In Response to the Death Penalty

     Pablo's Blog Article - https://unitedstatesgovernment19.blogspot.com

  Pablo, I was actually thinking about the death penalty a few days ago before I stumbled onto your post. I struggle with whether this is a suitable form of punishment or not. For the most part, I think capital punishment is too harsh for those convicted of crimes. On the other had, there are few cases where I would not lose sleep over somebody who committed a heinous act receive the death penalty. Because the majority outweighs the minority, I would lean towards getting rid of executions in the United States. The act alone makes us seem like we are stuck in old times. With so much emphasis on the eighth amendment in our class, I cannot see a better example of a cruel punishment. The big issue for me is that humans should have no business deciding whether someone keeps their life or not. Especially when 4% of inmates executed are found to be innocent. Any system that can have human error should not be allowed to decide if someone is killed. I also feel like most supporters of capital punishment are Christian conservatives. If this is the case, my mind is blown. Monumental aspects of Christianity are loving one another as well as the forgiving of sins, but in cases of convicted felons it does not apply? Yes I fully understand that it is terribly hard to forgive these people of their acts, but what good does putting them to death do. I do not believe justice is really served if that person dies as well for their crime. If you do not want to forgive these people, fine, but the court system still has no right to kill them. I mentioned in my participation #4 that we focus too much on punishment and not enough on rehabilitation and I believe that still applies. Again, I really had to think about how I felt on this issue and the more I write the more the death penalty becomes a no brainer for me. It is an outdated practice and has no business in today's society.

Raising The Minimum Wage May Not Be Helpful

       I see over the past few years the argument on whether to raise the minimum wage or not, specifically to the fifteen dollar range. Although I have not been outspoken on this issue in the past, I will make my opinion known in this post. I do not think a raise in the minimum wage is going to be helpful. I understand that we have many Americans working minimum wage jobs and much of them struggle to get by, day in and day out. As someone who cares about human welfare, I do not like to see someone who puts in forty plus hours a week still struggle to make a living. Collectively though, I do not think that this steep increase in minimum wage is going to help the economy.

       One of the most common things I hear in favor of not increasing to a fifteen dollar minimum wage is the rise in cost of consumer goods. If companies and smaller local shops are paying more money for employees, one of the easiest ways for them to recoup their money is through raising the prices of their items for purchase. If this happens it will negatively affect anyone above lower class. They do not benefit from wage increases at all, but at the same time they are paying exponentially more for everyday items. Another way for owners to cut costs is to cut staffing; the less employees they have, the less money they need to give out. Yes, large companies such as Wal-Mart should have no problem paying higher wages to its employees and in my opinion it should pay its workers more. I believe this because they make a crazy amount of capital, but they are greedy and keep it to themselves. Smaller places of employment, especially local shops, do not have the luxury of paying a higher wages while maintaining the same cost of operation. Prices will go up.

       Lastly, an increase in minimum wage does not really have an effect on decreasing poverty. I don’t think the wage is the issue. One study found that an increase from $5.15 to $7.25 only benefited fifteen percent of workers that stood to gain form this increase. We also have benefits that low income workers can qualify for. For example, food stamps and Medicaid. If they workers make more money, they will not quality for these aids anymore. The poverty line in the United States for an average household of four people is about $24,000 a year. If the minimum wage goes up, the poverty line goes up as well. Therefore, no drastic help was really done.

       I know for a fact we have a poverty issue in America and it needs to be fixed. I do not want to come across as heartless because I stated earlier, if you are working hard there is no way we as a country should allow that person to struggle. I want to see people succeed or at the very least be able to have a decent living, but raising the minimum wage is not the way to go about it. I see and understand arguments for the increase of a federal minimum wage and some of them are great, but I cannot overlook the issues it presents as well. 

In Response to USA Politics

       So I too agree with you. How in the world did we get to the point of having somebody like Donald Trump to be our president? I as well have no respect for Mr. Trump, but when you look at his presidential campaign I think he was pretty genius. He played right into what conservatives felt was wrong with our nation and fed them what they wanted to hear. I don' necessarily think that Donald Trump believes all the controversial things he has said. Like I said earlier, he's just playing the game. However, whether he believes his words or not, he SAID them, which is inexcusable in itself. What's heart breaking from this political season is that Donald Trump gave a voice to racists and started a scary movement. The most positive thing to come out of this election to me is that many people have now been exposed. They saw a high power person say what they have always wanted to say and now feel like they have the freedom to do so themselves as well. I will never look down on anyone who voted for Donald Trump, as that is their right to do so. Who am I to judge for having a different opinion than myself? What absolutely infuriates me though is backing their vote for him for Islamophobic, xenophobic, and homophobic reasons. Yet again though, it's been cleverly disguised as "we're just trying to keep our country safe". I call b.s. on that. You also mentioned that Donald Trump never really had a plan. It's crazy how pretty much all we heard from him was "we're going to have the best this and best that and win win win" and people just ate that up, with no context as to how we are going to have the best policies. In my opinion, there isn't going to be a wall. Unless the public cries hard enough since the approval of others matters so much to him. He isn't going to repeal the ACA either. Reform it yes, but I do not think he is going to toss Obamacare out. As strict as he has also been on immigration, he is not going to have a complete shutdown of our borders as well as deport every illegal immigrant. If I'm right I'm interested to see how the right wing reacts to this. Donald Trump played into the nation's disappointment of Obama and the Democratic Party, the fact that America is not as great as it was, as well as the fact that he is a fresh face in the political sphere. As bummed as I am that he got elected, I find it sad that so many people wish him to fail. While I think he is in no definition a man, I hope he does well in his presidency.


USA Politics Post: http://kdapolitics.blogspot.com/2016/11/how-did-u.html#comment-form

The Electoral College

       Over the years, people have argued whether or not the electoral college should be abolished or not. Opposers say that the Electoral College is flawed because it does not represent every citizen, there is a chance of electing a president that the majority of the nation did not want, and that the complicated system could deter voters since their votes do not really count. These are issues that are concerning, but with these cons in mind, the Electoral College should not be abolished.
       With the system of the Electoral College, every state gets representation. They all have to ability to garner some sort of importance. Politicians looking towards a presidency cannot ignore states such as Wyoming, Idaho, or Montana, forcing candidates to reach out to these states to a degree. Under a system of electing a president through popular vote, what is to keep the candidate from only pandering to cities like Houston, New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles. They would get many votes from those areas and could completely neglect smaller regions because they would have no reason to go there. 
       For me, another point for the Electoral College would be the actual U.S. citizens. As long as the majority of the nation is uninformed and uneducated in realm of politics, why would we trust them over the Electors to choose the president. We elected our Senators and Representatives so we should trust them to a degree. There are even 29 states that have faithless elector laws that keep Electors from voting against the will of the people who elected them. Faithless electors don't come around often and much of them have come because a candidate passed away, such as in 1872 when Horace Greeley's death changed 63 votes. It is even rarer in recent times. From 2000 to now, there have only been two faithless electors. Furthermore, do we really trust all voters, especially when we know how many American citizens really have no idea when it comes to government. We have many people who are one issue voters. In this election, a vast majority of people are voting for Donald Trump ONLY for the fact that he is against abortion. They have disregarded everything dangerous about this man solely for that one issue. That is scary. Imagine under a popular vote, there is a major party candidate whose major platform is marijuana legalization. With how popular legalization is what would happen if they won the presidency because of that one issue, and the rest of their stances and policies are extremely awful. I will trust the Electors, since I voted for them, over an uninformed uninterested public three and a half out of every four years. 
        Probably the most important aspect of the Electoral College is the fact that it keeps the election to a two person race due to party affiliations. Most people consider themselves either Republicans or Democrats, so there is a good chance that their interests are being expressed under the two candidates. The lack of a third or even fourth party causes less division among the nation. Under a popular vote system, then you could vote for anyone, diluting the presidential race. For example, a popular vote election could have more candidates in the race, such as the now popular Evan McMullin in the race with Clinton and Trump. If you have many candidates to choose from and each candidate gets a good amount of votes, you could very well get a president winning an election with 30% of the vote. Imagine having a president that 70% of the population did not vote for. This year's election is one of those rare times where nobody really want either candidate in office, resulting in cries for a change in our voting system. 
       The Electoral College definitely has some flaws, but at this time it is our only system in electing our president. The Electoral College is constitutionally protected and would need a new amendment to abolish it. To do so, at least 38 states would have to agree to get rid of this system. I cannot see this happening since it protects the interests of so many smaller states and keeps them relevant. Also, if you were to abolish the Electoral College you would have to replace it with a better system and I believe that if there was a better system, the Electoral College would have already been replaced. In no means do I think the way we chose our president is perfect. Of course it is flawed. One change that I would like to see is the removal of the winner take all aspect of the states. There are places like Austin, who in a red state, will probably never have their voices heard. If partial votes could go either way depending on how the districts voted, I think that would be a major improvement. Either way do not let the Electoral College discourage you having your voice heard. Go out November 8th and vote!

Ann Coulter Complaining Again? Shocker..

        Yet again, Ann Coulter is whining about something else. In a blog post of hers, "Hillary's Advantage: The Media; Trump's Advantage: The Issues", Ann Coulter is upset with the media's overlook of real issues, and the constant thrashing of Donald Trump. As issues have seemed more on the back burner, the medias focus away from that has been directed at both candidates, not just Mr, Trump. She claims that "the media's entire campaign against Trump is to prevent him from talking about policy. They would rather talk about fat-shaming than trade, immigration and jobs". Aside from fat shaming, is immigration and jobs not policy? Just because his views on those issues may not seem appealing, it does not mean she gets to sweep them under the rug as well. Furthermore, much of what we have heard about Hillary Clinton has been emails this and emails that, surely Hillary Clinton is very sick, and scandals regarding her husband. Although I do not condone Hillary's actions as well, seems like media distraction to me.
        A huge disgruntlement that Ann Coulter has is the outcry and amount of coverage Donald Trumps recent comments about sexually assaulting women has received. She wonders why the same actions of others in the past, such as Bill Clinton, have been shushed but Donald Trumps comments are everywhere. Does Ann Coulter forget that Bill Clinton's actions eventually led him to being charged for lying under oath to a federal grand jury and obstructing justice. Bill Clinton's actions have stayed with him even to this day. She also brings up the Duke lacrosse scandal from 2006. Durham has had a racial divide for years and when you mix a predominately white upper class team being accused of raping black females, then you have the making of a national story. Of course this story should have gotten attention. I will agree with Ann Coulter though that the boys were innocent of all accusations. This case did though present many arguments toward media biases.
        Finally, I have a hard time seeing how Ann Coulter does not understand that what Trump said should not be taken lightly, especially from a person running to become president. Let us look at it like this. We have and old man who is a very well known public figure. This man is accused of sexual assaulting women. The American public does not know this to be true or not. Furthermore, overtime numerous women speak out and say that this man has indeed assaulted them. It is hard to judge the truth because there is little actual evidence of these acts, so it just becomes a he said she said argument. Can you differentiate whether this was Donald Trump or Bill Cosby? They both seem pretty close to me. Only in regards to Bill Cosby, Ann Coulter, as well as many white people put all his affairs on blast. Ms. Coulter has called out Bill Cosby's actions numerous times. Let us get one thing straight before moving on though, in no way do I condone Mr. Cosby's actions nor defend him. Ann Coulter has attacked situations, such as Bill Cosby's but then want everybody to move on from Trump's comments. Ann Coulter, you are just as guilty of the media biases that you love to complaining about. You do not get to pick and choose.








     

Who's to Blame?

        In an article from the opinion pages in The New York Times, Matthew Desmond discusses what a community looks like after an incident of police violence. He mentions that "[o]ne well known contribution to this debate has been Heather Mac Donald's notion of the 'Ferguson Effect,' the idea that after an episode of police violence, crime spikes in cities because ensuing protests cause the police to stop proactive tactics, emboldening the bad guys". Essentially the debate is proactive policing's role crime spikes. Desmond disagrees with the Ferguson Effect. He believes that from a study they conducted that once an area experienced police violence the citizens no longer trust the police, resulting in the spike of crime in that area. It has less to do with the proactive policing but more with the lack of 911 calls. He argues, "It is one thing to disparage law enforcement in your thoughts and speech after an instance of police violence...[i]t is quite another to witness a crime, or even be victimized, and decide not to report it". When deciding between the damaged relationship of law enforcement and the people it serves or the lack of proactive policing, I would have to say that the violence in these cities would be more attributed to its broken relations. The downside is that the evidence Desmond has to support his ideal only refers to one city. This is nowhere near a large enough sample size. On the other hand supporters of the Ferguson Effect claim that in Chicago, 911 calls have increased as well as crime, therefore debunking Desmond's argument. Again, this is only one statistic from one city. More research along the entire nation would need to be conducted.  

        Until more evidence supporting either view arises, my opinion is that Mr. Desmond is closer to the reason why crime spikes momentarily in cities that involving police killings, in cases such as Freddie Gray, Eric Garner, Michael Brown, and most recently Terence Crutcher. I do think the key word is momentarily though. In no way would I say that all hell breaks loose and the city becomes overrun. As humans who have the ability the display great emotion, we tend to invest heavily on the now. Especially when its is our friends and family being killed. This tendency is probably why everyone protests or "riots" when an injustice has been done. As a people, we just want to be heard. How can one expect to call the police in troubling situations when they do not trust them or are afraid of them. This could result in the citizens taking matters into their own hands, which could be even worse. Again, both Desmond and supporters of the Ferguson Effect have not displayed overwhelming evidence to prove their cases, so my siding with Desmond is just my opinion. Check it out for yourself!

The Importance of Our Next Supreme Court Justice

       An article from CNN informs us that, Donald Trump continues to release names of those he sees fit to replace former Supreme Court justice, Antonin Scalia. This move is deemed unusual, because past nominees have only described the kind of justices to hold the position. In a effort to ensure the Republican party of his legitimacy, Trump is making it known that he will appoint a conservative to the open seat. He has also added the names of "three non-white judges" to his list. Is he pandering to the minority vote, or is Donald Trump genuinely considering these three judges?
        The article is an important read because it gives an insight to who will become the newest Supreme Court justice. The next president will have the opportunity to select this person, after confirmation by Senate. The next court justice is crucial because they can interpret the law conservatively or liberally. From Scalia's death to now, the Supreme Court has been gridlocked many times 4-4. Which ever president that you vote for will appoint a person that lines ups with their political ideals. A new justice will tip the scale in either way, entering a liberal or conservative era for many years to come.