Response to Classmate's Post II

In the article "Opinion or Law" the author discusses the Stanford rape case. The author makes a good argument as to why Judge Persky's sentence was in accordance with California State Law even though it seemed light and caused public outrage. However, Judge Persky is facing serious repercussions whether you agree with his ruling or not. Currently he has been benched and will not be able to rule on sex crime cases. Additionally, Michele Dauber, a Stanford Law Professor, is attempting to get Judge Perky recalled. Dauber believed that the ruling was too lenient for reasons the author of this article mentions, race and social status. Many California law enforcement officers and agencies do not believe that Judge Persky's ruling warrants a recall. I agree with the author of this article that though the judge's decision may not have been popular or severe enough, it was in accordance with the law. The last thing our country needs is to be criticizing our judicial system for ruling based on the law rather than personal opinion. Additionally the fact that the Judge required Mr. Turner to be registered as a sex offender is a punishment for life, even if he is not in jail that long. If people are upset about this ruling, they should direct their outrage towards creating stricter sex crime laws rather than one judge.

A Trump-less America is the first step towards a less xenophobic public

The 2016 presidential election is one that has surprised the nation. Donald Trump’s rise in the polls and recent selection as the Republican Party’s presidential nominee has created a real future where he might be the President of the United States. Based on the policies that Trump claims to support and wants to implement, he would only push our nation towards more xenophobic and prejudiced tendencies. 

One of the biggest issues that actually boosted Trump in the polls was national security. From a diplomatic standpoint, Trumps “xenophobia”, doesn’t bode well for our nation. On multiple occasions Trump has made remarks about banning Middle Eastern immigrants and placing "brown communities" under police watch. This would only further encourage Islamic radicalism and American xenophobia. Charles Krauthammer, Pulitzer Prize winning conservative columnist stated that "[Trump's] thesis is this, and I do think it has some resonance: 'All of our troubles are caused by Mexicans, Chinese, Japanese, Saudis and others,'". 

                        Trumps racist statements towards minorities will play an important role in the November. What many Americans and Texans are realizing is that Trump’s racist comments are mere generalizations that only push Americans further apart rather than bringing them together. Trump’s comments claiming that Mexican’s are rapists, murderers and criminals and all refugees and Muslims are terrorists have been met with severe backlash. If these sentiments will influence his policies, Trump would only increase prejudice and discrimination in a society that has tried so hard to move away from inequality. However, the fact that Trump still has so many supporters shows that some Americans truly believe in his policies and opinions. 

            Overall, this presidential election is an extremely important one, in terms of our nation’s future. Trump's xenophobia has spilled over into the American public and reinforced the fear of foreigners that has always existed in America. In my opinion the Trump administration has so far shown that they are inept to properly deal with the issues our nation faces. While a vote for Clinton may not be favorable, it may be necessary to ensure our state’s future success and to ensure a less xenophobic public.

Comment on Classmate's Blog

The post written by Hannah McKenzie on her blog "A Deeper Look into the US Government" is about Hilary Clinton, the Democratic Presidential nominee. I think that Hannah makes a good point when she references Clinton's past contradictory political past. However, I think rather than labeling Clinton as a dishonest candidate, I would call her a people pleaser. She has been accused of "saying just about anything to get elected", on numerous accounts. I agree with Hannah that our nation is at a critical point in time where we need a strong, decisive and tolerant leader but most importantly we need a leader who will think about Americans before thinking about their party or their personal views. I think that though Hilary Clinton does not exactly fit the bill, she is the better of two evils. Clinton may be contradictory but being a people pleaser means she is in touch with the public opinion and will be a more representative president than her opponents. Though I agree with Hannah, that experience should not be the only determinant of who would make a good president, I think it should still be taken into consideration. We do not know how consistent Trump's political opinions will be since he has not been in the political lime light nearly as long as Hilary Clinton has. Even with his limited exposure, he has already changed his party affiliation three times. So I agree with Hannah's critique of Clinton's flaws and contradictory nature; however, in my opinion, Clinton is not the good choice but rather the necessary one.

Our Part in the Syrian Refugee Crisis. Blog 5

The Syrian refugee crisis is one of the biggest issues the world is currently facing. Over 4 million refugees have fled Syria due to the civil war that started in 2008 and attacks by ISIS. As one of the most developed nations in the country with the largest military and third largest economy, the United States is in the best position to help solve and take control of the situation. However, our nation has repeatedly failed to step up to the challenge. Of the 4 million refugees, the United States has only taken in 0.03%. Rather than facing the problem the United States seems to be isolating itself from the problem and refusing to get involved. This has forced other countries that do not have the resources or the infrastructure to deal with the problem simply because of geographic proximity; the lack of support from more developed nations has caused this crisis to spiral out of control. The United States needs to look to the past and remember Rwanda and the human cost of inaction.
The top four countries that have taken in the most Syrian refugees are Turkey, Greece and Jordan. These countries do not have the ability to deal with the large influx of refugees which harms both the host country and the refugees; for example one third of Jordan's population is refugees. The United States has only accepted 1500 refugees whereas Turkey has taken in close to 3 million and even Germany has taken in 800,000. One of the main arguments as to why the United States should not take in refugees is the fear that a select few could be terrorists and the Americans would have another Paris bombing on their hands. However, it is both naive and stereotypical to claim that all refugees and terrorists are one in the same. Additionally the United States has strict background checks that refugees must pass before they can enter the country. It is inhuman to let thousands of refugees die per day and force other countries to suffer much more that we would, when our nation can do something to help.
The United States is facing more pressure from the international community and their allies to fulfill their part in helping deal with this crisis. Even from a non-humanitarian and completely logical stance, the United States does gain something from taking in refugees: soft power. In the past the United States has gained soft power from resettling refugees and has used this increased diplomatic sway to their advantage. Nevertheless, at the end of the day, many are dying and other countries are stepping up. Its about time the United States follows in suit.

Hate Crime Prevention Act. Blog 4

On June 13th 2016, Think Progress published an article on the new Hate Crime Prevention Act introduced to Congress. The author, Kira Lerner, does a good job of covering all sides of this issue; she outlines the causes of the bill, the benefits of it, and some of its potential flaws. She seems to support the passage of the bill, however in my opinion she does not cover alternatives to the bill well enough. 

Lerner clearly explains that the bill was introduced by Democratic Senator Bob Casey in reaction to the mass shooting in Orlando. She explains that the bill would prevent anyone who had past hate crime related misdemeanors would not be able to purchase a gun. 

Lerner uses statistics from credible research institutions such as the American Center for Progress to show some of the benefits of the bill. She cites that "More than 6400 hate crimes were committed in the United States in 2014." This seems to be pretty clear evidence that hate crimes are a serious problem in America and need to contained by extra precautions such as the one the bill suggests. 

However, at the end of the article, Lerner asks the same question I did and points out a serious limitation of the bill. She suggests though theoretically the bill seems like it would prevent another Orlando shooting, most mass shooters do not have hate crime criminal records; for example the Orlando shooter himself did not even have a criminal record. 

This implies that there has to be a better solution to prevent mass shootings from becoming an epidemic in America. In my opinion stronger gun control laws should be put in place. The fact that it is so easy to obtain a gun in this country, needs to be addressed carefully and efficiently. I think Lerner should have included alternative, stronger bills that would have solved for the limitations she mentions. 

Trumps Comments on the Orlando Mass Shooting. Blog 3

David Ignatius' opinion titled, "Trump's Islamophobia Helps to Motivate the Islamic State", was published by the Washington Post on June 13th 2016.  His post explains how after the Orlando mass shooting on June 12th Donald Trump released a statement saying that essentially "I told you so" and suggested that President Obama resign because he was unable to effectively tackle the problem of jihadist terrorism. I agree with the author's ridicule of Trump in this situation and his claim that Trumps islamaphobia does nothing to help the United States combat the Islamic State and actually makes the situation worse.

Ignatius uses reliable sources such as counter terrorism experts to assert that ISIS is structurally crumbling and countries in the Middle East are slowly escaping their control and refusing to cooperate with them. However, according the Ignatius these experts claim that the Islamic State is still propelled by "islamophobia". I agree that fearing and isolating people just because of their religion is both a naive and counterproductive approach to tackling the problem of terrorism. When politicians such as Trump, who supposedly represent the opinion of the general population, say that we should ban all immigration from the Middle East, it only adds fuel to the fire. As Ignatius states, Trumps xenophobia only reinforces the Islamic Jihadists claims that the intolerant West needs to be destroyed.

However, Ignatius also claims that Trump's ridiculous comments will cause the entire Muslim community to take action as a group. I do not agree with the author on this point because I think he is hypocritical in attributing the same violence of Islamic extremists to the entire Muslim community. America has treated minorities poorly in the past, whether it be racial, religious or gender based. Never has a minority group violently acted out against our country so to claim that Muslims will because of the actions of terrorists who practice the same religion is both unfounded and hypocritical.

Nevertheless the author is correct in claiming that Trumps statements only further alienate the Muslim community and hinder progress with regards to finding a solution to counter terrorism.

Clinton's Nomination: A Victory or Source of Division for Women?

On June 8th 2016, the New York Times published an article titled, "Historic Import of Hillary Clinton's Victory Is One More Source of Division". This article focuses on how American women view Clinton's victory of the Democratic nomination. Her victory is a historic moment as it is the first time a woman has ever been a political party's presidential nominee. However, not all women view it as a milestone for feminism and a step towards breaking the glass ceiling in politics. The article suggests how Clinton's nomination has made her supporters more loyal but pushed her opponents even further away. Unlike President Obama's nomination, which brought "cultural heat" and "political exhilaration", Clinton has been in the political spotlight so long that she is much more scrutinized than Obama ever was. The article interviews dozens of people across the country. Most agree that it is time for a woman to become president but wish it were a different woman. Many are not confident that Clinton will do a good job of representing women, a responsibility placed on her shoulders as the first woman president. Nevertheless the article concludes that regardless of Americans political opinion of Clinton, its about time.