Bipartisan Support for Science

   
In a blogpost by my colleague Andres Cikota entitled "A Bipartisan Cause (Again)," he argues that the United States needs to increase funding for research and development in order to keep and pace and surpass other nations such as China. He points out how during the Cold War the United States outspent the Soviet Union and therefore was able to dominate space exploration and other science fields. In recent times, however, the United States has fallen behind in science spending and therefore fallen behind other countries in progress. My colleague argues that the United States needs to increase their research and development spending and applauds a current Senate Bill that is attempting to do that. Through the use of a very helpful analogy, my colleague is able to show why the US needs to increase spending. This helps him to persuade readers to agree with what he is arguing.
I agree with my colleague's commentary about the increase in spending needed for research and development in the United States. I believe that agencies such as NASA are incredibly underfunded. In order for our nation to compete with other nations we must fund these agencies. Do you really want to see a Russian flag or a Chinese flag or a European flag on Mars before the Stars and Stripes?

Lobbying Leads to Oligarchy

     In my last post I discussed how gun control legislation seems to be favored by the majority of American citizens but is not passed because of pro-gun rights lobbyists are able to essentially "buy" Congressmen's votes to promote their ideals. While lobby groups are not allowed to pay Congressional members for their votes, as this is bribery and is against the law. However, this does not mean that lobbying groups are not able to influence Senators and House Members. Lobby groups employ many different methods to gain the support of a member of Congress. Some lobby groups will treat members or their staff to a meal or give them presents, others may gain influence by donating significant amounts of money to the members' campaigns, still others will use in-person meetings to try and sway a member. Lobbying has become so big that it is estimated that 100,000 people are employed as lobbyists in the United States. The scale to which lobbying has grown has made some to believe that our government is turning into an oligarchy, a system in which everyday citizens essentially have no power. The government has realized this and implemented regulations on Lobbyists. The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 was the first bill introduced to control lobbyists and further regulations were implemented by the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, signed into law in 2007. These bills forced lobbyists to register with both the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate, regulates gifts that can be given to lawmakers and their aides, and requires groups to disclose their expenses. These regulations have helped but are simply not enough.
     In order for the government to truly function lobby groups need even stricter regulations so that lawmakers can listen to their constitutes and instead of special interest groups. Several improvements can be made to current regulating legislation in order to achieve this. One possible solution is banning special interest groups from giving gifts and only allowing Congress members' constituents to give them gifts, so long as the gift is not affiliated with a special interest group. This new regulation would help to cut down lobbying group's influence, but other regulation would still be needed. I propose that campaign donations be anonymous so that lawmakers do not know which special interest groups are backing them. This would mean that lawmakers would not know how to pander to the lobbyists and would therefore have to listen to their constituents. Lastly, I would also recommend that lawmakers be forced to meet with every citizen from their district that wishes to before they are allowed to meet with special interest groups. This would help everyday citizens to have their voices heard and place them on equal footing with the lobbyists. These regulations are only the starting point. Unless the government is truly able to separate itself from special interest groups, it will not be able to properly function. The only way to regain our democratic form of government is by severely limiting the influence of these groups.

The Solution to America's Drug Problem

     In a blogpost by my colleague Nicolette Loisel entitled "Drug offenders need rehabilitation, not punishment," she argues that the only way to solve the drug problem plaguing America is through treatment programs for addicts. She argued that drug users are real people and that punishing them with harsh jail terms only has negative effects on the users and their family and friends. She also uses facts from variously cited articles showing how not only is drug addiction treatment far less expensive than jail, it is also far more effective at helping drug users recover and become productive citizens of society. The combined use of emotional and rational appeals helps Loisel to persuade her audience, everyday Americans who are oblivious to or not effected by drug addiction, that "treatment is the only sane answer." Her concluding paragraph is effective in making others feel that action must be taken now to fix this problem. 

     Before reading this blogpost I was already in agreement with what Loisle was arguing. I believe her post only strengthened my views on this topic and made me more sure in my own opinions. One way she could have strengthened her argument would be by referencing drug treatment programs in place in other countries. The usage of this example would have shown that national government drug programs are very effective in reducing drug addiction. Overall though she did a great job at logically arguing her points and persuading her audience, at least me. 

Is This Country Actually Anti-Gun Control?

     After the mass shooting in Orlando this past week, the 136th mass shooting in the United States in 2016 alone, gun control has again taken the foreground for Congress. On Capitol Hill Democrats and Republicans wage a metaphorical war over how to react to all of these ruthless killings. Democrats are arguing for gun regulation bills to be discussed. Senator Chris Murphy, whose district includes Newton, Connecticut, where the Sandy Hook school shooting occurred, recently filibustered on the Senate floor for 14 hours just to get assurance that the Senate will vote on two gun related bills. Meanwhile, across the aisle, Republicans are attempting to focus the blame for these recurring killings on mental health or radicalized Islamic terrorism. They are trying abnormally hard to make sure gun-control laws are not passed or even considered. All of this partisan disagreement would make it seem like America is land divided by guns. However, peering beyond the surface reveals that this split is mainly occurring in Congress. A recent poll conducted by the Pew Research Center reveals that everyday Americans are in agreement over most proposed gun control measures. The poll showed that 85 percent of people support background checks for gun purchases, 79 percent approve barring mentally ill people from buying guns, 70 percent support a database to track gun purchases and 57 percent approve of a ban on assault weapons. These numbers show that Americans are actually more in agreement than Congress, the people average citizens elect to have their voices heard. Then why is Congress so split then along party lines? A major factor in this partisan disagreement is the National Rifle Association. The NRA is not just an organization for casual hunters to talk about guns anymore. They are now a political powerhouse will heavy influence in Washington. Because of the funds they supply candidates with, it is not hard for them to push their agenda forward. If politicians want this flow of money to keep coming in they must agree with the views of the NRA, which includes being against almost all forms of gun regulation. If politicians want these massacres to stop they must realize that there may be some negative consequences, but standing up for what is best for the country will be worthwhile in the long run.

Is the Media Unfair to Trump?

     In a recent blog post on Ann Coulter's personal webpage titled "Did Anyone Talking About Trump's Speech Actually Hear It?" she contends that the media, mainly the left-wing media,  is picking and choosing the parts of his speeches that vilify him the most. She believes that reporters are refusing to truly understand his speeches and are instead cherry-picking the parts that help push forward their opinions that Trump is "not presidential." To further emphasize that this is a partisan attack being carried out by the liberal media, she refers to several Washington Post articles from when Bush was President that indicate they were doing the same things to him, another Republican. She gives further evidence that this kind of discrimination is truly being carried out when she references an article written Ron Fournier. She pulls several examples from his article that make it seem like he is being way too hard on Trump because "he didn't call it." She also makes references to a Trump tweet and a comment that Fournier made that make it seem like Fournier is completely ignoring Trump's comments. She finishes her blog by suggesting that if people actually read or listened to Trump's speeches they would be able to deduce all of this themselves.
     Coulter's post is clearly targeted to people who listen to the media and believe them instead of listening to the candidates. However, her argument is not very effective if this is truly her audience. Her comments are too forceful and seemed filled with anger. Someone reading this would think that she is attacking them, not just the media, merely because they believe what the media is feeding them. She seems to be attempting to inform others about what Trump truly is saying but it comes across as an attack, which just turns people away faster. If she truly wanted to persuade people that Trump is the best candidate, she should not have let her emotions get in the way and she should have stuck with the straight facts.

The Trump Effect

     In Michael Gerson's article "The Party of Lincoln is Dying," from the Washington Post, he attempts to reason to Republicans that they should rescind their support of Trump. Gerson questions why Trump's comments about Latino Judge Gonzalo Curiel have angered Republicans more than his comments about Mexican immigrants or Muslims. He reasons that these specific comments have enraged the party so much because they are the first Trump has made since gaining endorsements from many high ranking Republicans, including Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, who has been extremely vocal in his disapproval of the comments. Gerson closes by reasoning that most Republicans will eventually become too fed up with Trump and remove their support for him, and that while "the process of unendorsing Trump will be humiliating," the humiliation will only be temporary and the "honor of choosing rightly will endure."
     Gerson uses fairly sound logic throughout most of his editorial. He supports his main argument that Republicans are supporting Trump simply for the sake of Party unity and not because they truly agree with him with proof that this is what is going inside of the Republican Party. The main proof being that the second Trump said something that even remotely made him seem racist many high-ranking Party officials criticized his statements and said they do not condone them. Also, he provides sufficient evidence that this type of behavior is leading to the Party's demise. He cites the "basic tests of public justice" that says a racist should not be endorsed for public office as the reason why the Party is dying. He is essentially saying that because the Republican Party is failing the public, the public is losing trust in the Party, which in turn causing a decrease in support for Republicans.
     I agree with most of the arguments Gerson makes but I do not believe the end result will be what he thinks it will be. He thinks that eventually Trump will cross the line that Republicans have drawn and that this will cause Republicans to rescind their support. However, I think that if nothing Trump has said already has caused them to jump ship, then there is nothing he can say that will. Republicans are simply too anti-Hillary and pro-Republican to go against their own party, no matter how racist it may become.

Obama's Endorsement of Clinton and Meeting with Sanders

     Today was a very busy day for the Democratic Party in Washington D.C. As reported in a Washington Post article, President Obama formally endorsed Democrat nominee, and personal friend, Hillary Clinton and met with Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders. His endorsement, filmed on Tuesday but released today at the request of Sanders' campaign, was highly anticipated for much of the past week as the two have become close friends since the 2008 Presidential Race when they were rivals. In the video, which is linked in the article, Obama even goes  as far as too say that Clinton is the most qualified person to ever run for President. Before releasing the video, however, Obama met with Sanders at the White House. While the specifics of what the two talked about are unknown, Sanders' spokesman said that "he is seeking out the counsel of people he admires and respects." Sanders also met with other top Democratic officials today, including Vice President Joe Biden and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. As the primaries come to a close those around Sanders insist that he has accepted the results and that he is not not angry about how things turned out. Some believe that he will drop out of the race within the coming weeks but that he will not sacrifice his policies for the unification of the Democratic Party.