Comment on JJensenJr's blog

JJensenJr's blog

I disagree that Trump's tax plan will, in reality, be a benefit for all. The proposed tax plan is classic "Reaganomics", huge tax cuts for the wealthy and businesses and the money will trickle down to the middle/lower class. While this does sound nice in theory, it hasn't ever worked in practice. What usually ends up happening is that the lack of taxes being paid by those can afford it has to be made up somewhere, and that somewhere usually ends up being from those who cannot afford it or barely afford it. This ends up in the hoarding of wealth in the top bracket and systematic pressure/elimination of the mid to low bracket.

This sort of tax proposal is the exact reason why we have the amount of disproportionate distribution of wealth that we have now. A better tax system would have those that can afford taxes being taxed at a higher rate and those that cannot afford taxes being taxed at a lower rate. This promotes growth in the mid to low class and establishes a market in which large businesses and the wealthy cannot hoard 80% of the nation's wealth. This type of system proved to be effective during WWII and post WWII in which the wealthy were taxed at an outrageously high rate with a booming workforce. Obviously, the situation is not the same now as it was in the 1940's, but the same system is likely to even out the wealth distribution as well as relieve pressure from the lower tax brackets.

Unconstitutional Gerry Part II: The Mandering

As mentioned in my previous blog, Gerrymandering has become a plague upon our democracy. Gerrymandering is the process of redrawing districts to dilute or completely eliminate certain groups of voters (usually minorities). This process is generally used to secure wins for representatives in the House or State legislative seats and make it impossible for the opposing parties to ever win in said districts. As I argued in my previous post, Gerrymandering fundamentally intrudes upon our rights given by the 15th Amendment, and should thus be considered unconstitutional.

In order to eliminate Gerrymandering, districts must be redrawn impartially. There are numerous ways to do this, probably the fastest and most appealing though would be the Split Line Method. This method solves the problem of districts drawn by partisan bias while also maintaining equal districts in terms of population.

Implementation of the Split Line Method would be fairly simple with a state by state approach (each state doing it themselves). Each state would use the algorithm to divide their populations equally by the approximate population of the least populous state. Populations would be kept together (as in populations within counties would stay within counties instead of spreading out across a state [I'm looking at you Texas]) and each district will remain as is with 1 representative per district.

There is no good reason this can't be done, just an unwillingness to do so. With those in power benefiting from such an unreasonable method of representation, it comes to us, the people, to create pressure and make a meaningful change to this system.

Comment on William Langhman's blog

William's blog can be found here

I agree that there are definitely issues that our government, and ourselves, are keeping at an arm's length. I would argue that technically our infrastructure isn't quite falling yet, more like treading water with some show of learning how to doggy paddle. The #MAGA crowd was spot on that we have issues as a country, but for all the wrong reasons and all the wrong issues that just made them look incredibly ignorant. Now that we have Trump in office like you said, there is still no show of actually moving forward. In fact, it appears we are now moving backward (or drowning if we are keeping the pool analogy).

Unconstitutional Gerry

The process of Gerrymandering has disenfranchised an obscene amount of voters. Redrawing districts to separate or even eradicate certain demographics from voting essentially violates the 15th amendment. The protection of the 15th amendment allows citizens to vote no matter race or gender, and have their vote matter. Gerrymandering takes away the gravity of their vote if they are removed from the population or drowned by a sea of other votes 100 miles away from where the voter lives. A prime example of this tactic in practice is in Texas. Austin, Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio are all split into several different districts so the population is separated. These spread out districts water down the voters with whomever the ones drawing the districts choose.

With those in office deciding where they want votes to come from, the right to vote given by the 15th amendment is effectively nulled. Taking away this right is criminal by nature and should be ruled unconstitutional, and sometimes it even is. If a district is deemed illegally drawn, the ones who drew it are forced to redraw it. This should not be the case. What's to say that those who drew the original line aren't going to redraw another district just as bad but get away with it under some loophole? We have the resources necessary to draw districts without the influence of those in office but refuse to do so. Gerrymandering should be brought to the supreme court as a federal matter and ruled unconstitutional for every situation.

"TapGate"

In the article, Obama Camp's Disingenuous Denials of FISA Surveillance of Trump, the author, Andrew C. McCarthy, claims that Obama and his aides are lying about their involvement in an alleged wiretap on Donald Trump. McCarthy's audience is heavily conservative republicans who believe in conspiracy theories. McCarthy is an experienced attorney with an emphasis towards prosecuting attacks against the U.S.

In the article McCarthy writes, he attempts to woo his audience by providing some in-depth information about the Trump wiretapping scandal. He also uses his knowledge as an attorney to make it sound like he is providing an informed argument as to how he knows that the Obama administration did, in fact, tap Trump during the election. What McCarthy does not do, however, is lend any credible evidence towards his accusation. Instead, McCarthy provides information about how a FISA works, how it is ordered, etc. Effectively, all he is doing is connecting a definition to a person by ways of circumstantial evidence.

McCarthy's second point about Obama ordering Trump to be under surveillance is the least constructed argument I have ever seen. All McCarthy provides is a very circumstantial (and frankly not even connected) bit about how Obama, "had American citizens killed in drone operations". McCarthy does not provide any evidence whatsoever that Obama actually did order a FISA (or ordered Americans killed) but believes that he would be the kind of person to do so.

All in all, the arguments McCarthy attempts to make in his "article" are very weak. He provides no solid evidence towards his statements while only giving the reader some conspiracy theory fuel. This article was obviously written to try and stir the pot amongst his readers and not to try and actually write about something meaningful.

Threatening Burdens

The Editorial Board of the New York Times (made up of writers, editors, and various experts) wrote about the disproportion of military spending by NATO (Sharing the Nato Burden). The audience they write to seems split because on one end they determine the dangers of threatening our allies while later on, they refer to said allies as "laggards". The argument being made is that the new Secretary of Defence's message to NATO (echoing Trump's sentiments of recalling support if financial obligations are not met) was unsettling, but not unfounded. The provided evidence includes percentages of gross domestic product spent on military (each country is supposed to spend 2%) with the U.S. spending the most at 3.61% and Germany the least with 1.1%. I believe these statistics to be misleading, especially if you consider the difference in spending as far as refugee resettlement is concerned.

The written persona of the editorial is fairly concise in its opinion about the topic. Obviously, there is a lot of observed anxiety about what is happening and what is going to happen with our new President (or his dealings with Russia). The sentiment of the opinion is unity while "sharing the burden". When speaking about a singular subject, such as "sharing the burden", and providing evidence for said subject, it leaves out 90% of the picture. The logic is biased and uninspiring. This doesn't mean the opinion is a false argument; all it means is that the argument is skewed to have the reader believe in something without all of the evidence.

I do not believe this to be a bad editorial, as it does provide clear (albeit little) information on a tumultuous subject of current events. The opinions being stated are something that a large majority are thinking as well, but towards the end, it feels as if the evidence being provided is there only to make you think as they think. At this point, it stops being an opinion and starts being a paper written to persuade the reader to think that the other nations in NATO aren't pulling their weight (when they actually are in different ways that weren't expressed in the editorial). There is no clear way to criticize the opinions of others, as you do not have their exact viewpoints, but looking with an outsider perspective is beneficial to forming precise arguments.

Hungry for Education

In this article, The Number of Hungry and Homeless Students Rises with College Costs, the author describes the desperation of affording modern day higher education. He uses a specific story of a young college student who could not afford a place to live. The student was dependent on shelters for living and maintaining academic interest/success. The author also uses a Wisconsin study of undergrads in community college to display a shocking statistic about student homelessness. The basic message of the article is that modern college students are in dire straits. The burden of this lands on state and national government to provide for students in need. But as we can see this is not happening. Cost for attending colleges and universities is still rising while the amount of students who can no longer afford it rises as well. This article should be important to all of us because at some point, none of us will be able to afford the classes we are currently taking.