A post in reply

In reply to Djenabou's blog post  http://djenaboujk.blogspot.com/2017/12/blog-stage-7.html 

While I don’t know anything about a tax bill, or how it would affect health care or in a better way of saying, how or what said bill is doing. But I do think that it is interesting to hear about and may look in on. What I do agree on is that we as a country should focus more on our health care system, and make it free and accessible to everyone. What I’d like to see is how universal health care would affect taxes, and everything else. On a second not I can definitely agree that paying more for health care than everyone does presently is an even worse idea. I'm actually disappointed that this is the most I can come up with in regards to this, but I must say that reading this post has made me curious about this tax bill mentioned and how it could be affecting health care.

The Argument over Net Neutrality

Recently something called Net Neutrality has been a popular topic, where head of the FCC AjitPai seeks to repeal Net Neutrality. Net neutrality isn’t a hard concept:

“Net neutrality, or open Internet, is the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) shouldgive consumers access to all legal content and applications on an equal basis, without favoringsome sources or blocking others”

It is something we have apparently had for decades unofficially and unnamed such as with thetelegram, according to some sources; yet with the current technology, the concept was made lawsome years prior, during the time of the Obama administration. Those laws were made with theintention to stop alleged violations by Comcast, and to prevent future possibilities of unfairtreatment of internet users with “fast lanes”

Looking on Wikipedia, you get the explanation of “Net neutrality is the principle that Internetservice providers must treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or chargedifferently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, ormethod of communication. For instance, under these principles, internet service providers areunable to intentionally block, slow down or charge money for specific websites and onlinecontent.” In addition, in other descriptions coming from articles talking about net neutrality, youget the explanation that net neutrality is simply rules made to keep things fair.

From what I understand of Ajit Pai’s argument, he is arguing that the net neutrality rules aresimply there for theoretical use, and that no company would do any of the things that would beillegal without the laws, and so net neutrality is nothing more than over handed and unneededlaws that do nothing. His argument is that we as a nation should no longer keep the internetmicromanaged by the government; and instead, we should have the net micro managed bycompanies, so we can have a more competitive internet.

Such an idea is faulty; the rules are there to keep away the “possibility” of underhand tactics bycompanies, blocking content, prioritizing sites and users, slowing access, and completelycontrolling what a user themselves can see is wrong. Net Neutrality is important because theyprevent any of these things from being possible, and level the playing field making things morefair and honest; if what this Net Neutrality prevents is only theoretical then that means it is meantas a prevention. Just like how our bill of rights prevents injustice on our rights, so does netneutrality online. For Ajit Pai to argue that Net Neutrality is neither beneficial or negative, and isunneeded, is like if when our nation was founded everyone said “Oh, ‘the bill of rights?’ wedon’t need that, we as a people know better, and would never do these harmful things.”

Net neutrality exists to keep things from being unfair, to keep things neutral. Users should notneed to pay for every site they go to, and should not have unfair “service plans” for the internet.While the FCC is claiming that they are attempting to “restore internet freedoms” I do notbelieve giving companies or any organization the option to prevent or slow access to informationis internet freedom. Without net neutrality, we will be losing a critical right in our moderntechno-centric era.

I would urge you all to research this subject on your own as it is definitely important, and this isjust my understanding I have gathered while researching the subject. I would recommendlooking into the FCC itself, as well as:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/22/opinion/courts-net-neutrality-fcc.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FNet%20Neutrality

https://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-what-you-need-know-now

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/21/technology/fcc-net-neutrality.html

Net neutrality is fundamental, and the act should not be repealed only because there is a beliefthat it only prevents “theoretical harm” and that companies only need to be open about theirwrongs to be fair.

The Willing will always do better than the Forced

     This Is my response to my class mate Peyton Kettering's blog called Compulsory Voting.

http://peyton-americangov.blogspot.com/2017/11/compulsory-voting.html

     While mandatory voting may seem like a good thing, there are plenty of holes in your reasoning. The idea definitely comes from a good place, and more people would definitely be unfairly forced to show up, but mandatory voting would only harm our country on multiple fronts. First though, punishments to force people to vote? This would really go against the foundations of our rights. Everyone already has the option to vote how they want and for whom, and there are people who definitely do not want to vote, are uninterested, or simply do not like any candidate and don’t want to take part in such things, what would be the punishment here? If their right to vote, or if they were subjected to fines of jail time it would be unjust!

     There is also the fact that the majority of citizens do not know the facts behind whatever they have chosen to support, and there are already people with little knowledge on the subjects of economy, health care, diplomacy, and politics voting, mandatory voting would only drive the least informed to vote randomly on whoever they think “sounds” better, without knowing who or what these candidates stand for.

     The idea that the less extreme people we see all the time around us, instead of extremists online and in the news, are simply less interested may be a valid point to look into. But forcing people to vote against their will, and then issuing punishments as you wish, is simply wrong. Instead it would be better to push for a way to better teach and show people what they are voting for, and attempt to spark an interest in the nonvoters and better educate them in government, and help them gain a drive to actually learn about the country they live in.  Non-willing voters will not get the country anywhere, and would only hurt our freedoms, instead I think you should push for a way to better educate people who are and will vote, and get people interested.

The Danger to our most valuable right and where it comes from: Is the danger ourselves, or others?

Over the past few months I have been online reading articles, and even interacting with new people, in the hopes of understanding politics, government, and online culture in those areas in general. Over time I’ve learned new terms and ideas involving many things, not all of which I have the concept fully grasped. It seems to me that many people online and in correlation many people in essence do not understand the reasoning, meaning, and workings behind the criminal justice system, rights, and anything our country and people hold dear. And not dear at all according to plenty of people, some people don’t even care about the first, or second amendment, especially the first. Recently I learned a new word or term, one that people do; it’s called “no-platforming” which is a silly idea of using social and actual media, as well as boycotts to silence another person or group. Whether an idea is hateful and wrong, or not, the very idea of using systematic techniques to bully silence into another is wrong in essence, and is a large danger to our first and most important amendment, the freedom of speech. If one group of many individuals, and any individual can initiate a system of silencing and bullying against another, then if the tables were turned it could happen to those silencers, and either of those options are horrible. If you believed an idea to be fundamentally wrong in a speech given by an individual, then I believe the best course of action would be to simply listen to that persons, and tell them in actual conversation or discourse why they were wrong. Sitting through a speech in a small room just to hold up pieces of paper and scream obscenities makes one seem like a infantile minded nine year old, and the speaker like a grounded and civil adult, not the image anyone wants to portray themselves, or anyone wants to portray the person you disagree with.

            Many people seem to have forgotten the actual meaning of the most common terms they use to label another in a negative light, and use these terms far to commonly against many people who these terms just don’t fit. If you only use ad hominems such as random pulling from nowhere insults to enforce your “argument” then you really don’t have an argument. Too many are individuals and groups are calling for universities, and even the government to shut down the platforms of to many people.

I believe this mindset that many people seem to have is dangerous to our rights, and safety, and to our nation. If people in general, let alone those in power could “no platform” anyone they disagreed with, then we would not have our America.

            “I support freedom of speech, but this person or that person is horrible and they’re a ******** etc.” Is not supporting free speech, “If you’re supporting this person’s right to free speech, you’re THIS” More often than not, my response to that would be “I don’t know or care who this person is, if they want to talk, so what” as long as some adult isn’t randomly screaming obscenities at a child, and even not a child, they have the right to speech. Now none of us have to agree with whoever is talking, but I prefer the option of respecting the rights of others, because that is what I expect of myself. If anyone’s first response is either of those first two quotations, then they do not really support free speech. And the lack of free speech, can be dangerous.

            There are actually people I’ve taken a liking to reading who definitely support free speech, and they are not on the same “political spectrum” and whatnot. Personally I would recommend Christina Hoff Sommers www.aei.org/author/christina-hoff-sommers/ as well as less well known writers and youtubers Hannah Wallen http://breakingtheglasses.blogspot.com/ and Giovanna Liviana https://medium.com/the-progressive-flame .All three of these people are interesting with interesting knowledge and pieces of writing, and yet I’ve often seen in some video or on twitter (yes twitter, it was research) people trying to use adhominems or false statements to distract from their argument, and ignoring what any of these people have to say.

            If things were to continue in our country the way it seems to be, we may very well lose our greatest and most valuable right, that of speech and expression, and instead have a world where every individual must think as a group, and not a single piece with their own ideas. Without a diverse set of ideas and beliefs, our nation will just become old and stale, completely absent of open and free discourse.

A Political Bloggers take on our rights and Political Correctness

In this post, I plan to give my small audience of classmates (and professor) an interesting read, and hope they (mostly my classmates) feel interested enough to look into blogs like the one I am about to write about. The most interesting part of my task here has been to research, search, and find political blogs with interesting posts by intelligent writers. Normally I would never begin something with a line so boring and unappealing as “in this- “but, I felt it more interesting to elaborate on the writing I chose and why. https://medium.com/the-progressive-flame/musings-on-political-correctness-7bc360f21cc3  The Progressive Flame “Musings on Political Correctness” by Liviana (Giovanna Laine). So far I’ve gone over things that have caught my attention, but at the same not too likely to be brought up by someone else whether a classmate writing these blogs, or anyone outside of the classroom. So far only one fellow classmate covered a similar subject or article one time so far. I am not well versed in politics, or the terms regarding it, but after reading more and more pieces of writing, I believe the first couple of articles I covered would have classified themselves as “right” and so, while I am still going for the same requirements of what to cover, I am taking the opportunity to cover someone, whose blog would be classified as “left”. I have enjoyed the opportunity to read pieces of writing by intelligent and creative people, and will continue to enjoy doing so. I hope many of my classmates take the time to read the authors blog, and other writings on her site, and encourage everyone bothering to read this, to look into interesting writers such as this one.

            “Musings on Political Correctness” is an interesting piece designed in my opinion for everyone, but definitely for younger and very receptive readers, though that could be simply because I’m young, and like to read almost anything (that’s well written, and doesn’t throw in badly written insults and adhominems in the form of evidence). The piece is written by Giovanna Laine, pen name Liviana, Liviana begins with an introduction into her view on political correctness, which is that she neither “favors” it, or views it as a bad thing. She covers separation of church and government, and even had a better argument regarding the now age old “merry Christmas” argument than I’ve seen from anyone else. She covers both the bad and good traits of the “crowd” of political correctness, as well as those on the “right”.

            Liviana details improvements she believes would make Political Correctness more applicable and reasonable to those who tend to criticize it. Such as avoiding what she calls a world view, and not trampling rights such as actual free speech (like criticism) and not using violence to promote beliefs. The writer of this piece believes that it would be dangerous to our own rights (like the first amendment freedom of speech) since the loss of those rights can lead to really any form of totalitarian government, whether the “image” of acceptance and freedom, or an outright dictatorship. she elaborates that freedom of speech is the exchange and debate of ideas, beliefs, and values without the attempt to incite violence or hate.

            While not exactly recent (march) this piece is something to read, and I am sure my own covering did Liviana’s writing no justice. My take from her writing is that we as citizens should encourage free ideas, and not try to demonize and instead think rationally and see where those we debate or converse with are coming from, instead if we do not, we risk the loss of our own rights and rationality.

A case of the 5th amendment? or a mistake of our administration?

There is an opinion article in the New York Times on the 21^st of July this year on five weeks ago, by a journalist named Cathy Young, who has covered a number of subjects and written many pieces for a significant number of known and established news pieces across the country. She leads in the article about how many Congress Democrats, activists, and sexual assault survivors are “up in arms” about what she informs is the present Trump Administration and the Department of Education overhauling present sexual assault policies implemented by the previous Obama administration in 2011 with a “Dear Colleague” letter sent by the Department of Education’s office of Civil Rights. Young informs her readers that the letter recommended the colleges to investigate sexual assault under a “Preponderance of the evidence” bias, completely ignoring the previous “clear and convincing evidence” constraint, where colleges have to assume that accusations are true forfeiting due process and “beyond a reasonable doubt” at the threat of their federal funding being pulled. Young then gives links and events where an accusation was false, and a student the accused still was expelled, and yet no criminal charges or investigation ever being filed or attempted.

            Journalist Cathy Young then gives her own opinions, such as how universities should hold a higher standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings, and have better coordination with law enforcement as simple expulsion is a weak punishment for something as heavy as rape, and also combating the prevalent culture of binge drinking, all of which are great points and pieces of advice that could be well used. Young, though, feels it unfortunate that such reforms are being done under the Trump administration, as she feels that he would be a poor choice for challenging present sexual assault policies, to which I and most probably agree. Sadly, according to Young, present efforts have been nothing but minefields and simple mistakes made by Candice Jackson head of the Justice Department’s civil rights office, and even with Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos.

            Young Declares that the issue of Due process in these policies are not fringe right issues, and have actually been voiced by prominent liberals, and are important issues regarding the rights of all Citizens.

            The Article I read by Cathy Young was “Betsy DeVos is Right: Sexual Assault Policy is Broken” https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/21/opinion/betsy-devos-college-sexual-assault.html?ref=opinion which I think could be an interesting read for anyone, especially my classmates, who are interested in any present issues regarding the 5^th Amendment, or cases regarding Campus policy on Sexual Assault. Cathy Young does point out in her article the dangers to our fifth amendment, and how many people in current times feel more obliged towards “GUILTY until proven innocent” instead of the constitutional and obligatory belief in “Innocent until proven guilty.” 

Shooting at Georgia Tech

On Saturday, September 16^th of September, only a few days ago, A 21 year old student was shot, and died via suicide by cop. Through investigation, the chronology of events was found out to be: 21 year old Georgia Tech engineering non binary student Scout Schultz wrote three suicide notes, left them in their dorm, and then called the police, stating that there was an intoxicated man with a gun and knife. Police arrived to find Schultz, barefoot, and holding a possible, viable, and useable weapon, (i.e. A pocket knife, or if you want to call it so, a multi task took, that just has a knife.) A video can be found of police pleading with Schultz to give his name, to calm down, too stay back, and to put down the knife. Throughout the incident Schultz can be seen and heard screaming “Shoot me!” at the officers as he steadily walked towards them. In response the officers would yell “No one wants to hurt you” “Put down the knife” “Stay back” “Stop moving” as they attempted to keep their distance, backing away from the hostile student. After a dozen or more calls to cease moving towards them, and to put down the weapon, and Schultz proceeding to disregard their orders, an officer shot once, when the bullet struck Schultz was downed, alive, and was rushed to the hospital where they died.

 

The death of Shultz has provoked much stress, outburst, and violence in the little time after the incident, where fellow students angered and grieving attacked officers at the nearby police station, even setting police vehicles on fire. Many people were suddenly blaming officers, and calling for the charge of whichever officer fired the shot.

The problem is these people seem to have no knowledge of the policies in law enforcement, and if they do disregard it as well as disregard the circumstances choosing to put this student on a pedestal.

 

Scout had a weapon, and had been the one to call police because they were hoping to force an officer to have to take the shot. No officer wants to take a life, and neither does the average person, but to be forced into such a situation where a citizen is attempting to force their death on you, is bound to project its own form of nightmares.

In just about every state, there is a distance limit the officer needs to keep to keep themselves, their partners, civilians, and even the suspect safe to some form, (It may be seven, twelve, or twenty one feet) not mention it is practically impossible to hit the legs or arms with a gun to disarm, including impractical as even those areas can be a death sentence, Law enforcement are taught to aim for center mass, and know it is impossible to hit moving arms and legs as they are coming at you. Dealing with suicidal cases such as Scout’s proves an even greater burden on some officers, than say stopping a cold hardened killer.

 

While there are cases of going too far, it is important for people to understand the policies and laws of law enforcement, as well as the proper procedures, and how to truly look at a situation, not to mention to protest without blowing things up. There are several articles to inform someone of these events, as well as a YouTube video of the incident, but I am using the first article I read http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/17/us/georgia-tech-student-killed/index.html

I believe it should be required for others to learn and understand, not assume that everything is unjustified and that the people protecting you want to kill you. Police officers are human, and many join to protect the populace, If people forget such things, and lack the understanding of what's right and what’s wrong, and having no knowledge of the rules and situations before reacting, then such lack of knowledge will destroy everything.