Activist Look Beyond the March for Science

On April 28, 2017 my colleague wrote a commentary located on New York Times published Scientists and “Activist Look Beyond the March for Science.” From my understanding, my classmate was comparing what the government had to say about scientist and why scientists are so important. He argued “Our modern world is run by science that without, we wouldn’t be where we are today in health, environment, and other natural hazards” and I must say I must agree.

After reading the article, it seemed my colleague stated a very important facts on why this march for science was a good thing, but left out why it was bad. Steven Pinker is someone’s opinion I value a lot. He quoted in the article “They make the March seem like an extension of the identity politics and victimology that have discredited academia in the eyes of much of the rest of the world.” This, I would have to agree with. Scientists, who this march was supposed to be about felt like the organization wasn’t beneficial at all and was making the status quo in science reproduce.

I agree with my colleague that scientists are so incredibly important four our society and no doubt our world would not be the same without them. However, incorporating them into a march for science offended most who are actual scientists and those who are wanting to become. My colleague had very good facts and arguments but I felt he lacked cooperating the cons that came with it. 

The One-Sided Gun War of the Sexes

“The One-Sided Gun War of the Sexes” was written By Rose Wong and was posted on The New York Times by The Editorial Board on April 14, 2017. Wong’s main purpose for this editorial was to highlight the issues on fire arms and the inattention the term intimate partner violence gets by not only Americans, but more importantly our national government.

Gun carnage is often a result of intimate partner violence. Most killers often obtain guns because of the people running the national background check system. While yes, there are federal and state laws designed and created to keep people from acquiring guns illegally, people work their way around them. Rose strengthned her argument by in-cooperating that nearly each week 10 women are shot to death by their so called loved ones. Americans are never informed of these tragedies and they are often kept a secret unless it is something like a school shooting, which just happened a few days ago. In fact, Rose mentions that about half of shootings in just the last few years are from people who had a background of killing, yet somehow was unnoticed in the purchasing of these murder weapons. There were many laws passed in the 1990’s to ensure safety by rejecting people who had been charged with any serious crime especially domestic abuse to not be able to purchase fire arms. However, even with these laws, back ground checks are often ignored or completely disregarded in the process of buying a fire arms. The laws made for regulations on guns may in fact be a current law, but they need to be reinforced, stronger, and more known. Republicans especially agree with this, and they have made their opinions on gun safety heard and clear to congress.

People are dying each and every day due to the inattention on intimate partner violence and the illegal purchase of fire arms. Buying fire arms for personal safety is something everyone should have the right to do. However, people buying fire arms for intention to hurt someone in addition to a previous back ground of violence is what the government need to pay attention to and stop.

Commentary on “The Wall To Be, Or Not To Be, - That Is The Question”

          I chose to comment to my classmates blog titled “The Wall To Be, OrNot To Be, - That Is The Question” from a source I was unable to find. However, with what I was able to read, I do agree with my colleague on that fact that Donald Trump’s idea on building a wall is quite simpleminded and idiotic. Building a wall could no way stop people from entering the United States if that was their whole goal. Yet, while what I read was interesting and what seemed to be true facts, I wish my colleague would have had a reliable source I could have followed with and elaborated more on his/her topic without just listing questions.

            First of all, my colleague did have great points as to why Trumps wall would never work. As I did some research about the wall, Trump mentions that he would only have to build so much of the wall because natural barriers such as lakes and mountains will keep immigrants from passing. But in reality, a wall may indeed make it harder for immigrants to pass but I do not think it will in any way stop them to, it never has. I also agree with my classmate on the money issue. I think building a wall will only put is more in debt, something we really do not need. Donald Trump says that Mexico is going to pay for the wall and in fact says it is going to be “easy” to get them to. Again, this is foolish to say. Mexico is not going to hand over 8 to 12 billion dollars to build a wall, they even said this.

            I think my colleague wrote a satisfactory commentary. I agreed with all he/she had to say, yet I think this is a topic that could have endless things to write about. We both agree that building a wall is not a smart idea. It is a money pit and there will be little to no positive outcomes with this idea. I must say it was a great topic to write about though! This is a topic very popular in our government today.  

Can Social Media, Loud And Inclusive, Fix World Politics?

            I read a political commentary on The Huffington Post titled “Can Social Media, Loud AndInclusive, Fix World Politics?” This intriguing commentary written by Rania Fakhoury, listed ways in which social media can fix world politics and listed ways in which social media can jeopardize the way the way everyone views politics around the world. Rania also explains how the government relies on this extensive tool in ways to exercise power.  

             Social Media has continued to expand and grow since it was ever introduced into our country. Now, Rania states that media is in four out of five countries. Media is used for numerous purposes. It can be used to prevent corruption and it allows the public to participate and engage in government affairs. More importantly, media allows the government to improve and communicate with their citizens. However, while there are many benefits using media especially when it comes to politics, there are many cons too. The media often entails fabricated news which messes with what people think or believe in. For example, Rania mentions how in 2014 Russia spread false news about the downing of the Malaysia Arline flight to cover up their military involvement. In addition, the media also broadcasted extreme hate and many lies about our most recent election.

            I agree with everything Rania Fakhoury writes about in her credible commentary. Not only does Rania strengthen her commentary by providing real life examples of our government and how Social Media plays a role in countries all over the world. While social media will never be a perfect and truthful, it will continue to grow and remain a powerful technological tool for the government and will allow the people to learn more and engage more in politics. 

Turning Protests Into Action With Technology

            I chose to write about a political commentary on The Huffington Post titled “Turning Protests Into Action With Technology.” The authors Gavis Newsom and Sam Blakeslee talk about how the internet and technology is the most powerful tool there is when it comes to politics and the government. However, fabricators of fake news and false information have made this tool untrustworthy which is why that made their own invention- Digital Democracy.

 

              Digital Democracy is a video platform designed so any citizen or advocacy groups can conveniently engage in the democratic process. This gives people the advantage to search anything they want to know more about and know for certain that what they are reading is actually true! I know that when I am interested in learning more about something that is going on with our government, I turn straight to the internet. Yet, I know a lot of things I read are not true or is misinterpreted and I can never be sure. Digital Democracy allows you to search a key word you are wanting to learn more about and then shows you real information and even videos about that specific topic. In addition, it is a great source for young people or those who are not big into politics or government. You do not need to know the names of every legislator or elected representatives, you can just simply type in “election” or “sentence reform” and it will bring up all the videos that talk about it. If everyone wants people to be more educated when voting comes around, Digital Democracy will help with just that!

 

            Digital Democracy is an excellent and useful tool for people who are seeking reliable information and it is even great for the uneducated. I believe Digital Democracy will continue to expand greatly around the United States since it is already easing itself into Texas! It is something we have all been needing.

 

Donald Trump and the psychology of blame

The commentary I chose was something that really caught my eye. It was located on CNN and titled “DonaldTrump and the psychology of blame." This commentary was written by Robert Klitzman whom is a professor of psychiatry. In this article, Klitzman explains how most Americans understand and view politics from a psychological perspective. He used the previous election as an example for his argument, and makes clear how people who were running for office, like Donald Trump, are very much aware how people think in such setting. In result, people like Trump often do things and say things in order to make people believe what they say. He mentions how Trump built a simple narrative that made sense of all the current issues going on in our world at the time, which voters wanted to hear and in return made them believe what they were hearing. In my opinion, I think Trump is excellent at this. It seems now after the election is over, a lot of what comes out of Trumps mouth is “I didn’t say that” or he just makes up excuses. However, in the process of election, candidates just say whatever they want in order for the people to elect them. Klitzman made his argument more credible by incorporating examples he had done in his own research on this topic. The end results were all the same; people made their decisions based on what made sense for them and not on the actual facts. We the people need to pay more attention to how psychology plays a huge role in our decision making and how it can be misused by not only Donald Trump but many other politicians as well.

Should Police Be Allowed to Keep Property Without A Criminal Conviction?

I chose to write an article I found on The Huffington Post which was titled “Should Police Be Allowed to KeepProperty Without A Criminal Conviction?” In summary, two friends had set off for a weekend road trip to Cincinnati with intention to gamble. On the way, they were stopped by a police officer and their vehicle was searched for no reason at all. The officer found $16,500 in cash, which was money the two men had saved up only to gamble. The officer took they money, and they were taken down to the station without even being charged for a crime.  Years later, after thousands of dollars spent on attorney fees, the men finally got their money back. Statistics say that in 2015 net proceeds from civil forfeitures across 14 states more than doubled between 2002 and 2013, jumping from around $100 million to $250 million. This is something we should all be aware of. Officers are jumping to conclusion that maybe the money was being used for drugs or other related crimes. However, search and seizure and having probable cause in order to seize property is a right all Americans deserve.