Gender Discrimination

On March 30th, 2017, the blog Governmentally Insane, posted an article about Opinions of Gender Rights, and graciously explains why Gender Rights are more about changing peoples feelings and not that the other genders are discriminated in the case of transgender bathrooms.  I do believe that transgender people are discriminated in other ways but the stance on transgender bathrooms, in agreement with Governmentally Insane, is unrealistic and unfathomable.

The small ratio of transgender people to the rest of the country is minor, and to make a change of the way our government works it must take many people to advocate including many politicians. But politicians have greater things to work on such as Trumps radical ideas, and growing tension with North Korea. Being transgender is not illegal, you have the right to be who you want to be, but you do not have the right to push your beliefs and what you want on the majority. If transgender discrimination is happening in your job place, take a stand on that, because that is what real discrimination is. I think what bathroom you can use should be basis of discrimination.   

Is it the End of the World as We Know It?

In our world today we can find the beauty of our earth wherever we look, from walking around the Town Lake to seeing the beaches of Greece on instagram. All around us natural phenomena happens as a result of our environments, climates, and the way of our world. Plants and animals are part of this beauty and majority help maintain it, but what if all of these things disappeared? And what if we could have prevented it? What if we were the ones that caused it?

The climate change debate can go back decades, but in todays world, 2017 America, it is at a peek point in our government. President Trump has expressed multiple times that he is not a believer of global warming and the impact humans have on our environment. Although there are many scientist who believe the same, there a more who believe that humans are damaging the ozone's and the environment, but because there is no consensus in the scientific world, we are left to decide for ourselves. Divided, the country, and the worlds fate rest in the hands in power positions, although, there are many groups who rally around the issue and advocate for environmental regulations. As a whole, we must decide what our world is worth to us, and are we ready to reap the consequences if we chose to do nothing? Is it better to be safe than sorry? Are we prepared to lose the world as we know it?

Congress Limted Edition

In Brandon Stewart's article "Congressional Term Limits," he gives valid points that explain why congressmen and women should be subject to electoral term limits.

I enjoyed this article because it explains how a few changes could potentially change the dynamic of congress completely. I feel that Stewart hit the nail on the head when he  spoke of the "DC Bubble"  because we have seen how the needs and wants of the people can get lost in the politics within congress. Though, I do question congressional terms as we may lose valuable knowledge from the more experienced politicians. Those who have experience of the workings of congress may be helpful when drafting new legislation. But without limits one can forget the reason they started and become corrupt and see only inside the "DC Bubble."

As far as voters participation, I do think that congressional terms would increase citizens interest in their congressmen and women, especially, if incumbent legislators lost access to funds, giving newcomers a fair chance. I do not find it fair that those already seated would have access to so much influence and funds that no other plain Jane can compete.

Overall, I do think that congressional term limits should be implemented for the good of our government and the people of our country.

Women of America

Women across the nation seek and use some kind of preventative contraceptive to protect themselves against unplanned pregnancies. However, costs and availability are two major issues that threaten women's rights to their bodies.

In the weeks since Trump's election, some women have feared that contraceptives may become less cost efficient and available to them. There has been an increase in intrauterine implant devices that can last up to 12 years depending on the type, which would protect them from any of Trumps polices against women's healthcare. But the costs of these devices can be astronomical for those with government healthcare or no healthcare at all. Planned Parenthood is a huge factor in women's healthcare and provides cheaper contraceptive options, and are more readily available than a family doctor would be.

The threat of defunding Planned Parenthood is frightening as they do not just specialize in the prevention of pregnancy but also include early screenings for some women specific cancers. Not only would women be forced into going through more expensive avenues for contraceptives, but they may not be offered any early screenings without probable cause. Women from low-income families and even women from the middle class struggle to pay for contraceptives as some can run as high as $600 through the traditional methods. Planned Parenthood cuts these costs and may even be free for some, which provides more women with low cost  contraceptives and protection.

The women in our society have a right to their bodies and preventative care as their bodies are their own, and what happens to it should be in their control. The problems of contraceptives, cost and availability, prove that the women of America need Planned Parenthood for affordable and ready healthcare.

Blunderbuss President Trump

On Wednesday, March 8^th, the National Review published an article by Ben Shapiro called, “Why We Should Ignore Trump’s Rhetoric.” The article describes the differences in what the president says and what he actually does, and how the media displays the difference. The media spends more time on what President Trump Tweets than they do on his actions as President of the United States. Shapiro explains that in the past the words of the president held more meaning and was a main reason for the public’s support and trust, but the past our Presidents have been more eloquent with their words.  Obama was used as an example because his words almost seemed honey coated when he addressed the public and he never called out one group of people in such a way we have seen with President Trump. The author calls Trump a “Blunderbuss,” and explains that the American people are better off ignoring what he says and paying more attention to his actions. I agree somewhat with this article as most of us would be better off ignoring the presidents Tweets, but I feel that sometimes they can be hard to ignore as can baffle a person. I do think that president Trump is changing the way American’s view their president and it might be a good thing.  However I do agree when Shapiro talk about the media blowing the tweets up for views instead of reporting on the action happening in Washington D.C.

American Values Destroyed by Immigration?

On Friday 21st, 2017, the New York Times published an editorial titled "Mr. Trump's 'Deportation Force' Prepares an Assault on American Values," which argues that Trumps new deportation system may cause many issues with illegal immigrants as well as the population. As he plans to use state and local law enforcement as immigration enforcers, which gives them a much heavier work load. The authors, the New York Times editorial board, make it clear that they stand against the president and his plan as they make a case by comparing it to the past immigration plans. The intended audience of this article is quite clear being left leaning people citizen or non-citizen. They support their claim by talking about the risks of leaving the regulation of immigration in the hands of untrained state and local law enforcement. Due process was another thing mentioned in this article to make their case because they believe that the swift deportation if a person cannot provide their papers or proof that they've been in the country for more than two years. Trumps obvious dislike and his many 'ranting's' about illegals is what the editorial board says is what painted this picture of illegals being criminals in America, and that his approach goes against everything the country stands for.

I agree and disagree with this article because they do bring up some valid points, such as the added work load and risk factors that come with extending immigration to local and state law enforcement. But I disagree with the authors when they say that this new plan is against American values and that we should be afraid of this new policy. 

The Realites of the Travel Ban

In the article published by Ann Coulter on February 1^st, “Give Me Your Tired Arguments…,” she discussed the controversy held around President Trumps “Muslim Ban.”  As many believe that the ban is unconstitutional because it “discriminates based on religion”, Ann points out that, in reality, it is not about religion at all. She makes points to explain that bringing in waves and waves of immigrants comes with a high cost. She explains that when these immigrants come to the United States they go straight onto government assistance programs, bringing with them their sick parents and children, and who pays for that assistance. Ann lists three points that roughly sum up the misinformation and exaggeration being produced around the travel ban and actuality of the ban.