Blog 8

The U.S Government blog Tina's view on politics has an entry titled “Should Marijuana be legalized” in which the author, Tina, opposed legalization of marijuana. Tina supports her claim with “Marijuana should [not] be legalized for consumption of any kind because of the lasting effects that it has on the brain of a human. Marijuana has a lasting effect of memory damage to a humans brain.” I do not agree with Tina and here is my counter argument. 

First I would like to address Tina’s statement on the long term health effects to a persons memory. Here are three very credible sources, webmd.com, wikipedia.org, and drugabuse.gov, which do not mention anything along the lines to the correlation between marijuana and long term memory damage. In fact, the only clearly proven effects of marijuana stated by these sites are short term effects. The long term effects are still inconclusive and require further research. Here are some quotes from each website, “The link has never been proven” (Webmd), “Though the long-term effects of cannabis have been studied, there remains much to be concluded.” (Wikipedia), “More research is still needed to confirm and better understand these linkages.” (Drugabuse).  Here is a great video explaining how the active chemical in marijuana (THC) affects the brain.

Secondly, I would like to discuss legality of drugs in general. If the effects of the drug on a persons health determines legality, why is alcohol and tobacco legal? Cdc.gov provides a list of proven immediate and long term health risks much more severe then marijuana. Here is an interesting chart I came across which rates drugs based on dependency and physical harm. As you can see, there are many drugs such as cannabis (marijuana), LSD, and ecstasy; which are all less dependent and does less physical harm then tobacco and alcohol, but are still illegal.

My question was why some substances are legal and others are not? As Noam Chomsky has said, “Very commonly substances are criminalized because they’re associated with what’s called the dangerous classes.” which means the association of particular drugs with stigmatized groups—the poor and racial minorities. Historian Richard Miller is summarized in GQ magazine as saying, “When Chinese immigrants began to crowd out jobs for white people in California, opium consumption suddenly became a crime. Hemp was legal and consumed in a variety of forms until it became a way to reduce economic competition from Mexicans. Cocaine, notoriously, was consumed in polite society throughout the century, but was not the subject of police attention until blacks migrated North to escape the Jim Crowified South.”

I think all drugs should legalized. Harvard University professor Jeffrey Miron has advocated the legalization of drugs for decades. In a Spiegel online interview, he explains why prohibition is more dangerous than selling drugs in supermarkets. To summarize the interview, here are some of the benefits Miron describes; The United States could save $85 billion to $90 billion per year, reduced violence by eliminating the black market, and my favorite quote of all, “Americans claim to believe in -- freedom, individuality, personal responsibility -- you have to legalize drugs. The maxim should be that you're allowed to do it if you're not harming anyone else.” Not allowing someone to consume a drug in the privacy of their home in the pursuit of happiness is taking away their unalienable rights. 

Blog 6

The U.S Government blog A Texan's Gov't Blog has an entry titled “Blog Stage 5: Just Put Up a Sign” in which the author, Brandon, opposed gun-free zones which prohibits anyone, licensed or not, from carrying a firearm of any kind onto the premises. I could not agree more with Brandon's article. He explains the ineffectiveness of the signs, examples of such, and best of all, common sense, to support his argument. 

“Doesn't it follow logical reasoning that someone who is in violation of the law by carrying an illegally concealed firearm, would also ignore any posted signs prohibiting the carrying of firearms by law?” (Brandon). Its hard to simplify common sense any further in my opinion. In a similar article to Brandon's; The Fallacy of ‘Gun Free’ Zones, gives us an example of this common sense, “‘If an insane gunman rushes into your classroom intending to murder you and your classmates, what would you rather have – a law that says he can’t have that gun here, or another gun?’ I have yet to hear someone respond with, ‘Trick question! He won’t be able to get that gun into my classroom, because it’s a gun free zone!’”

I could not find a single article which was pro gun-free zones and was able to support its argument. Debate.org was the only thing I was able to find, which Is similar to a forum where layman can discuss certain issues. The only two posts supporting gun-free zones are simply absurd. 

There is one thing I would like to add. I don’t believe “All” gun-free zones are fallacy. In the Texaschl, is a list of gun-free zones in Texas. One of them being businesses where alcohol is sold if 51% or more of their revenue is from the sale of alcohol for on-premises consumption. I believe that this is one gun-free zone that makes logical sense. Even a law abiding citizen, when impaired by alcohol, may make irrational decisions which may endanger innocent civilians if armed. 

Blog 7: CISPA

CISPA. Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act. What is it and why does it matter? Well, this legislation was introduced in 2011 and you can find a dozen different definitions explained exactly what it is but in layman terms, essentially it would allow for the sharing of Internet information between the U.S. government and technology and manufacturing companies (Like apple or facebook just to name a few big ones). 

So why would whoever wrote this thing, well. Write this thing? What is it’s “purpose”.  The stated aim of the bill is to help the U.S government investigate cyber threats and ensure the security of networks against cyberattacks. Sounds nice right? 

So its to protect the internet from hackers and what not. So whats wrong with that? Why is it in the news and why are people making a big fuss? Well the first problem is the bill is “vague.” People really don’t like things that are up for interpretation. The founding fathers thought our bill of rights were flawless and now, who would have thought we would have such a hard time interpreting their words hundreds of years later. So people are scared that the “poorly written” bill is going to go beyond internet security. 

What kind of “internet information” are they talking about anyways? Your internet information! So your emails, text messages, if you have cloud storage, pretty much anything you do that is connected to the internet. So CISPA would allow the government to spy on you without you knowing. Hey! isn’t that against the 4th amendment? Right to privacy? Well thats what the people against CISPA are arguing. 

So does anyone want CISPA? The answer may seem like no, and that is what you will most likely find when you search this subject matter, but who are for it? Well, aside from the House of Representatives who have voted for it the first and the second time now. Most of the technology and manufacturing are for it because, simply, it protects them.

As of right now, you do not have to worry about CISPA and the government being little peeping toms on your computer because the Senate has turned it down once again. But don’t forget about CISPA just yet. It has come back once, it just may come back again. 

References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_Intelligence_Sharing_and_Protection_Act
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2417993,00.asp
http://www.socialjusticesolutions.org/2013/04/24/why-you-need-to-know-about-cispa-and-what-you-can-do-about-it/
http://sourcefednews.com/cispa-what-you-need-to-know/
http://www.theverge.com/2012/5/2/2993495/cispa-hr-3523-business-support-opposition

Blog 5: Gay Marriage

Women’s Suffrage Movement (1848-1920). Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968). Gay Rights Movement (1924-present). If you are currently living in the present, you should know that the gay marriage controversy is a real thing. Can you believe that? Why does humanity have such a hard time accepting equality. 

Lets try to define marriage. You can try as you might but you can’t define something relative to its culture. You can’t define something that pre-dates history which also has changed over time. There is no such thing as traditional marriage. Given the prevalence of modern and ancient examples of family arrangements based on polygamy, communal child-rearing, the use of concubines and mistresses and the commonality of prostitution, heterosexual monogamy can be considered "unnatural” in evolutionary terms. 

Marriage has been a huge part of religion. Some people believe that marriage is a religious ritual therefore support their arguments against gay marriage with religious teachings. No one is forcing churches to perform same-sex marriages, but America is not a theocracy. Marriage in the modern age is not just a religious ceremony, it is a legal status. You can’t make religious rules into laws that apply to everyone. 

Its not a very long controversy once you take out religion. I have yet to find any decently formulated counterarguments which don’t tie into religion in some way. Other then that, I think we can all agree that gay marriage does not hurt anyone or society. 

References:
http://gaymarriage.procon.org
http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-gay-marriage-be-legalized
http://www.gaymarriagehq.com/5-reasons-why-gay-marriage-should-be-legal-62/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0761909.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_(1955–68)
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/womenstimeline1.html
http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/politically-incorrect/homosexuality/10-reasons-why-homosexual-marriage-is-harmful-and-must-be-opposed.html

Blog 4: North Korea

The article North Korea Threatens to Attack U.S. With ‘Lighter and Smaller Nukes’ really caught my eye because we just recently learned about "big mean scary world" and I feel like this is a perfect example of that in the news today. I believe that the authors intended audience is just the general public, and it seems to be working in my opinion. I have personally heard a lot on this topic from my peers and I feel like it is because it is targeting its audiences fear. The article did use a lot of quotes like “As we have already declared, we will take second and third countermeasures of greater intensity against the reckless hostilities of the United States and all the other enemies, they had better heed our warning.” But I would feel like it would be more credible if they had given their sources. This article is more of an informative article because it is not really making an argument. I found this quote interesting, "North Korea would use such peace talks with the United States to sideline South Korea and try to negotiate the withdrawal of American troops from the South." I think that we should have a peace treaty even if it means removing troops from South Korea. In this article Come Home, America, it gives great reasons why America should remove troops from other parts of the world, not just North Korea. So how severe are these threats? Well The Washington Post says After North Korea threat, White House says US can defend itself against attack and gives a lot of references to quotes by White House spokesman Jay Carney, The top U.S. envoy on North Korea Glyn Davies, Sen. Marco Rubio, and more. But ultimately, I think the article feels, as stated, "It is difficult to know how capable U.S. missile defense is, should it be required." Other articles on the other hand, are very skeptical on the White Houses response to these threats, such as America, North Korea's threats are not coming from a crazy uncle -- they're real. "These [Washington Officials] also downplay North Korea’s capabilities—even as they grow steadily stronger." This article feels these threats are not something to take lightly and suggests action. "To adapt this to North Korea and the changing threat it poses, the U.S. should move intermediate-range nuclear cruise missiles to the region.  To make deterrence seem more real, we should also have a NATO-style Nuclear Planning Group with Canada, Japan and perhaps other Pacific allies."

Blog 3: Impeach Obama?

I would like to begin by saying I do not keep up with politics at all. This is all very new to me, I did not follow the candidates in the recent election. I have never research anything on Obama before this assignment. The title of this article really caught my eye. Why Obama Should be Impeached is an article by David Lindorff were he presents his argument on why Obama should be Impeached. His main argument is based on something he refers to as the "white paper." According to David, the white paper is the White House offering the legal justification for the executing of American citizens solely on the authority of the executive branch. He continues with four points in which defends his argument by using Juan Cole's essay to describe how the papers violate the Constitution. He also refers to a book called "The Case for Impeachment" stating that failure to hold Bush and Cheney to account for their outrages would mean a subsequent president could commit the same crimes with impunity and Obama proved this. I believe David intended his audience to be the general public. I felt like he was trying to use fear to have people agree with him. He made good points and got me interested but had very few references. I could not find much on what David mentioned as "white paper," but this article Daniel Ellsberg says Obama should be impeached over NDAA talks about the NDAA which seemed to me like what David described. J. D. Heyes is the author of this article but he mainly uses Daniel Ellsberg's words. Ellsberg says the NDAA provision is merely an extension of unconstitutional government behavior stemming from the 9/11 attacks and the U.S. global war on terror. Ellsberg also believes Obama has made impeachable offenses. 

According to OBAMA IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS BEGIN!, on  March 11, 2013, Congress is beginning impeachment proceedings against Barack Obama based on the grounds of unauthorized use of the military in Libya and Syria.  Congress is also looking into his involvement in the Fast and Furious scandal.

My final article I feel has been the most informative and covers a wide variety of the Impeachment of Obama debate. The growing case for impeachment of Obama covers the operation Fast and Furious brought up by the previous article I mentioned. It also covers the Drone story of Anwar al-Awlaki which my first article briefly talked about. It also covers many other issues that was not addressed. What I liked most about this article was it described the issue, then it tells you what the experts say. As well as an "Impeachment crimes advisory system" which showed how severe the experts felt on the issue. The experts were Bruce Fein, Herbert Titus, and Louis Fisher. There was a short biography of each expert at the beginning of the article.

Blog 2: Gun Control

While looking for a article through many of the suggested sources, one issue seems to come up more than any other. Can you guess which one? Gun control! One of the most controversial issues in american politics for the past several decades and has only intensified due to the recent escalation on mass shootings. I should note that I started my research with an unbiased opinion. 

House Democrats unveil gun-control proposals  is a recent article which discusses the 15-point plan to address gun violence by the House Democrats. The proposal declares that democrats support the second amendment and would never back any attempt to infringe it but that the constitutional right to bear arms "is not unlimited." It also calls for a federal ban on military-style assault weapons. The plan also includes calls for universal background checks and more money for the Justice Department’s national criminal background check system, as well as more federal dollars to fund mental health, school security programs, gun buy-back programs and scientific research on “the relationship between popular culture and gun violence.” 

My conclusion is I support this proposal except the ban on military-style assault weapons. I do not own a assault weapon nor do I see any practical use for them but I believe a ban on assault weapons would do absolutely nothing except upset the people who love their assault weapons. Banning assault weapons is not the answer is a great article that shows statistics that less than one percent of gun murders, and that "assault weapons or high-capacity magazines" were used in at least 12 of the 43 mass shootings since 2009. 

I strongly support universal background checks, more money for the Justice Department's, and more federal dollars to fun mental health, school security programs etc... I believe in the saying, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Sheriff targets mental health illness to gun violence clearly states, "Eight of the nine killers in mass shootings last year had histories of mental illness. Few are believed to have been under the care of a mental health care provider or part of an organized community support system. None were blocked from legally purchasing a weapon." That sounds like the most logical cause of the mass shootings to me, not which type of weapons they used. 

Personal quest to make guns' toll more visible . I felt it was really important to share this article. It has got to be the most ridiculous, most illogical argument make in favor of more gun control. This article talks about Representative Jim Langevin, Democrat of Rhode Island, whose spinal cord was severed by a bullet when he was 16 years old. The thing is, it happened due to an accidental discharge of a firearm. How he could make a argument with his situation was just beyond me. So I accidentally cut my finger off while chopping vegetables, should we start banning knifes now?