Can I have some asthma medication? I may have to see your prescription please…..Can I have a Gun? Right away, Sir!

As hotly debated as of a topic it has always been and will be until something is done about it, gun control issue has been all over the news since the last horrific mass shooting in Las Vegas. Though the Second Amendment evinces that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” But there is definitely a need to control the extent and quantity of the arms one can bear. You may feel safe with just one gun in your holster or may feel still insecure even after possessing a whole barrage of machine guns. A perfect balance between constitutional rights and effective society management is to call for gun control. Would you prefer to live in a place where it is harder to get a cronut than a gun or in a place where guns are just as hard as to get a bite of cronut?

Time it takes to buy a cronut vs a gun

In a country, where to buy a cronut, it takes almost 2 and 1/2 hour, but whereas for a gun, it just takes less than 22 minutes to buy a .22 rifle, I believe every person needs to be vetted before they can buy a gun. Approximately, 3 million American civilians carry guns today, that is 1 percent of the entire population. Though the percentage may seem less at the start, when you look at the bigger picture, America has had the most gun murders per 100,000 residents in the year 2015 than the following 7 countries combined. With almost one mass shooting averaging per day, 291 mass shootings have had happened in the last twelve months out of which 154 alone happened in this calendar year, 6,880 gun-related deaths have taken place due to mass shooting.

Gun Murders per 100,000 residents

Repealing the Second Amendment and therefore taking guns away from everybody is going to be tough as 30% of the Total Percentage of Individuals owns a Firearm, but we can at least try to amend it by getting the Congress to pass a law to have just as diligent checks as getting a passport for the first time requirements. During the time when the Second Amendment had just been passed in 1791, the latest technology in the gun industry were muskets, which had a reload time of 15-20 seconds. Today with the advancement in technology has come so far, to empty a whole clip of a semi-automatic rifle it takes 15-20 seconds. At that time it seemed like a sensible idea for everybody to have a gun for their safety and not worry about people going on a rampage of mass shooting, but today a refined gun control is imperative for the safety of the people and for the country as a whole.

Looking at the recent unfortunate mass shooting at Las Vegas country music festival, 59 people were killed and about 525 were injured. According to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department’s sheriff, 23 guns were found in Stephen Paddock’s room. If anybody can so easily buy more than 20 guns in America itself, than what is the use of having a travel ban to restrict terrorist attacks!

Therefore, if we make the Second Amendment refined now, that way we will have no Paddock who can kill 58 innocents. Though we may still have some shooting here and there, this is perfect time to carefully review the lackadaisical process of buying arms. Its time we make the amendment refined and make the process of getting a semi-automatic rifle just a tough as buying a Kinder Eggs and unpasteurized milk to make brie. Let us stop lighting the candles for the victims, and light the will of fire in people to amend the Second Amendment for betterment of our posterity.

Image-1 source: Cronut vs gun (picture edited according to the preference).

Image-2 source: Gun Murders per 100,000 residents.

On The Filter Bubble

Now that we have viewed Eli Pariser’s TED Talk (from March, 2011) and discussed its implications in class, please comment on one of the following questions:

1) Is it okay if you are only seeing search results (articles, ads, etc.) that mirror your political beliefs? <or>
2) Do we need a policy? Should government set guidelines for filtering algorithms on the Internet?

To satisfy the requirements for this assignment, you must either: 1) post your opinion – thoughtfully; and/or 2) respond to one of your classmates’ posts – in the spirit of deliberative dialogue.

IMPORTANT NOTES

1. Consider saving your very first comment (!!) in Word or Google docs and using copy-and-paste to upload… at least until you are comfortable using our blog.
2. Remember to ‘sign’ your post with first name and last initial ONLY – to earn full credit.
3. Still curious? Eli Pariser updated his thinking in a 2015 essay for Wired Magazine. Check it out HERE.

 

It has long been obvious….

Source: avoca

Should women be allowed to have active combat roles?  Traditionally, the armed forces have been all male.  For years, even gay men couldn’t serve openly.  It has only been in the past few years, after decades of hiding, that men can be openly gay and serve, so why will they allow women to serve so soon?  If history has anything to show, it should take the government another 20 years before they let women into the military.  If allowing openly gay men to serve was such a big step, the step to allow female presence is like climbing a mountain.  Surprisingly though, the pentagon has taken the idea of women in combat out for a spin before.   In 1993, the same year president Clinton agreed to the “don’t ask, don’t tell” compromise, they allowed woman to participate as combat pilots.  It may seem like a big step, but sure enough, the following year they denied women’s participation.  Being a pilot isn’t new either.  During World War II, women served as test pilots. Way before that, during the civil war, wives worked in the artillery and as nurses on the front lines.

Source: PoliticalLoudMouth, WordPress

Over the years, in just Iraq and Afghanistan, more than 800 women have been wounded and over 150 have died proforming their military duty. So doesn’t that imply that women already serve?  No, it doesn’t.  Although woman “now make up 14 percent of our armed forces form across all branches of the services”, many women are denied formal recognition of their combat (NYtimes).  They do not formally have active combat roles but are still put in hostile situations.  How do these branches get around the rules?  They “sidestep official policy by “attaching,” rather than assigning, women to infantry and special operations units because their skills were needed” (NYTimes).  Army Capt. Kelly Hasselman, 28, commands a company of female soldiers that builds relations with rural Afghan women.  Officially, they aren’t in active combat, but everybody knows the truth; “we’re already here”, she states, “it’s just not officially in the books”.

Furthermore, women are beneficial to the military.  It’s not like they don’t want women in the military because they are inferior.  It’s because of preconcieved gender roles.  A key phrase mentioned earlier was that women’s “skills are needed”.  Reports dating back to 1951 find that women make just as many important contributions to the military as men do. Two women were even awarded the Silver Star, the nation’s third-highest medal for gallantry in combat.   (LATimes).   It is so shocking that the government can grant two women this medal and not realize the twisted irony.  They are awarding two women for something that according to them then shouldn’t have been doing.  Granted, since World War II, the United States has been trying to integrate women into the forces but it still isn’t fully condoned.  So obviously not many people are truly against women actually serving against the military, many are just against the idea of it.

Source: Gazette

Opposing viewpoints argue that most women aren’t capable of the physical demands men must endure when in combat, especially in the infantry.  They are concerned about upholding military fitness as well as scenarios where a man is injured and the women must carry him out.  The honest truth is that most can’t.  But the ones that want to join the armed forces are the ones that can. They are the ones that will work hard to meet the same standards.  Rosie Darby, a 20 year-old medic was assigned to a combat outpost as a healthcare specialist.  Her job requires her to trek through vineyards and fields to avoid mines, all the while carrying medical supplies.  The other men in her platoon say that she outperforms half them.  She isn’t concerned about physical demands. Her concern is emotional attachment.  She says the men in her platoon think of her as a little sister and would want to take care of her if she were injured, even if they should be continuing the fight. This would pose a threat to the success of the mission.  But these are minor problems compared to the overall goal.  Women who cannot handle the stamina required are weeded out or reassigned just like men are.  As for emotional attachment, it is up to women to prove that they are no different, by any means, than the men.  It is something that men will have to get used to.

Last month, the Defense Secretary announced that they would be lifting the ban on women in combat.  Although the ban will not be fully phased out until 2016, it is a time to celebrate.  Women have time and time again proven their effectiveness and worthiness to join men in combat and finally have their chance to prove to the world that this should have happened a long time ago.

Title from political cartoon

Improving Voter Participation

Voter participation is very low. While America defines itself as a democracy, it is hard to back this assertion up when such little of its population participates in electing the leaders of our country. According the CNN, only approximately 51% of our population votes, a staggering low number. Citizens feel that their vote really doesn’t matter in the large scheme of things, however the democracy of the United States is hurt by not having a majority of the population voting. I believe that this lack of participation is embarrassing, and I am relieved that people are addressing this issue and examine way to fix it. 

As an eighteen-year old high school student, the most humiliating statistic is the number of eligible youth voters. Jessica Babtsite reports that only 42% of eligible voters between ages eighteen to twenty-four vote. Personally, it does not surprise me that this number is so low. It seems as if politicians have neglected to reach out and connect the young people of America, and they have left us hanging. Most kids are indifferent about how our country is run, mostly because people have never cared to inform them. However, the problem is on both sides. Young people need to understand that it is pertinent to participate in the democracy that America has provided, and politicians need to understand that the young people of American have opinions and they do matter.
In 1990, an organization called Rock the Vote was created to improve the statistic of youth voting. The program informed kids, and encouraged them to vote. This program also awoken the politicians, and made them understand how necessary it is to address the youth of America. In 1992, just two years after the program started, there was nearly a 20% increase in youth voting. In 2004, 1.2 million young people voted in the presidential election. In 2008, 2.25 million young people voted. However in 2012, the level of youth voting stayed the same. As numbers have increased though, there is no doubt in my mind that despite the recent turnout in 2012, numbers in youth participation will continue to rise.

Social media has as well begun to influence voter turn out. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, blogs, vlogs, and Youtube, and email have all greatly manipulated not only the Presidential elections, but also any government election across the world. In an article on Voice of America, an online news site, James Fowler proclaims just how social media can influence an election. He says that he once received an email that said, “There was also a link that you could click on that allowed you to look up your polling place. And in some of the messages we also showed people the pictures of their friends who

Social Media

had clicked on the ‘I Voted’ button earlier in the day.” Social media affects both sides of elections, the voters and the candidates. Voters can become very informed on any candidate within seconds, as well as develop opinions on candidates within seconds. Social media has allowed voters to connect to their candidates like never before. On the other hand, candidates can also connect with their people like never before as well. They can get a feel for what the people are feeling and what people’s opinions are. Through social media, it is much easier for candidates to conform to the idea of everyone, rather than just the people they meet face to face. All of the connections created by social media have definitely influenced voter turnout, and it has definitely increased the numbers.

There is no doubt in my mind that by addressing the issue of voter participation and creating ways to improve numbers such as Rock the Vote or social media tactics, voter participation will continue to rise. I predict that both youth participation and total voter turnout will be at its greatest percentage by the 2016 elections. I know I will definitely be voting for the first time!

Bring Bowe Bergdahl Home

Bob and Jani Bergdahl have not seen their son, a member of the U. S. Military since Christmas 2008. Their son, Bowe Bergdahl was captured on June 30, 2009 while on tour in Afghanistan by the Taliban.  Almost three years have gone by and the U.S. government has not retrieved him, the only current prisoner of the Taliban. There are two different perspectives; one from the parents and one from the government. Two problems are beginning to arise: Bob Bergdahl is using pathways of action to get his son back and Barack Obama is dealing with politics as discussed in class.

Bob Bergdahl, a protective and persistent parent, loves his son and just wants him to come home. Bob has been silent to the press about Bowe’s situation for a long time, but has recently begun to speak out about his son’s imprisonment and what the government is doing about it (source 3). Bob has been learning Pashto, the language spoken in Afghanistan, so he can talk to diplomats and other officials in Afghanistan about his son’s return. Bob has also started communicating and speaking to reporters and other people to gain support. He does not believe that the government is doing much to get his son home. In order to peacefully promote change, Bob is using pathways of action to try to gather enough attention to change the minds of the officials to bring Bowe home somehow.

Bob states, “I feel that I have to do my job as his father. I’m working toward a diplomatic and humanitarian solution.” Bob is using the peaceful Grassroots Mobilization pathway, which was discussed in class. This pathway is used by individuals who want a policy or some other government issue addressed or changed by talking and gaining support in a peaceful manner to grab the attention of the officials. (Choices,12). Bob has been talking to officials and the press to spread the word about his son to hopefully inspire the government to give more effort towards bringing Bowe home.

The Taliban is a “formidable fighting force in Afghanistan and a major threat to its government.” The Taliban wants to exchange the prisoner that they have obtained, Bowe, with the prisoners that the U.S. is currently holding. The Taliban has opened an office in Qatar with the president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai. The Taliban is attempting to use their prisoner, Bowe, as leverage to engage in diplomatic conversations with the U.S. government about the release of some of their prisoners from Guantanamo Bay.

The sticky traps of politics in government are forcing President Obama to carefully evaluate his decisions. President Obama is the Commander in Chief and ultimately has control of the military (Choices, 229). He gets to have the final say with affairs that have to do with the army, including Bowe in Afghanistan. President Obama and the other officials in charge of Bowe’s situation are under immense stress and guidance from different groups of people, such as the conservatives within the government. The conservatives are advising and pushing government officials, such as Barack Obama, to not negotiate with terrorists.  Bowe’s captivity remains under the table and does not get talked about enough due to the politics involved.

On one hand, I believe that negotiating with terrorists is wrong and will hurt America as a whole if done poorly. On the other hand, Bowe is a young adult who deserves to have a great life and has sacrificed three long years as a prisoner of war. My opinion is that the government is not doing enough to negotiate to retrieve Bowe from the Taliban. The people that we are holding captive are not vital to us, and if a minor negotiation and release of a captive is what it takes to bring one of our own home, I believe that it should be done. Bob Bergdahl is doing a great job trying to gain support for his son, and I believe that by spreading the news of Bowe and his situation, changes could really occur and that Bowe could eventually be brought home. Peaceful pathways of action are smart and useful tools within a democratic society. The politics can get sticky, but the officials need to understand that if it were their children, they would fight to bring them home too. By spreading the word, supporting Bob and Bowe, and gaining the attention of the officials, the policies can be discussed and changed to bring Bowe back home to his family, where he belongs.

Acknowledgements:

Source one: http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/10/11633115-frustrated-dad-of-taliban-prisoner-bowe-bergdahl-takes-matters-into-own-hands?lite

Source two: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/bowe-bergdahl-taliban-captive-prisoner-swap_n_1504108.html

Source three: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2142119/Bowe-Bergdahls-capture-Parents-soldier-held-Taliban-break-silence.html

Source four: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11451718

Source five: http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2012/01/taliban_may_use_bowe_bergdahl.html

That’s Great President Obama… But When Will Gay Marriage Be Legal?

Today President Obama finally took a stance on same sex marriages.  He stated that he personally believes that gays and lesbians should have the right to get married, even though when he was running for office in 2008, he was against same sex marriages but for civil unions. Whether or not gay marriage will be allowed by all the states in the near future is irrelevant; what really matters is that someone in power finally took a firm stance on one side of the issue. Typically, politicians tend to avoid controversial and sensitive social issues in order to avoid stepping on certain people’s toes.  However, America is becoming a more open place, and it’s about time for people to start talking about these issues that used to only be talked about behind closed doors.

Obama recently announced his stance on gay marriage.

When it comes to actually implementing gay marriage policies, there is usually some trouble.  The constitution does not directly address social issues, let alone gay marriage, so there is a lot of room for debate on any social issue. The constitution does not explicitly say “Gay marriage is ok” but it also does not say “Gay marriage is illegal” or “Gay marriage threatens our democratic ideals”. So when debating gay marriage, it really comes down to how someone interprets the constitution. Whether or not someone uses the Whig model or the Stewardship model will play a part in determining whether or not they believe gay marriage is  constitutional or not.

There are also other factors that contribute to any policies made regarding gay marriage.  In the status quo of the United States, decisions fall to the individual states regarding gay marriage according to the constitution. Even though President Obama did say he is for same sex marriages, that won’t be enough to change anything because the responsibility of making laws regarding gay marriage falls to the states, and because of the fact that the President does not have ultimate power to make any decision they want.  Even if the federal government had the power to make gay marriages legal, the executive and the legislative branches would still have to be able to agree on the issue and enough people would have to want to legalize gay marriage.

While yes, it is great that President Obama can talk openly about his opinions regarding gay marriage, this does not mean that same sex marriages will be legal across America in the near future. In this case, personal opinion does not matter, because in order for gay marriage to be legal across America, many policy hurdles have to be overcome. In reality, same sex marriage will probably not be legal in America for a very long time. However, as a country we are making progress considering people are getting comfortable enough to discuss controversial social issues in public, and for now, that will have to be good enough.

Energy Crisis of America’s Future

In society today, i have learned that people are becoming more dependant on energy than is relatively important. In my household, I have started using manual hand-held can openers, placed CFL lightbulbs in every room and going one hour every night with no electricity. If  only a handful of people in a handful of states would start doing little things like this, maybe America would be in for the long run.

Adequate availability of inexpensive energy is the most important demand of today. Economic growth and industrialization both are dependent on the availability of energy. But today the problem is that world energy sources are fast depleting and this fast depleting energy resources have put the world in a grip of energy crisis so this is the time to take steps to conserve the non-renewable sources of energy and also find the alternative sources of energy or another way is to tap into or harness the solar energy.

Many of the developed Western-European countries and Japan depends a great extent on imports of energy resources to meet the bulk of their requirements. If such is the condition of industrially and technologically advanced countries one can imagine the condition of underdeveloped countries. These days the main sources of energy is coal, natural gas and mineral oil and some countries even have developed capacity to produce hydro-electric and nuclear energy to some extent. But their consumption in factories and automobiles is increasing in such a manner that it would not take mankind more than a hundred years to use up all the known resources on earth. Hence the need to conserve the resources and use of available domestic resources is gaining momentum.

There are two main types of resources, which are conventional and non-conventional. Bulk of the non-conventional supplies come from vegetable waste, firewood, cow dung, besides mechanical energy derived from animal power and manpower. Among the primary sources of conventional energy coal and oil are the most dominant while electricity generated from coal and oil is the principal secondary source of conventional energy in India. Hydro power has also gained importance. Besides, solar energy is an important renewable non-polluting source of energy which can be harnessed most economically. 

                                                                               

Much research is going on all over the world on solar energy. According to Dr. Denis Hayes, a solar energy enthusiast, the sun could be used for providing directly half of America’s total energy needs. Since energy crisis is a common problem the nations of the world have decided to focus attention on it. They decided to meet every year in the World Energy Conference. This co-operative effect can certainly help to meet the challenge and save the world from the threat of  depleting energy.

Another interesting development has been the growing potential of natural gas throughout America, as to where over seas gases represent more energy than oil. One of the recent developments is that of biogas or gobargas. Besides, research is being carried out to harness solar energy, also to produce power from the waves of an ocean and wind. In fact, India’s first wave energy project is fast coming up at Vizhingam, 15 km away from Trivandrum. 

                                                                                      

So as the position of the nation stands by us, we should take immediate steps to develop alternate non-conventional sources of energy to be ready to face the challenge of tomorrow. If not, America could have a dangerous epademic on our hands and that is certainly something that we could do without. Pitch in and help AMerica stay beautiful.

 

ProLife is MY Choice

Today, each political party is associated with a stereotype for every issue. It is a common belief that Republicans are

ProLife, and Democrats are decidedly ProChoice. However, I have discovered that these stereotypes vary more than I thought they would within relatively homogenous groups. For example: The great State of Texas has gone Republican since 1980, yet, a Republican’s stance on abortion is not as uniform as one would think. Even in my every day life I found this to be an alarming truth. Compared to other schools such as Greenhill, Hockaday, and St. Marks, where their people of color represent between 30-40% of their schools population,Parish is considered far less diverse. Because Parish is relatively homogenous in both socioeconomic status and race, I thought the opinions of an assimilated culture would be homogenous as well, but I was proved otherwise.

The picture above represents the volatility of abortion within political parties. As you can see within each party the notion of  ProLife or ProChoice is not completely uniform. Interestingly, approximately 30% of the Republican party is ProChoice, while the Republican Party Platform is clearly against abortion.

Two Sides to Every Story

Before my big debate, I encountered a slightly unpleasant situation (I’m not a fan of controversy). I was sitting around the lunch table with friends who I thought would have similar opinions as mine, but boy was I wrong. When we were discussing our debate topics, a heated discussion arose when I told my friends I was going to be arguing on the ProLife side of abortion. I was able to communicate my main points until the situation became more confrontational than I was prepared for. A second surprise came my way from the resounding ProChoice position from many of the boys in my class. The majority of the boys were more concerned if they got a girl pregnant from a lack of precautionary measures than the thought that an abortion would be taking a life. I was now certain I had some revising to do. At the time, I knew each of my points were logical but it became apparent that I couldn’t defend the logic of my views in entirety. I felt embarrassed by my lack of knowledge and my inability to respond to the opposing side. Although, my experience at lunch was not as civil as I would have preferred, I was glad we had the intense discussion before I faced my true opponents. My disappointment at the lunch table inspired me to go home and research the opposite side of the spectrum. I realized that to effectively argue my side of the story, I had to understand the other. The statement holds true—“There are two sides to every story.”

Forming my Own Opinion

After researching both sides of the spectrum, I was able to develop my own firm opinion about abortion. I was no longer basing it off of parents’ view or my friends. Finally, I had come to my own conclusions and because of this I am excited to have become passionate about a current affairs topic. I am thankful for the extreme conversations I have had among my peers and for the thorough research I have done because I now feel prepared to debate against anyone in an educated and civilized manner. Lastly, I have learned that I cannot assume that the uniform or label displayed on the outside of a population is fit to each individual’s beliefs within it.