Blog Stage Seven: Original editorial or commentary #2

On October the 1st of this year a gunman killed 58 people and injured hundreds more at a country music festival in Las Vegas. Just over a month later, another gunman killed 26 and injured 20 others at church service in Sutherland Springs, Texas. A year ago 50 people were killed in Orlando's Pulse nightclub. After every mass shooting (which are becoming more frequent and more deadly) there are brief appeals for new gun laws. Gun rights advocates immediately bristle at any mention of the tightening of gun laws. Their arguments are almost always the same. They say things like, "guns aren't the problem, people are the problem", or "if there were more guns everyone would be safer".  But mostly they quote (often incorrectly) the Second Amendment. They say the Second Amendment gives them the right to own any firearm the want; a right that was given to them by the founding fathers of this great nation. Yes, the Second Amendment protects individual gun ownership but it is not an unlimited right to own guns. There have always been restrictions on firearm ownership in this country. There was gun control in the American colonies before the United States of America was even a country. For example, loaded guns were not allowed in homes in Boston and it was a crime to transfer gun ownership to a Catholic. Contrary to what many want there are also limits to gun ownership today. The National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Firearms Protection Act of 1986 restricted the private ownership of automatic weapons (machine guns), short-barreled shotguns and some types of short-barreled rifles. Why is it so incredibly difficult to pass any new laws further restricting gun ownership? Why after the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre of 2012 were we not able to pass any new gun legislation? Why even with the images of 20 murdered six and seven year old faces fresh in the minds of every legislator in this country was there a lack of will to go up against the gun lobby? The answer is simple, job security. No legislator, especially no Republican legislator is willing to go against the NRA because they see it as a death sentence for their political career. They may be right. Speaking up against the NRA might spell the end their political career but what could it accomplish? What could standing up to the gun lobby do? What change could it make in our country's history? Who is willing to make such a sacrifice for the good of this country and it's future. Manal al-Sharif said, "The rain begins with a single drop". Which of our politicians is willing to be the first drop that hopefully starts the rain? Who is willing to truly embody their job title and be a public servant? Who is willing to put America, its citizens and its future first? Until someone steps up the status quo will remain. Until someone steps up, our country will continue to be plagued by preventable mass shootings. Until someone steps up, we will continue to awaken to the news of our countrymen, women and children being murdered by the tens if not hundreds. Who will step up?

Blog Stage Six: Comment on a colleague's work #1

On November the 3rd of this year, Sarah Banks wrote her first Original Commentary about NFL players protesting by kneeling during the National Anthem. Ms. Banks wrote a thoughtful, well researched and well written piece regarding this controversy that has engulfed our nation this fall. Ms. Banks was exactly right when she wrote, "it all boils down to the U.S. Constitution and the First Amendment". As is frequently the case in heated controversies such as this, emotion and rhetoric has overtaken logic. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution gives citizens of this great country the freedom to speak their mind, to disagree, to protest. More so, the First Amendment protects these people and their right to disagree. Numerous decorated retired and active military members from all branches have given their support to the NFL players protesting, saying that they are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country so these players have the right to protest. What could be more American than that. Unfortunately reactions from many in this country seem to be ignoring the First Amendment completely. Ms. Banks was spot on when she said, "the First Amendment guarantees our right to voice our opinions, but a side effect is that we see and hear from others sometimes makes us uncomfortable". The First Amendment guarantees our rights to say things that are unpopular. It guarantees our rights to protest. NFL players are simply exercising this right. In a league that is made up overwhelmingly of African-American players but Caucasian owners; the players are saying what many who do not have their public platform are also saying, racism is still a major issue in 2017 America.
Ms. Banks was more eloquent than I could ever hope to be when she said, "the First Amendment might seem like a curse at times, but it's a blessing that defines who we are as Americans. It makes America different than any other country in the world and we can thank our founding fathers for that". The First Amendment is anything but a curse. It is one of the greatest gifts that our founding fathers gave us. The First Amendment is one of the things that makes this country so unique and so special. Our freedom of speech is ensured by our Constitution. That speech may be offensive but it is nevertheless protected. You don't have to like it, you don't even have to listen to it but you must respect people's right to say it. Ms. Banks understands that the First Amendment is a big part of what makes our country great.

Blog Stage Five: Original editorial or commentary #1

     On Friday November 3, 2017 Beaudry Robert Bergdahl was dishonorably discharged from the U.S. Army. This fact is not remarkable but the story of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl and his dishonorable discharge verdict most certainly is. Sentencing took only minutes and brought to an end an eight year saga that began in 2009 when he abandoned his Army post in Afghanistan and was taken prisoner by the Taliban. Prosecutors in the case had sought fourteen years in a military prison and the President himself even went so far as to call Bergdahl a "dirty rotten traitor". President Trump and many others thought Bergdahl got off easy but is that really the case.
     Bergdahl may have avoided further jail time (he was held hostage by the Taliban for almost five years) but his dishonorable discharge and being stripped down to the rank of private is a life sentence of another kind. Not only does Bergdahl lose rank and the increase in pay that goes with it but more detrimental is the fact that to many Bergdahl will forever be a deserter and shunned as such. Even though Bergdahl is only 31 years old, it will be extremely difficult for him to move on with his life. He will have to come to terms with his time as a prisoner of war. In a country that almost to a man and woman reveres our P.O.W's and M.I.A.'s, Bergdahl will be treated by many including people in the military and the President as persona non grata. He will not have access to the treatment he needs to heal mentally and physically from the horrible abuse he endured for 4 years and 11 months at the hands of his Taliban captors. The inhumane conditions of Sgt. Bergdahl's captivity ranked among the most horrible the military had scene in 60 years.
     Bergdahl will be forced to overcome his post traumatic stress disorder and his physical injuries while being denied the military's reintegration benefits. Suicide is an epidemic among our country's veterans, Bergdahl's risk will almost certainly be higher than most. He will need help but without military benefits will he be able to get it? Will he be able to secure a job and a place to live? How well will he be able to readjust to civilian life after almost five years of being kept in a seven foot cube and treated worse than any animal should ever be treated, much less a human being. The questions are numerous and the answers will be unknown for some time. With all this being said, Bergdahl may have avoided jail time but he will be punished for the rest of his life.
     There still remains a chance, slight as it may be, that Bergdahl's sentence could be reviewed and reduced. If this does not happen who will be willing to help a man that admittedly made a "horrible mistake" but who our own President said should have been "executed for leaving his post". In a country where third, fourth and even fifth chances are often given; who will be willing to give Beaudry Robert Bergdahl a second chance?

Blog Stage Four: Substantial commentary or criticism #2

On October 16, 2017 John Aravosis wrote an editorial for Americablog entitled, The Case for Impeachment. Founded in 2004 by lawyer, journalist, civil rights advocate and Democratic political consultant John Aravosis, Americablog is blog that focuses on American politics from a liberal perspective. This being said, Mr. Aravosis' intended audience for this editorial is as one might expect educated, liberal and anti-Trump. Most people reading Americablog fall firmly into one if not all of these categories. Even though Mr. Aravosis is not a famous political pundit, he is widely known and respected in Democratic circles. His blog helped expose Jeff Gannon in 2005 and helped make cell phone privacy an issue after obtaining General Wesley Clark's call records in 2006. These exposes added greatly to his and his blog's credibility. Mr. Aravosis' argument is simple, President Trump should be impeached. He claims that, "it is too dangerous for Donald Trump to remain in office. The time has come to publicly call for his removal". As evidence for this claim he uses the situation in Puerto Rico that continues to grow more dire weeks after Hurricane Irma struck the island. The President's efforts to incite a war with North Korea and Iran are also cited as evidence, as are his continued attempts to undercut the Affordable Care Act. The logic behind Mr. Aravosis' argument is simple and accurate. Mr. Aravosis does not have to "trump" up false charges against the President to make his argument. President Trump has given him all the ammunition he needs to logically and effectively make the argument that the President should be removed "via impeachment or the 25th Amendment".
I agree with Mr. Aravosis that President Trump should be removed before he "causes serious damage to our people and our democracy". I would even go a step further in saying that the 45th President of the United States of America has already done irreparable damage to our country in less than one year in office. He has damaged the country's reputation abroad and the reputation and prestige of the office he holds at home. In my opinion the most compelling case for the impeachment of Donald Trump is one that Mr. Aravosis barely mentions. The President's "refusal to divest from his business interests has placed him in direct violation of the US Constitution's Foreign Emoluments Clause and with the Federal STOCK Act". The President himself has even made comments that would suggest that he is running afoul of the Emoluments Clause. It appears that the only reason impeachment proceedings against the President have not commenced is because a Republican controlled Congress does not want to. That being said it appears that even the Republican members of Congress are becoming increasingly anxious about the unpredictable and reckless behavior of the president. If this behavior continues, would his own party's members of Congress eventually be forced to turn against him and try to impeach him? The question is how long would this take and how much more damage would President Trump be able to do in the meantime.

On Friday October 6th, the acclaimed writer David Brooks wrote an opinion piece for The New York Times entitled Guns and the Soul of America . In this piece Mr. Brooks makes the case that gun ownership in the United States of America symbolizes something much greater than the simple owning of a firearm. Mr. Brooks writes about the schism that has developed between pro-gun advocates and anti-gun factions; a schism that has bled over into numerous other aspects of our increasingly divided country. In his closing, Mr. Brooks argues that to progress as a nation we must find a way to move forward together and to do so we must include guns in the conversation.

David Brooks wrote this piece for The New York Times newspaper opinion section. This means that Mr. Brooks' intended audience is rather small and homogeneous. Most readers of The Times are white, college educated, and self identify as liberal or very liberal. The Times' readers usually hail from wealthy zip codes on the nation's coasts and a few wealthy places in between. This affluent, educated, liberal populous is Mr. Brooks' audience and he knows it. Mr. Brooks does his best to persuade these readers, most of whom are fiercely anti-gun, that to move forward for the good of our nation they will need to make some concessions to our nation's gun owners.

The credibility of the author is beyond reproach. Even though Mr. Brooks writes for the left leaning New York Times, he is considered a conservative author and a political and cultural commentator. To add to his credibility, Mr. Brooks is well known and well respected across the American political landscape.

The basic argument made is that to move forward from the country's current fractured condition, both sides must make concessions. Mr. Brooks claims that to do so, "we need another grand synthesis that can move us beyond the current divide, a synthesis that is neither redneck nor hipster but draws from both worlds to create a new social vision". As evidence for this he points to one of the greatest American presidents ever, Theodore Roosevelt. President Roosevelt was able to transcend the fight between agrarian populists and genteel Victorian aristocrats by inventing a new American nationalism. In doing so, President Roosevelt was able to draw from both cultures and replace them with a more unified and inclusive culture. Mr. Brooks uses the logic that bringing a divided population together has been done successfully in our country's past and thus can be done successfully again. As is almost always the case with David Brooks' writings, this piece is well thought out, well researched and well written.

I for one completely agree with Mr. Brooks and his opinion that to move forward as a country we must come together. To do so each side must make some concessions. The partisan name calling and vilifying of our fellow Americans must be replaced with honest attempts at tolerance and understanding. That is obviously much easier said than done but we owe it to ourselves and our fellow countrymen and women to try. 



https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/06/opinion/guns-soul-of-america.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion-columnists

On Friday September 22, 2017 The Washington Post reported that Senator John McCain, a Republican Senator from the state of Arizona would not support his party's newest attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) also know as Obamacare. McCain joined fellow Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine in voting against a healthcare bill sponsored by the Republican leadership.

This article is worth reading because the health of the country's citizens and the quality of healthcare that they receive directly impacts every American regardless of health, age, race, gender or socioeconomic status. It is also worth reading because in one of the most politically divided and partisan climates in out country's history, two senators decided to go against their party and side with what they felt was best for their constituents. Few politicians today are willing to make this departure as it could irreparably damage or even mean the suicide of their political careers. Senators McCain and Collins are taking a page from the politicians of what unfortunately appears to be a bygone era. Senators McCain and Collins are not acting in their own best interests or the best interests of their party. Instead they are acting in the best interests of the people who elected them. They are, as all politician should be, acting as civil servants. Senators McCain and Collins are standing up for what they think is right and for the good of the voters who sent them to Washington. The citizens of Arizona and Maine should be proud to have such principled politicians representing them and their respective states. More politicians should follow in their footsteps. Doing the right thing often means doing the difficult and unpopular thing. Cheers to Senators McCain and Collins.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/mccain-says-he-will-vote-no-for-gop-health-care-bill-dealing-major-blow-to-repeal-effort/2017/09/22/077ba8a4-9fc0-11e7-9c8d-cf053ff30921_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_healthcare-221pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.ff8ae39e4705

Hello