A Good Argument. Period.

As a person who struggles who with expressing herself in written word I really enjoy fellow classmate K. Vasquez’s writing. I both respect and envy her ability to be refreshingly clear. Not much of a compliment, I know but like I said I’m a poor writer. No matter the subject of her posts, there is an upbeat feel to them which I enjoy. Even with subjects such as disgruntling as LGBT discrimination with SB 1062 in Freedom vs. Equality In America I find myself wanting to read more not only because it’s informative but also genuinely heartfelt.

In her latest post, she addressees the transgressions against the LGBT community through Arizona’s proposed bill. Yes, it is a vague bill and as many on the opposite side of argument would state it doesn’t specifically identify the gay community as the purpose for it’s original draft but that’s the problem. Being so broad, to the point where you could interject any group, gender, race or sexual orientation into it is a problem in itself.

K. Vasquez includes many links that not only educate you on the issue at had like articles that inform the reader on both sides but also inserts history. I mean, why wouldn’t you? It’s a major point to make in the argument. To introduce not only the latest national issue but the entire “American Gay Rights Movement: A Short History”.

She continues to jog your own thought process and personal beliefs by asking the reader what their own interpretation of the bill may be. She introduces queries that may make the reader wonder why they voted for the candidate they did.

So in conclusion I wish to say that I completely agree with my fellow classmates assessment of SB 1062 and applaud her not only in her ability to make her argument that this bill was completely discriminatory regardless of whom it was intended but also for her smooth application of education. Bravo, K. Vasquez!

Pressures On

Finding a national issue that hadn’t been beaten with the controversy stick repeatedly and that still enticed me to commit a minimum of 350 words to was a little difficult. Searching the usual sources I noticed a repeating headline this week though, “Use-of-forces policies”. It seems that Congress and watchdog groups alike are calling for tougher restrictions on the use of force by U.S. border agents and more transparency including the release of a recent audit that highly suggested policy reform. This was brought on by the Tribune Washington Bureau, which made it public that the results of an independent audit into the “use-of-force” policies of the U.S Customs and Border Protection Agency were less than desirable.

For me, the accusation that the border agency is less than tidy in carrying out it’s policies isn’t exactly surprising. They have few mandates giving Congress the ability to exercise oversight and are dealing primarily with individuals that do not have the same rights as U.S. citizens.

Now reading through numerous articles I find the lack of information in which to build my argument a little frustrating. I wouldn’t be the only one. The non-transparency of the border agency is alarming and according to many, especially Spanish-language media, it has been for years.“Border agents that kill Mexicans are rarely punished” according to the L.A Times when referring to Mexican authorities sentiments on the issue.

I understand that maybe these officers must endure an environment with limited resources. That the agency in which they are employed is highly politicized and their relevance swaying with each administration but it’s no excuse for the tactics used. “Lack of diligence” accused Tribune Washington Bureau, criticizing the border agency’s investigations into the 19 cases that resulted in death. There are still 8 more death related cases not yet reviewed that bring the total to a whopping 27 since 2010.

Border Protection officers are using lethal force in completely non-lethal situations.  Using firearms to respond to rock throwing and stepping in front of moving cars to justify firing shots at the occupants. They are not being held to a standard that is fitting to represent the Unites States or suited for protecting U.S and Mexican citizens alike. What’s more alarming is that this report is the result of an investigation commissioned by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency itself but yet they refuse to release the findings to the public or Congress.

Obviously, a few things stink here and I’m hoping that if lawmakers get their, way releasing the report, that it will only be the beginning. That by reviewing all the findings, safe guards and policies will be set so negligence will not run amok.

Not All is Fair in Opportunity and Dignity

In 2008, when both Democratic nominees, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, professed intentions that if elected would start a healthcare reform revolution. (One of many promised). Approaching an age where I could no longer piggy back on my parent's health insurance plan and not in a currently employed where healthcare was offered the issue perked my ears even though I knew it was most likely empty promises regurgitated to win over voters. Now, 7 years later Obamacare has a real possibility of coming to fruition.
New York Times contributor and Professor of Economics and International Affairs, Paul Krugman, brings a day to day, live interpretation of events surrounding the evolution of Health Care Reform. In "Delusions of Failure" written Feb. 3 he introduces the idea to his readers, which most likely have predominately Liberal viewpoints like himself, that Republican politicians are attempting to drag Reform efforts through the mud with lies and stretching stories. This week, he continues his elucidation with "Inequality, Dignity and Freedom" by stating that Republicans now realizing that their declarations are becoming transparent have turned to making the argument that Obama’s efforts at Health Care Reform are actually bad for the work place and employment because low income Americans will no longer work for jobs that they only kept for the benefit of Health Insurance in the first place. That somehow the average blue-collar worker will lose their work ethic. Their "Dignity of Work" in fact. Some Republicans implying that in gaining security of health benefits through the government is some kind of handout and that citizens that are actually taking advantage of the Reform don't know what hard work is. Krugman rebuts this by bringing in the 1% into the argument. That if were going to judge what one deserves as far as security based on the equality of work on individuals then why did 40 hedge fund managers and traders receive 16.7 billion in  2012 according to Forbes magazine.
In this column, Krugman insists that in order for the average working American to obtain dignity he needs to be assured of the essentials. One of which being affordable health care. I find myself agreeing with Krugman almost entirely and enjoy his ability to identify lies for what they are, lies. That there are clearly politicians in office with elitist attitudes. Most of all, I find his way of placing a political and economic issue in a very simple, down to Earth way.

The Question of Equality

NPR's Robert Seigel discusses Obama's minimum wage initiative in this article with guests from two different perspectives. I find it interesting because it really touches more the subject of equality. What are the 3 main focuses of government? Freedom, Order and Equality, right? Equality was not always in the mix as far U.S. priorities and still isn't for many countries, most of them being third world. So the concept of it is, basically, that all us U.S. citizens are equal. That no person is above the rest. At least not in the legal sense. But how far do you take it? Does it only go as far as race and gender or do you go as far as making every person economically equal? For most, they don't enjoy seeing people suffer. Most see it as the duty of a decent person to lend a hand when someones in need. When it gets to government policy and using our collective funds to pull those up that are barely scraping by it becomes a little more complicated. It ruffles a few feathers. Why? I think it's because once you go down that road you begin to wonder how far you go. At what point do you say, "Hey, if this country is what it says it is, if everyone was given the same educational opportunities and the same resources. Then why is it me, the person took advantage of those opportunies, the one paying the price to lift those who chose not to?" I feel this a topic is personal for many but we should really ask why we have the opinion that we do.

Political Biography

Growing up in my home town you'd have to try really hard to avoid politics. REALLY hard. You grew up next door to the Constable, had swimming lessons in the Commissioner's pool and we're invited to the Mayor's Christmas party every year because your brother remodeled his kitchen. Politics were personal. Politics were fun.

I was fortunate enough to be raised around a man who breathed not only politics and a good argument  but always fought for the underdog. Even when there wasn't much of a fight. Sometimes, especially so, because he believed that you didn't always fight to win and didn't speak only when you knew you'd be heard. He was a State Representative and he loved his job. Maybe I was spoiled by these circumstances. Maybe I have expectations that border romanticism because now that my small town is no longer small and the man that held such a big part of my heart is gone I don't see the fun in it.

Now, not even thirty, experiencing politics and the actions of those that I vote for through media I find myself disillusioned. I take my privilege to vote very seriously but I don't believe in the person I vote for. They are more like the lesser of two evils. I'm taking this course because it's required for my major but what I'd really like is to walk away with a little more pride. A little more faith that I can form an opinion on our government and the people we select to have the responsibility to run it because right now I just don't have one.