On August 3, 2017, an editorial was posted on "Pondering Politics", talking about gun control in the United States. The audience here would be the U.S. citizens because it is an issue that can affect someone's life. Having a gun can control people's lives. She first talks about how Trump's election isn't making citizens feel safe and secure. The majority of people, specifically 9 out of 10, support gun regulations. But lawmakers are not making enough laws to follow that. Apparently, they don't follow the mild laws such as background checks or banning mentally ill individuals from having guns. The author says that not having gun control, "undermines the core idea of democracy". In Missouri, legislators overrode the governor's veto which allowed citizens to carry weapons without any background such as a check, permit, or training. Missouri previously loosened their gun laws in 2007 when taking away the requirement for a permit by passing their check. Because of the changes in law, homicides with guns had risen by 18 percent. She then goes to talk about Trump and how he signed a bill which went against Obama's regulation for mental health patients getting guns. Conservatives usually view guns as self- defense but honestly, guns become a huge problem in causing homicides.
The author's claim overall would be how gun control is very important and is becoming a problem in the United States. I agree with this. Trump is not taking caution when signing these bills or coming up with new regulations. There should be more protection and requirements when getting a firearm. Having a gun is giving an individual the ability or chance to end someone's life. I believe that only those who are qualified or have a clean history should be allowed a gun. With that, there should also be training to properly teach someone about the weapon.
Tuesday, August 8, 2017
Tuesday, August 1, 2017
Give Youth A Voice Expansion
In a previous editorial, I talked about the voting age of our country. As of right now, the voting age in the United States is 18 years old. To me, we should allow 16 and 17-year-olds to also vote. In my eyes, we should allow them to vote because they are at a time where they are learning about the government. This age group is also exposed to many adult-like situations such as having to provide for themselves, having to take themselves places or taking care of younger individuals. I see them being very intelligent and think their opinion would provide more insight into making decisions for this country.
If we were to change our voting age, we would not be the first. Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador, and Nicaragua all allow voting at 16. In East Timor, Ethiopia, Indonesia, North Korea and Sudan, the voting age is 17. In some countries, at 16, if you get married or become employed, you earn legal adult rights which include voting. Austria, in 2007, was the first country to pass the law to change the age to 16. Many people are not in favor of teenagers having this ability to vote due to them not being focused on the actual government and what is happening.
Studies were done by Markus Wagner, David Johann, and Sylvia Kritzinger from the University of Vienna. Austria's voting election showed that 16 and 17-year-olds did have a little less knowledge but the Democratic disaffection and motivation to participate in politics compared to older age groups were fairly the same. Overall, findings show that there is little evidence that say 16 and 17-year-olds are less able to participate in politics. There is not really a negative effect at all.
So, to end, the voting age in the United States should indeed still be lowered to 16 and 17 for the generations to come so that their voice is heard and so they can live in a world that they helped put together instead of living according to the older population.
Monday, July 31, 2017
Blog Stage 6
On July 27,2017, an editorial was posted on "My Political Glasses", about how the government should continue to fund Planned Parenthood. The audience here is those who oppose Planned Parenthood. I say this because the author is stating all facts to show what PP really is.She first talks about the things done at Planned Parenthood, how they are more than just help to abortions. PP helps with STD test, contraceptives, screenings and more. To add to that, she adds how the abortions done there are not paid for by the government so that it won't really do much but affect those who use the resource. She also talks about the effect that it would have on other people. Stopping PP could possibly make things worse such as cause more pregnancies. Along with that, she provides how abortions are only 3% of the services there. So, her overall side would be that Planned Parenthood should still be funded.
I agree with the author. Planned Parenthood has been helpful to so many women. It has been a way to help women fix mistakes and learn. Accidents always happen. It makes it easy for women to have access to medical things that they need. It is also inexpensive for those who cannot afford high priced medical treatment. PP makes an individual comfortable which is very important. Women become vulnerable when having to do these medical activities on their own. PP is a positive and very helpful organization so why should we take it away from so many? It would affect much of the population. Ending PP would cause a lot of rage in people. So, as far as keeping PP, the author and I believe it should continue to be funded.
I agree with the author. Planned Parenthood has been helpful to so many women. It has been a way to help women fix mistakes and learn. Accidents always happen. It makes it easy for women to have access to medical things that they need. It is also inexpensive for those who cannot afford high priced medical treatment. PP makes an individual comfortable which is very important. Women become vulnerable when having to do these medical activities on their own. PP is a positive and very helpful organization so why should we take it away from so many? It would affect much of the population. Ending PP would cause a lot of rage in people. So, as far as keeping PP, the author and I believe it should continue to be funded.
Thursday, July 27, 2017
Give Youth A Voice
Does our country's youth really seem very ignorant? With youth coming up and becoming very aware of what is happening in politics due to media, it is about time that they are able to be involved in something that can affect their whole life. We should now allow those at 16 or 17 years old to have a voice.
Just because an adult may be older, does not mean they are more educated or more qualified to vote. Not everyone who votes is aware of what they are doing. With youth being in school at this time, around these ages, they are learning about politics. They get a clear understanding of what is happening in the nation due to discussions in class. Having the knowledge definitely, can help the youth to make decisions and that will help with involvement in the class. These students also have a fresh knowledge of politics which means there could be a better understanding for the future.
Along with this, the government gives 16 or 17-year-olds adult responsibilities so why not this responsibility? Some teenagers are caregivers, highly educated, some are able to start their own businesses. There are many intelligent and mature teenagers in this nation so they should be involved especially because many are already verbally taking part in politics. Voter turnout would increase very much. Research shows that voting once will make citizens vote for the second time. This can help people understand the voting process more.
The youth very much has a place in this nation. They are able to get jobs at this time, they are able to drive, and they can even be tried as adults in court. We should be giving youth a chance in learning and being hands on involved in our country. Young people should have a voice in laws that they are supposed to follow. Why exclude them when it is their society that is being changed as they grow into an adult? We should get the youth involved as soon as possible and that age group would be a good place to get involved with politics.
Monday, July 24, 2017
Trump & Black America
On the Washington Monthly blog site, an editorial named of "How Trump Can Actually Help Black America" was posted by Jeremie Greer and Emanuel Nieves. In their editorial, they talk about how Trump addressed how he would help the economic challenges that African Americans have.
The audience they are targeting would be Black America and those who support them. I say this because the topic is about issues that affect their everyday lifestyle. They talked about African Americans problems, his plan, how he hasn't really been that helpful and also how he approached African Americans when trying to get their votes. Trump wanted to address the problems of unemployment, poverty, and crime in their cities. African Americans have not been able to keep wealth due to practices of the federal government. Greer and Nieves state that, "The actions the President has taken have gone counter to his promise to lift up African-American communities." In addition, they talk about how he is unaware of how his plan does not match up to his goal.
The authors then goes to talk about how when trying to persuade Black America to vote for him, he did it poorly. With his campaign, his approach involved him saying, “What the hell do you have to lose?" Many believe that his way was not an efficient way to grab supporters.
Greer and Nieves focus on how Trump is not very helpful to this community. That is shown by the actions of Trump and how he really has not done much. This community still has the same challenges. They state that "If President Trump is serious about creating a better economic future for African-Americans and other communities of color, then he must seek to tear down structural barriers to African-American wealth creation and stability. " This means that there is no way of helping colored communities if individuals are not able to come up in the economy.
The audience they are targeting would be Black America and those who support them. I say this because the topic is about issues that affect their everyday lifestyle. They talked about African Americans problems, his plan, how he hasn't really been that helpful and also how he approached African Americans when trying to get their votes. Trump wanted to address the problems of unemployment, poverty, and crime in their cities. African Americans have not been able to keep wealth due to practices of the federal government. Greer and Nieves state that, "The actions the President has taken have gone counter to his promise to lift up African-American communities." In addition, they talk about how he is unaware of how his plan does not match up to his goal.
The authors then goes to talk about how when trying to persuade Black America to vote for him, he did it poorly. With his campaign, his approach involved him saying, “What the hell do you have to lose?" Many believe that his way was not an efficient way to grab supporters.
Greer and Nieves focus on how Trump is not very helpful to this community. That is shown by the actions of Trump and how he really has not done much. This community still has the same challenges. They state that "If President Trump is serious about creating a better economic future for African-Americans and other communities of color, then he must seek to tear down structural barriers to African-American wealth creation and stability. " This means that there is no way of helping colored communities if individuals are not able to come up in the economy.
Thursday, July 20, 2017
Avoiding War With Iran
Today on the New York Times, an editorial was posted called "Avoiding War With Iran". In this editorial, they are addressing how it would be a very bad idea to get into conflict in the Middle East. Specifically, Iran. The audience they are trying to reach out to would be the American citizens because it is our country who could possibly be in danger. They also talk about Trump's different meetings and actions that he has done.They state how Trump and his top aids are raising tension which could possibly lead to problems with Iran that we would much rather stay out of. The author's then go to give reasons on why we should be concerned. We should be concerned because Anti-Iran people outside of the government are trying to push Trump and Congress to have a confrontation with Iran, Trump accepts the side of Sunni-led Saudi Arabia in a feud between two places in Islam, Congress is now taking sections or that Trump got on a pledge to mess up the 2015 seven-nation nuclear pact which involves Iran. The author of this piece said, "Mr. Trump would make a grave mistake if instead of trying to work with those moderate forces he led the nation closer to war." They are saying it is better for us to not pick a war with Iran because it would just be another crazy war. Many citizens are thinking that Trump's acts are not looking good at all for the country.
Friday, July 14, 2017
Why Senate Republicans can't agree to repeal Obamacare, in charts
Today, Ryan Struyk posted an article on CNN about the struggle of agreement that the Senate Republicans are having about repealing Obamacare. The Senate Republicans have been trying to agree for weeks but they cannot come together to an agreement because the senators have reasons to oppose. Because some Senators talked about opposing a previous plan, it was rewritten.
The article provides charts that focus on why 10 Republicans opposed the early bill made by Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell and possible future of some decisions. Some of the problems that may occur are, the nonelderly would become uninsured, it would cut Medicaid funds, the percentage of uninsured residents will increase again, or some of the Senators represent states who were blue or purple states. Overall, the whole problem is that the states that the Senators represent would be affected which would not look good on them at all so they have to make a decision to go against what their state has or to go with it and oppose the plan again.
This is important to know about because citizens need to be aware of what could affect their lifestyle drastically. Also, they need to see and know who is representing them in their state. We are now going through a change of health care and we have had it the same way throughout Obama's presidency. We will be able to see what the Senators will come up with which may surprise many.
The article provides charts that focus on why 10 Republicans opposed the early bill made by Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell and possible future of some decisions. Some of the problems that may occur are, the nonelderly would become uninsured, it would cut Medicaid funds, the percentage of uninsured residents will increase again, or some of the Senators represent states who were blue or purple states. Overall, the whole problem is that the states that the Senators represent would be affected which would not look good on them at all so they have to make a decision to go against what their state has or to go with it and oppose the plan again.
This is important to know about because citizens need to be aware of what could affect their lifestyle drastically. Also, they need to see and know who is representing them in their state. We are now going through a change of health care and we have had it the same way throughout Obama's presidency. We will be able to see what the Senators will come up with which may surprise many.
Sunday, July 9, 2017
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)