Banning the lesser of the two evils

I think the FDA's proposal to completely ban vapor products is a bit extensive. Yes, as recent research has shown, there are harmful chemicals in vapor liquids as Fernando has stated but there are harmful chemicals in cigarettes also. Their proposal seems very discriminatory towards the vapor industry which causes suspicion. Taking the conversation down that path would hint at conspiracy and corruption but for the sake of this conversation, I'll just say I agree with my classmates that banning vapor products will do more harm than good.

I do casually smoke cigarettes and eventually want to quit. I also have many friends that used to smoke and they now use e-cigs to curb their addiction. If the FDA were to completely ban vapor products, I feel like that would really hinder our chances of quitting this bad habit that we all agree is both bad for us and at the same time incredibly addictive. In a negative way, they are banning the lesser of two evils.

Michael's Blog Post

A right that should be reserved for the responsible

It seems like there has been a shooting every week this past month and every time it happens, the debate on gun control comes up. The debate varies along both sides to extreme points of view where we should prohibit guns all together to lesser extreme viewpoints that involve tightening the restrictions on what it takes to get a gun. Then there are people who point to the constitution and bring out their pitchforks and torches anytime this debate comes up.

I do agree that the government has no right to infringe on our right to bear arms but at the same time there does need to be stronger regulation on the issue. I feel like it would do more harm than good if we were to take away guns all together, I think terrorists or anybody with ideas of shooting up public places would think twice if they weren't the only armed ones in those public places. At the same time though, we shouldn't give everybody and anybody the right to own a gun, especially those with mental issues. The restrictions have to come with stricter tests and evaluations on the individuals requesting guns to make sure they are mentally stable and trained in what to do in threatening situations. There are too many people out there that watch an action movie and think just because they have a gun, that gives them the power to be a hero. That's where you hear stories of CHL holders firing their weapons in public without observing their surroundings and shooting nearby bystanders. Their actions, no matter how good hearted, ends with them being convicted of manslaughter.

So yes it is our constitutional right but to exercise that right comes with great responsibility and it is the government's job to find a way to regulate that right in a justified manner.

Stage 6

I like how you are one of the few people that say we need to get more involved instead of being more pacifistic. I believe the US, being the policing country it likes to be, has to make a strong decision on what needs to be done over there. On one hand we can do nothing and let the region balance itself out. That may result with our enemy eventually gaining power in the region thus allowing them to accomplish their hateful goals towards the west. On the other hand, we can plan ahead how we are going to prevent that from happening by getting involved in the least detrimental way possible in terms of lives and resources.

One thing the media fails to mention is what causes the ISIS to fight. You have to wonder why any organization would provoke world powers such as Russia or the West to eradicate them off the face of this earth. This can be explained in a prophecy that was foretold by their prophet Muhammad. Like a holy story out of the bible, they believe that they must wage war with the Romans (Christians or 'nonbelievers') and end their holy war at a fateful showdown at the city of Dabiq. Muhammad predicts when this happens, Jesus will come down from heaven and rid the world of all non-believers, in turn beginning a new world nation of Islam. This extremist viewpoint is what has given ISIS so much power to wage war in the name of jihad.

With this bit of knowledge in mind, we can see that these extreme jihadists have only one end goal in mind and that is to rid the world of non-Muslims or die trying. It begs the question, what should we decide on as a nation to do with these malicious individuals.

Stephanie's Blog Comment

Captain Save-A-Country

Friday, October 30th, Obama announced that we will be sending ground troops into Syria to battle the growing problem of ISIS. That announcement was not followed by positive feedback from the public. Many foresee it as a repeat of Iraq and Afghanistan, which were not successful campaigns in the eyes of the public. But here we go again, off to save another country that we have no obligation to and the result will probably be the same as many previous missions that involved us being Captain Save-A-Country.

Many will remember Obama's past stand on the Syrian civil war from 2013, where the White House tweeted Obama's quote "I will not put American boots on the ground in #Syria." Before coming to a conclusion on Obama's latest decision though, it would be valuable to understand the full picture, not just the one that the media wants to feed us.

The main crisis in Syria is a civil war that is uprooting it's people and causing them to seek refuge in surrounding countries. This civil war is not as simple as a two sided conflict, it involves four major groups that are all fighting for the crown. Our involvement in this conflict can be linked to an event that occurred late September when Russia launched airstrikes on ISIS. The importance of this event is hidden under the fact that a majority of those Russian airstrikes did not target ISIS forces but instead targeted rebel forces, also known as the Syrian Opposition. This bit of information can be looked at as a precursor to our involvement because the Syrian Opposition is the side that the US backs and have been supporting with armaments. This alarming situation is a clear indication of how the cold war from the 20th century has carried over into the current century with this proxy war going on between the US and Russia in Syria.

After learning all this though, it will make you wonder what we expect to  come out of this involvement and to answer that, you have to do one thing that explains a lot of the reasoning behind world political affairs, you have to follow the money. Currently there are two pipelines that are proposed to run through Syria to Turkey and beyond to Europe. One is called the Arab Gas Pipeline that runs from Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations to the south, the other is the Iran-Iraq-Syria gas pipeline, also known as 'The Islamic pipeline' that runs from Iran. Syria's former president, Bashar Assad, is a loyal ally of Russia and Iran and with that alliance comes the rejection of the Arab Gas Pipeline that the west are favoring. So now you can see how just like most wars the US gets involved in, this one is another example of how economic affairs rule political affairs.

        
I don't support our role as Captain Save-A-Country but I do understand that the US is deeply rooted in foreign affairs to the point of our forced involvement. It is a fine line that we as a country have to make an educated decision on; like a game of chess, we either do nothing and watch or plan our strategy of control.

Equal rights, equal obligation

On October 15th, 2015, in a article from USA Today titled "Draft women? Why not?", Glenn Reynolds addresses his views on introducing women into the draft, which I think is more aimed at equal rights activists but would certainly hit home for most Americans. Glenn Reynolds is a distinguished professor of law at the University of Tennessee, widely known for his political weblog Instapundit and having published numerous books, columns, and academic articles.

He starts with his disagreement with the draft itself but points out that if there is to be one then women should be included. He backs up his argument by comparing that in the past "a sexual division of labor - in which women focused on childbearing and child-rearing while men engaged in war - tended to make societies to much more formidable" and compares it to modern changes in gender equality. Stating that the division of labor has adjusted through the years due to women's primary role no longer being childbearing and that today's average age of fertility is more in a female's late 20's to 30's, well after the age a draft would be in effect. He also addresses this question of fairness by pointing out that by giving equal rights to women should bring the same equal obligations that they have to the nation as men.

I agree with his point in that women should be included in the draft. I feel as though it would strengthen our society as a whole and move more away from the cliché that men are superior to women. I'm not saying that women should be put on the front lines but their inclusion in military support roles would greatly benefit our military. 

Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton

In his Huffington post, dated September 30th, blogger Ben Spielberg targets democrats in his article titled "Bernie Sanders, Not Hillary Clinton, Deserves Union Endorsements". His argument breaks down why Bernie Sanders should receive union endorsements over Hillary Clinton. Ben Spielberg is the co-founder of 34justice, a political blog that critically analyzes political and cultural issues.

It begins with how The National Education Association is considering an early endorsement of Hillary Clinton and how that could jeopardize the member's trust in the union leaders. He describes how Hillary does not have as strong a track record as Vermont candidate Bernie Sanders stating "on practically every topic -- from criminal justice issues to health care to foreign policy -- Sanders has Hillary beat". He even displays the different donor lists from both the candidates and shows Hillary's backers are mostly represented by banks, corporations, and media groups while Sanders backers are more comprised of unions. At one point showing her ties to the corporation Walmart as a previous board of director and revealing her continuing ties to anti-union business. He uses this evidence to prove how Hillary is a suboptimal candidate when comparing her credentials to Sander's.

I agree with Spielberg in his claim of Hillary being an inferior candidate and his logic of how Sander's should get more union support. Based on Spielberg's points in the article and previous research on Sander's objective in his campaign, I do feel like he is a better representative in terms of the people's views when compared to Hillary.

Republicans begin to divide on the issue of climate change.

In this article from The Guardian, a number of Republicans branch off from their own party's standard view on climate change and call for action. Republicans adverse strategy to stop any plans to cut carbon pollution have been ongoing for at least five years, denying any human contribution to climate change. The article points out religious pressures have also been coming in the form of the pope's encyclical on climate change, framing it as a moral issue. The resolution signed by at least 10 republicans will hopefully put more pressure on the Republican party to soften their views on climate change denial. 

I think this is an important article to read because it shows both sides of a critical issue in our lifetime and what groups are curbing any headway.