if there are humans, there is unnecessary violence - blog #8

My classmate Zac Quinn wrote a fair piece titled "The Violence and The Guns". This piece highlights that there is some 'treading water' in the government, especially lately, concerning gun regulation and gun violence. 

Quinn straight up says there is violence, it is a day-to-day reality for some, the media numbs us to it with the exaggerated stories and our government is not making much movement towards standard gun laws and public safety; "these are outlandish events (the extreme violence) in their own right, but their frequency has diminished that significance. It is significant that people are fighting for their own or fighting to end others' lives day after day. Our global society exudes violence day in and day out."

Its true, it is super significant that the right to life, quality of life, or someone else's life is in jeopardy or in need of defense or even offense. 

In discussion of most recent gun laws being discussed due to the Orlando Shooting, its true a lot of splashes are being made but whether or not those splashes are turning into forward movement its hard to tell. The government seems to be just treading water at this point. It is understandably difficult to create stricter gun laws without making the 2nd-Amendment Worshippers uncomfortable/afraid, the non-armed feel more chill, and make it close to impossible for wackos to gear up and attempt a massacre. There has to be some common ground and its going to be rocky and scary for a while but that is just how the government works and its on purpose. There will always be violence if there are weapons. There will always be weapons if there are humans. There will always be humans where there is unnecessary violence. Its a circle and the government has to be able to create enough roadblocks to block those that act on violence, filter those that want to opportunity to defend themselves, and protect those that want nothing to do with guns. 

I live by a creedo of sorts; do what you want, just don't do it on me. As long as it does not harm others then it is of no concern to me. Yes there is a loose definition of what "harm" means as well as "on me" means. It means you do your thing, I'll do mine and we can not do each others' things and be ok with it. The vast majority of people live by a version of this creedo along the lines of "do what you want but if I see it and it makes me feel weird then be prepared to hear and feel all about it". This is when the access to guns is a bad idea. 

 I felt like Quinn shares a similar view of "holy s*** why isn't something being done to create some sort of control over violence in society?". Why isn't the media helping more rather than just reporting the violence and then going right into something else? 

Creating laws for the lowest common denominator is a arduous task but it can be done. It just takes time and its a sad reality that in that time lives are lost and lives are in danger. 

Nature Was Here First - blog stage #7

I am going to just straight up copy National Geographic's Craig Welch's into to his June 18th article "Exclusive: Obama On Threats to Nature, Power of National Parks". 

President Barak Obama said "Americans should embrace their national parks as symbols of the planet’s beauty and history—and help protect them from the ravages of climate change".

I have a hard time high-praising environmental coalitions sometimes because I am not proud that we are trying so hard to fix problems we created so willy-nilly. The new Climate Action Plan aims to "cut carbon pollution, help prepare the United States for the impacts of climate change, and continue to lead international efforts to address global climate change".  Yes, this is great and another awesome high-five step to help cure the environment of what we humans are still doing to it. I say this as I type on my petroleum based computer streaming over fossil fuel based electrical grids providing my wifi while I have at least 2 non-essential lights on in the house during the daytime. 

As Obama nears the final lap of his presidency he and his administration are more and more focused on environmental conservation issues but he says "sometimes there is such as thing as too late" which makes me scream the question "WHY ARE WE STILL DOING BAD THINGS!?" There are two facts it all comes down to; first, the planet was here first and we came later (its just science) and second, we cannot keep doing what we're doing and expect to have a long comfortable stay here on spaceship earth. 

I will say that The Obama Administration, since the Roosevelt Administration is doing more good than bad in ways of trying to curb and reverse our impact on the environment (except for promoting #-child laws and more farm based communities). Currently there are more incentives for being "green" (even though the mining for lithium batteries is significantly worse than buying a used fossil fuel based car and using oil that has already been mined and refined for commercial use). 

One of President Obama's executive orders was for part of the Climate Action Plan "establishing a Task Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience to advise the Administration on how the federal government can respond to the needs of communities nationwide that are dealing with the impacts of climate change". Obama and his administration are taking large steps and making hard policy with good incentives for being kind to the environment and begging for forgiveness from nature. 

I will praise the Obama Administration for promoting more eco-conscious methods for global change. Making it more lucrative for big business and big government to want to go green, even if for the wrong reasons. I salute the current social trend of "going outside"(as long as you pick up your damn trash and don't light/sound pollute nature into dying). Working for REI I get to experience the outdoors for myself, through others, and with a great company. My fear is that one day all that will be left of the green spaces, the national parks, and the trails will be the concrete and metal monuments we build to celebrate them through time. My fear is that we will eat the forests to poop out housing that no one can afford. I still think more can be done, but we'll get there and hopefully it won't be too late.

This year marks the Centennial Anniversary (100 year) for the National Parks System. This means we have been told by the government to conserve, respect, and admire these specific parts of the environment for 100 years and we are still continuing to have to be told by the government how not to kill the planet. 

I do encourage you, in some time where you find yourself getting numb to netflix and can't even remember what happened 10 minutes ago to your favourite character ever, to go outside and just be in nature without interupting it for 20 minutes and see how being here, on this planet, is a priveledge and not a right. 

Commentary On Democratic Debris Blog - blog stage #6

My virtual classmate Nicolette Loisel's blog Democratic Debris, specifically her post "This Just In; drug addiction is complicated" called out Ann Coulter's recent binge of Hispanic hate on the issue of America's heroin addiction problem.

Way to go Nicolette! I 100% agree that Coulter is out of line using her position to perpetuate hate speech and xenophobia. Coulter fails to acknowledge that Americans are the ones creating a market for drug use; including heroin and "other opiates". "Other opiates" being the ones created by our government funded, tax break-leaning pharmaseutical companies that generate most of their revenue from pumping white folks full of drugs as fast as they can create 10 new names for multiple conditions of being human in society.

It is a perpetual cycle; a drug is available + someone wants it + someone brings it in = money made = market opportunity for less developed nations to try and keep up with the Jones'. Mexico is just the closest nation to blame it on.

Heroin originally came from the Asian market as we brought immigrants over to do the hard work for us in developing our westward expansion via railroads, post revolutionary wars in europe in order to sedate and minimize physical and mental pain experienced by veterans as well as the same treatments during and after the American Civil War.

Coulter also fails to note that illegal drug trades account for untaxed revenue generated by lower class folks, usually, on more financially secure classes. Drug trafficing on the street level where most overdoses are spawned from usually comes from the lower classes trying to get a leg up in the vicious economy we have created in order to limit who can do what. Yes Coulter! Blame the mexicans for your untaxed revenue and expanding middle class you crazy conservative!

And how dare Coulter say Bernie Sanders "gets chesty about 'the pharmaceutical industry and the drug companies who are producing all of these drugs and not looking at the consequence of it.' and "only Trump doesn't blame America first". WHO THE F*** SHOULD WE BLAME!? America wants drugs, American pharmaseutical companies make drugs, America will get drugs one way or another, EVERYONE can die from drugs.

Right on Nicolette. In this case good fences don't make good neighbors. Coulter is a right wing nut job afraid of the reality that America sucks pretty bad at some things like taking responsibility for our actions. Before we can solve the surface level problems that the more elite classes see, we first have to fix the root issues like xenophobia, unfair class separations, tax breaks, profit driven government policy benefiting the minority, and fear of responsibility locally before globally.

I thought this blog post calling out Coulter playing the blame game was blunt and matter-of-fact. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

e·qual·i·ty [əˈkwälədē]/ : noun : the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities - blog stage #5

It doesn't matter what you have between  your legs, if you are an American citizen you should be treated like an American citizen to the highest extent of the written law, and currently, the written law isn't doing enough.

The government is a slow moving Rube Goldberg machine that has to be readjusted and tweaked over and over to get the marble onto the next part, meanwhile the obstacles are changing. The national government has so many checks and balances and chutes and ladders that it cannot keep up with the cultural shifts occurring daily. This has been shown in cases like civil rights, women's rights, equal marriage laws, gun regulation, environmental policy and gender equality. Society is ready for change and the government can't keep up with making those changes official and protected from those that aren't so "with it". 

We all want something someone else has; be it a car, a vacation, that cool t-shirt, or equality. But some of us are granted certain rights inherently by being a human or by being an american citizen. Some humans, who are american citizens, who aren't the "norm" or the "standard" have been kept from those simple inherent liberties like legally pairing with their mate, earning the same salary for doing the same job with the same education, living in a clean world, protecting their family and property from perceived harm (real or assumed), or being expected to participate in tasks as others are required to. Such is the case with women and men being required to participate in the Select Services whether or not the military draft ever be reinstated. 

CNN's Ruth Bien-Ghat asked the question that if "Selective Services is the first direct contact with the military many civilians have -- and the only one most will ever have. If it's reserved only for men, what message does this send about gender equity?" It sends the message that women are less than men; in value, in strength, in American society. That we should not earn, defend, and practice all rights available to us as American citizens. Why are some rights locked away from us by age old documents that are not representing the current American society? 

As a woman I claim that I am a feminist, that I am for women's rights, and therefore, am not against anyone else's rights. I do not wish for a man to hold the door for me if my hands are full. But if I happen to be a human with my hands full and another human decides that they feel like holding the door open for me then that's awesome and I'll say "thank you" and most likely smile at the other human. We cannot claim "strength" when there is no burden and when the load comes to carry we sit down. We cannot be fair-weather Americans. 

The American Government, with the help of many progressive states, is trying to keep up with the forward thinking ideals of the newer generations.

Military.com's article states that "Currently, U.S. law requires most male citizens and immigrants between the ages of 18 to 25 to register in the selective service system. The Senate NDAA would require all female citizens and U.S. residents who turn 18 on or after Jan. 1, 2018, to register as well".
The policies of equal marriage, medical marijuana, and gender quality in the military are just the beginning of getting the federal government truly involved in making blanket policies in American duties to cover each individual no matter what you identify as, biologically are, etc., who wishes to take part in the opportunities provided by the United States Federal Government. The government is trying to keep up with us. 

Future policies will hopefully involve anyone who wishes to have America defend their rights granted to them by the United States Constitution. It won't matter whether you're female, male, in transition, undefined, 'color' , etc. The only disqualifications will come down to personal family responsibilities, age, mental and physical capacity (even still there hopefully will be office based, maintenance, or support jobs available). The future American equality policies and laws will hopefully wipe out the biased-hetero-Caucasian-XY-chromosome-favoritism laws that prevent individuals who aren't in that limited group from participating in exercising rights and fulfilling responsibilities given to every American citizen. 

Our government is trying its best to keep up with society. They can't do that if we don't let them know what we want. We let them know what we want by voting from local to national. We just need to keep reminding the government that we know what the we want; equality and freedom to be equal under the United States Constitution in written law.

we're screwed - blog stage #4

On June 16th, 2016 Jamie O'Neil of The Smirking Chimp wrote a piece titled "These Times We're Living In" basically admitting he is an "internet-troll" who is anti-public displays of religion, apathetic non-voters, and pro-Bernie. 

O'Neil's audience is quite apparent; the "old" liberal-lefties, the atheist anti-partisan/independent "greenies" and college educated (most likely) folks capable of pragmatic thinking who are behind Mister Bernie Sanders. 

His vocabulary and social media know-how direct him towards people between the ages of 25 and 65 who have participated in religious families, gone to college, have a job and even a family, and have had real-world experiences beyond what the media feeds us and are tired of the sell-outs. 

In this short piece O'Neil is a little on the hate-everyone-but-Bernie side, which I totally get, but he's just in attack-mode and happens to have writers' access to a blog site. 

He calls out the extreme right-wingers, the brooding extreme left-wingers and the political sell-outs. Good for him! We all know it, O'Neil is just using his small dash of power in the media to type it. 

O'Neil's credibility is that over the past year, skimming over his past articles, he is an exceptionally deliberate pro-Bernie writer who has a lot to condemn and slash about everyone, including voters, but offers no solutions whatsoever. He is against anyone running for any presidential spot ever unless its Bernie Sanders. Over this month's past articles he draws similarities between all candidates and to relevant past presidents stating that 'all bad that has happened is going to happen again and we're voting for it because Bernie Sanders isn't winning".  

The quote that most sums up O'Neil's piece is there is "a vat of stupidity the religious right stews itself in daily. And it tastes and smells a lot like the hatred now found among so many on the left, people who stew in their own vats of seething and unreasoning hatred, right down to their insistence on thinking in terms much like those found on the religious right, shrieking with spittle flying from their lips that Hillary Clinton is evil". O'Neil is anti-wingers in general. I wholeheartedly agree; there are too many people just hating on someone else because rage is easy and doesn't require intellgence. Not enough people are offering up solutions, methods, strategies to build up a candidate instead of tearing down all the others. But that is the easiest group to sway; the "sheeple", they're the ones that make up the votes.

Throughout this piece O'Neil just states the obvious; we are doomed. It's sad but true, we have backed ourselves into a corner and left ourselves two options; Trump or Hilary; Satan or Satan. O'Neil, without actually saying it, is asking for the people to give a s*** and to show up and prove that we give a s***. Its easier for big government, big business, big political parties if we don't think, if we don't care, and if we don't vote. Its easier to herd sheep than wolves. 

I agree that Sanders would be a great president, that the left and right are evils of the same breed of maniacal dead-eyed smirking type of crazy and that, in general, voters are dumb. We are doomed if we don't think and if we don't vote. At least be an informed sheep.

clinton, clinton, clinton, we get it, you like clinton. nevermind all those things sanders stands for like equality and opportunity...

On June 9th, 2016 USAToday's Eliza Collins wrote an article titled "3.5 Times That Bernie had the most awesome, scripted, graceful opportunity to drop out - but didnt". 

USAToday's intended audience is usually anyone willing to pick up their paper. Its always out in oil change depots, laundromats, gas station counter tops and left disheveled on chairs in libraries. 

Collins' article is directed at Democrats looking for a little pat on the back for supporting Sanders and then waving a big 'ol Hilary Clinton flag made of $13000 tacky fabric in the faces of those seeking true democratic leadership and protection from big government/business/religion.

Collins' has written many articles covering and discussing the left side of politics mostly covering Clinton's timeline. She is obviously pro-Clinton and gives a sympathetic-but-time-to-get-out-of-here high five to Sanders. Collins' archive of stories this year seems to me like some creepy fan mail aired publicly to gather followers and justify Collins' pro-Clinton platform. 

The entirety of this article is rude and obnoxious. Collins' does nothing but state that Bernie should have left before now and given up his life-long fight for basic civil rights, securities and democracy. 

This article's objective is a dry attempt to persuade Bern-ers that Clinton has been 'it' all along and that Sanders has been a great supporter of democratic notions and has known that he wasn't going to win. The articles fails to acknowledge any of the issues that Clinton and Sanders disagree and how that may pose problems for wandering Sanders supporters. 

I do agree with Collins in that yes, Sanders had graceful opportunities to back out but didn't. He did this because why would he be done fighting for true civil rights and democratic policy in a time where our society's sensitivity is off the charts? Nearly every single person's personal liberties are being tested in this day and age. Sanders has done nothing but fight for individual's opportunities and securities his entire life. He owes it to himself and to his supporters and to his fundamental ideals to carry it as far as he can. I do disagree with Collins in that Clinton is the end all best answer for this version America. The failure to acknowledge Sanders' devotion in this article recognizing Clinton's rank is ignorant and center-sided as far as democratic scales go. Collins fails to tie this method of true campaigning and political fight to the imperative times in American politics in which radical changes were being made and presidential candidates really had strong platforms and convictions to prove and to protect in order to protect civilians' rights and liberties versus economic gain and material extras.

 "ANYTHING BUT TRUMP" 

shouldn't be a political slogan,

but sadly in this race that is a possibility.

total equality - blog stage #2

On Tuesday June 7th, 2016 Johnathon Tilove of The Austin American Statesman published an article titled "In debate on drafting women, McCain notes Cruz never served" which was a debate over the provision of requiring women to register for the Selective Service. 

This article boldly highlights the background and personal differences between Cruz and McCain; neither McCain nor Cruz are women and only McCain has actually served (POW-Vietnam). Within the Senate Armed Services Committee John McCain serves as chairman while Ted Cruz holds membership. 

While the article states that Cruz has two daughters it leaves out that McCain, in favor of required female registration, is also a father to two daughters (one adopted, one biological), and also to two sons (both biological). 

McCain goes on to state how many of the military leaders, both male and female, agree on this gender equal provision and why they hold his stance.

I found this article sparking my gender equality opinions ablaze! It calls to attention that there are still steps towards gender equality that need to be taken in major aspects of American systems.

As an American woman it made me more confident in my stance that wanting to be defined as totally equal to men participating in American society that we need to or should be required to take responsibility for being totally equal to men and in order to do that we need to be legally required to participate in EVERY aspect of American life as men do. 

If we want the rights of American men, then we as women need to be held accountable to "fight for" and defend the power of The United States that grants, acknowledges, and recognizes those rights in equality in this country and this should be written law.

This article also made me think about what responsibility and obligation does a "trans-gender" American citizen have in the realm of military service?