Commentary on "Campaign Reform: Blog Stage 7"

"Campaign Reform: Blog Stage 7" has some very wise messages. In his blog, Jmoser states his frustration with the limitations of our two-party politics, as well as the problems that come with private campaign funding and interest groups. He discusses his dissatisfaction with the way a candidate must side with one party or another to be elected, rather than just his political viewpoints. He feels that it is wrong that the candidate who spends the most money on their campaign almost always wins, and thinks that we should ban private funding, and completely rely on government funding, so that everyone has the same opportunities. He then goes on to discuss some possible ways to fix our political system.

I completely agree with Jmoser on the issues of our government, but I think they are much deeper rooted problems than he discusses, of which there are really no solutions. For instance, Jmoser thinks that our political system is strictly two-party because privately funded campaigns are difficult without a political party to help, and greatly favor the rich, but I feel like one of the major reasons for them is the fact of how politically uneducated and inactive our society is. In reality, voters don't really do that much research about candidate's viewpoints. They just know generally what the Democratic and Republican parties represent, then simply vote for the candidate who is representing the party that they tend to side with. For a majority of the population to be able to choose a candidate from an independent party, it would mean that a great deal of research and thought has gone into the political decision-making process, and unfortunately, I don't think that that will ever happen in our society. On the issue of banning all private funding, including interest group donations, I feel like it is pretty much impossible. I think that to some degree it is a violation of our First Amendment, but even if it did pass, politicians and interest groups would likely find some ways around it. It may be pessimistic, but I think that our government is just bound to have these flaws no matter how we may try to fix them.

Unemployment Bailout

On Tuesday, August 10, the House of Representatives pushed through a new bill, which was immediately signed by President Obama, giving $26 billion to states to fund jobs for teachers, police officers, and several other valuable occupations. The funding will give jobs back to many of the teachers and police officers who have recently been laid off because of budgetary issues, and will prevent any further layoffs. The House members were summoned for one day during their annual summer recess to pass this bill. It was given top priority, so that schools would have time to do rehiring before the school year begins.

There is a great deal of heated debate over this new bailout, especially over where to find the additional budget, but I think that despite U.S. financial concerns, this bill is a great thing for the United States as a whole. Children in the United States need to get the best education possible in order to succeed in our country. They should not have to be in huge classes, and therefore loose the individual attention that is necessary for a good education, just because of financial issues. Our nation depends on the upcoming generations to lead it, and if we do not educate them properly, the United States will never advance. The public’s general education has already declined in many areas within the past few decades, so if anything, we need to be hiring more, better trained teachers. In my opinion, if there needs to be a government bailout for anything, the education of our children and the safety of our community should be at the top of our list.

Commentary on "Prop 19 and Federalism"

I think that "Prop 19 and Federalism" poses some very interesting questions. I was always raised hearing about how horrible marijuana is, and that it is only a gateway drug for worse, but this commentary points out that maybe, if used responsibly, marijuana could be what helps to save California’s dying economy. Tim wisely includes that California’s legislators estimate that tax revenues from marijuana could reach $1.4 billion per year, as well as saving millions from those who are incarcerated and patrolled. This could be the one thing that could solve California's financial crisis, and if made a national law, could save the U.S. economy. I think Tim is correct in saying that if Proposition 19 is passed, other states will soon follow. He does a good job of explaining the uncertainties of federal-state relations with an issue this controversial.

I agree that legalizing marijuana has many important benefits, but I also think that the potential negative effects cannot be ignored. For example, it is very likely that people will not abide by the limitations on marijuana growth and possession. Also, it is a safety hazard, and there is a reason why people call it a gateway drug. Tim makes a vital argument for legalizing marijuana in “Prop 19 and Federalism,” but I think that the issue is much more complex than just the fact that it will help our economy.

Attacks on Arizona

As most of us are already well informed, there is a huge controversy currently going on in Arizona over its new immigration laws, which gives police greater authority to question possible aliens. On Wednesday, July 28th, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton blocked the core aspects of the new policies. The next day, when the new laws were to take effect, there was an outburst of violent protests toward the immigration laws. One protest even led to a bullet hole found in the office of an Arizona congressman. It is an issue with constantly growing heated debate, and is likely to head to the Supreme Court.

I feel like in cracking down on illegal immigration, the state of Arizona is just carrying out the law, which is being excessively broken around the Mexican border every single day. There has always been a law banning aliens, it just was not watched closely, but now that illegal immigration is getting out of hand and Arizona is finally acting, people are behaving as if it is something new. Arizona should be able to carry out the law without so much violence and rebellion. It would be one thing for people to protest immigration restrictions as a whole, but to be angry that Arizona is trying to make laws to carry them out is completely different. It is wrong for a state of the U.S. to not be able to create laws that support other long-standing laws without its courts blocking it. They are there for a reason, and we should support that.

"Obama's Poll Numbers Down, Imaginary Racism Up"

Ann Coulter recently wrote a blog on her website titled "Obama's Poll Numbers Down, Imaginary Racism Up". It discusses the fact that supporters of Obama are rapidly decreasing, and as a result, democrats who have stayed true to him are now claiming that the real cause for his falling numbers is racism. As stated by Coulter, "This is what "racism" has come to in America. Democrats are in trouble, so they say "let's call conservatives racists."" She goes on to give several examples of democrat's false evidence that republicans are racist. One of her prime examples was, "...the mainstream media continue to spread the despicable lie that someone called civil rights hero Rep. John Lewis the "N-word" 15 times during the anti-ObamaCare rally in Washington." After this rumor was spread, $100,000 was offered to anyone who had a video of him being called that name; not one of the countless videos from that rally show him being called any names at all, let alone 15 times. Another example Coulter gives of the falsely accused racism is that the NAACP is saying that the Tea Partiers are harboring racists. Their proof was by creating a short video that featured a man at one of the protests shouting, "I'm a proud racist!" In response to that video, Coulter stated, "Here's the part Soros' people didn't show you: In the fuller video shown on the Glenn Beck show, the Tea Partiers surrounded the (liberal plant) racist, jeering at him, telling him he's not one of them and to go home. In a spectacularly evil fraud, all that was edited out." This proves that it was all a scam created by liberal conspirers.

Coulter is a successful political author, a legal correspondent for Human Events, and writes a column for Universal Press Syndicate. She is extremely politically educated, has a conservative viewpoint, and was named one of the top 100 Public Intellectuals by federal judge Richard Posner. Coulter wrote this blog to inform people of the truth about the rumors circulating that accuse those who do not support Obama as being racist. After reading "Obama's Poll Numbers Down, Imaginary Racism Up", there was no question in my mind that the rumors were false. It does an effective job of stating its main point, then providing vital evidence to back it up and therefore convince the reader. I also think that it makes readers much more suspicious of trusting the media, as well as doubting the honesty of many influential democrats.

"Investigating the Interrogators"

On the Los Angeles Times website, I read a political editorial about the CIA’s interrogating techniques used under the presidency of George W. Bush. As stated by “Investigating the Interrogators”, “One of the most shameful chapters in the war against terrorism was the complicity of George W. Bush's Justice Department in the CIA's use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" — in plain language, torture — to extract information from suspected terrorists”. The author includes evidence of the "torture" in the form of listing the acts of interrogation, such as facial slaps, sleep deprivation, stress positions, and solitary confinement, and claimed that interrogators went further than authorized. The author's intended audience would consist of sympathetic readers, with extremely anti-violence ideologies.

While scanning different newspaper editorials and commentaries, and trying to find one that would be suitable for this assignment, this editorial really stood out to me. In the required class reading, one of the chapters in the textbook discusses how the media is always trying to find the negative side of every situation. No matter what the government does, they will only look for what the government has done wrong, because that makes politics much more exciting. I feel like this article is a good example of that statement. No matter what the CIA and former president George W. Bush did in the war against terrorism, the media would find a way to criticize it. If the government didn’t have an active role in fighting terrorism, the media would claim that they were not working hard to protect the citizens of our country; instead, they are fiercely interrogating suspected terrorists, and yet they are still being attacked by the media. Like it or not, we are at war, and such measures have to be taken. The CIA would not be interrogating someone who they had a right to believe was completely innocent. These people are not innocent, and what we do to these select few, for example, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the man that was allegedly behind 9/11, is absolutely nothing compared to what they do to innocent civilians every day. I think that it is time for the media and U.S. citizens to realize that there is no such thing as a ‘nice war’, and that desperate times call for desperate measures. We have to trust our government to take significant actions in order to fight the war against terrorism, and stop only searching for negative things to say about the government.

Obama: Immigration plan 'cannot pass without Republican votes', is an informative article from USA Today about Obama's pro-immigration viewpoints and disapproval of Arizona's new law that gives police the authority to question a person's citizenship. President Obama feels that the United States should offer amnesty to our illegal immigrants, allowing them a "pathway to legal status". Meanwhile, Republicans feel that it is wrong to offer amnesty to 11 million citizens who have been breaking the law. Obama argues that deporting 11 million people would not only be impossible, but it would also "disrupt communities and break up families". He knows that his immigration plan cannot pass without Republican votes, so he goes on to say that, "Illegal immigrants have always helped to build and defend this country," and that his plan will help the U.S. by supplying, "...a younger workforce and a faster growing economy than many of our competitors." As for Arizona's new law, Obama feels that it will not be effective, and could potentially violate U.S. citizen's rights. I believe that this article is worth reading for any U.S. citizen, because whether we are for or against amnesty to our illegal immigrants, it greatly effects our community.