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?