whose husband died of cancer. In this plea, she uses pathos to appeal to the reader's emotions. The intended audience is, as with all of the other sections in this article, parents who identify as "Anti-Vaxxers." I believe that Strout makes a strong case. Cancer patients and others who are highly susceptible to illness deserve to be protected from disease, preventable illnesses should not cost them their life. This should be any easy enough concept for anyone to understand.
The second piece of the article is written by Bob Wietnig from Simi Valley. Wietnig takes a different approach to the same stance. His claim is much shorter and does not try to appeal to emotions. Rather, he provides evidence from the past to support why vaccines are taken for granted today. The child death toll has lowered significantly, where as in the past preventable illness made up for a large majority of child deaths. His argument is not as strong as he keeps it short and to the point, but I do agree with how he opened his statement. "Anti-Vaxxers" seem to mostly disagree with the power of authority and have a general distrust for what science has been telling them. This issue would be resolved if vaccines were kept mandatory.
Lastly, the editorial ends with a submission from Karen Scott Browdy, and another strong emotional appeal to the reader. All of these submissions are clearly intended for strongly anti-vaccination individuals as they attempt to convince them to change their mind and take up the stance of pro-vaccination. Browdy details the toll that preventable illness has taken on her family, but also manages to provide a silver lining and to express the benefit that vaccination has had on her life. Her entry is a story of hope, one that strongly supports the stance that vaccinations have more life saving qualities than harm. In the end, doesn't all humanity just want their right to life?
There is a lot of debate in society today about whether vaccinations (especially vaccinations for children) should be required, and whether or not this ruling is necessary as it could be related to a public health crisis. "Anti-Vaxxers" as they have been labeled are those who believe vaccinations harm their children, usually with the response given that vaccinations cause autism. This is not backed by scientific research.
In this article, "Help a cancer patient -- reject anti-vaccine nonsense", the stance taken by the contributors is clear just from the title. Three different writers submitted their stance on why vaccinations should be taken seriously, and why they should be required by law. The first piece was written by Stephanie Strout, a widow whose husband died of cancer. In this plea, she uses pathos to appeal to the reader's emotions. The intended audience is, as with all of the other sections in this article, parents who identify as "Anti-Vaxxers." I believe that Strout makes a strong case. Cancer patients and others who are highly susceptible to illness deserve to be protected from disease, preventable illnesses should not cost them their life. This should be any easy enough concept for anyone to understand.
The second piece of the article is written by Bob Wietnig from Simi Valley. Wietnig takes a different approach to the same stance. His claim is much shorter and does not try to appeal to emotions. Rather, he provides evidence from the past to support why vaccines are taken for granted today. The child death toll has lowered significantly, where as in the past preventable illness made up for a large majority of child deaths. His argument is not as strong as he keeps it short and to the point, but I do agree with how he opened his statement. "Anti-Vaxxers" seem to mostly disagree with the power of authority and have a general distrust for what science has been telling them. This issue would be resolved if vaccines were kept mandatory.
Lastly, the editorial ends with a submission from Karen Scott Browdy, and another strong emotional appeal to the reader. All of these submissions are clearly intended for strongly anti-vaccination individuals as they attempt to convince them to change their mind and take up the stance of pro-vaccination. Browdy details the toll that preventable illness has taken on her family, but also manages to provide a silver lining and to express the benefit that vaccination has had on her life. Her entry is a story of hope, one that strongly supports the stance that vaccinations have more life saving qualities than harm. In the end, doesn't all humanity just want their right to life?
Tuesday, February 19, 2019
Syrian Summary
https://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-syria-islamic-state-20190219-story.html
Civilian Danger in Syria
The article above describes some of the terror that is taking place in Syria as military groups fight for dominance in the area. The ISIL extremist group still holds some leverage in the ongoing battle, and innocent civilians are suffering as a result. The article also points out, however, that U.S. backed teams are helping to evacuate the innocent before any more ground is attempted to be gained. This is hugely important news as Syria has faded to the back of many American's minds, but it is still a war that is being prolonged by U.S. involvement, and therefore, still our responsibility to care about. The lives of those living in war torn Syria have been demolished over the past few years as fighting intensified, and now there is assistance being offered. Most importantly, this assistance is being backed by the United States, who has taken a great part in destroying their lives. Though the fighting is likely necessary to deal with the extremist group, it is a sight for sore eyes to read the article and learn there is still help on the way, hope being delivered to the civilians. The article has not provided detail of how many lives are saved, but it did state there are over 200 families in need.
Please read the article to step outside of our lives here in the United States, where we do not suffer from a war raging throughout the streets and terrorists killing any who try to escape. It puts things in prospective, and proves why we should care about a country that is not our own. We are involved, but we can help.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)