More news about Donald Trump, surprise surprise.

Donald Trump is rushing to clear up his position and view in regards to abortions after the upheaval that started after his remark last Wednesday. Donald Trump mentioned his support for bans on abortions, even stating that “there has to be some form of punishment” for women who have abortions. This comment, as expected, caused an uproar by the people of the United States, especially when abortion is such a large and problematic topic. 

Yet, less than three hours later Donald Trump scrambled to correct himself stating that not women, but doctors who perform abortions (if congress outlaws it) would be punished. Donald Trump then continued, stating “The woman is a victim in this case as is the life in her womb. My position has not changed — like Ronald Reagan, I am pro-life with exceptions.”

Ronald Reagan in 1967, signed the Therapeutic Abortion Act, after only a few months as governor within California (he believed that these abortions would only be allowed under certain circumstances). Immediately after this Act was signed the number of abortions within California rose greatly. This caused Reagan not only regret, but a sense of guilt, resulting in Reagan recognizing a mistake in major legislation. Reagan then soon after became strictly pro-life stating that abortion was wrong in every instance (except very rare occasions when it might be necessary to save the mother’s life). He even wrote "Abortion and the Conscience of Nation" a book regarding  pro-life views. Donald Trump in 1999 stated to the Press “I believe it is a personal decision that should be left to the women and their doctors”, while today he mentions his disgust and hate towards it. To sum it up, Ronald Reagan never agreed with abortion regardless of the act that was signed (everyone makes mistakes), while Donald Trump at one point strongly believed in pro-choice.

Now I am not saying that Donald Trump is not allowed to change his views after many years, he can of course, but he mentions how abortion is “disgusting” one moment, and then states how great planned parenthood is for other aspects the next. How can someone who hates abortion so much say anything good regarding planned parenthood and ignore that, in 2014 they performed 327,653 abortions, the equivalence to one every 90 seconds (so much for abortions being a tiny part of it huh, Donald?). Donald Trump then continues on how wonderful planned parenthood is but that he also wants to defund it. In regards to this topic, personally I believe that Donald Trump is just lost and confused. He mentions one thing and then states the other and in regards to Wednesday's comment, it shows exactly how he jumps into saying things and soon recants and says something different.

Sources Used:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/us/politics/donald-trump-abortion.html?_r=0

http://www.lifenews.com/2008/03/11/nat-3790/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/1/planned-parenthood-327k-abortions-fiscal-2014/

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2016/02/donald-trump-really-doesnt-understand-how-federal-funding-works-planned-parenthood-0

19th-century Belgian Law Allowed Bombing Suspects To Go Free

 

(USA Today)

A law that dates back to 1888 allowed the two Brussels bombing suspects to be released from prison earlier. Ibrahim El Bakraoui was sentenced to 10 years for shooting at a police officer in 2010. He served four years and nine months before being let go. And Khalid El Bakraoui served three years of a five-year sentence for a 2011 armed robbery before he was set free in 2013. They both violated the terms of their release but by that time the police couldn't find them. The brothers would still be serving their sentences were it not for the law Lejeune, named for Belgian justice minister Jules Le Jeune, who introduced it in 1888. The law allows inmates to be released from prison after they served a third of their sentence.

It’s sad that one political decision made in the 1800s may have cost a couple hundred lives today. If those guys are still locked up like they should be, they would still be alive and so would everyone at the airport that day. Now about the law, i know it was in the 1800s and they thought differently and things were different but it still sounds like a very stupid law. If you rape someone and get thrown away for 30 years but serve a third of that sentence they let you out? Doesn't seem right. It makes me think about our constitution, drafted in 1787 may have some flaws that could hurt us tremendously, you could argue it has already happened with guns. Many people believe if that wasn't written in the constitution then guns would be outlawed and no one would have a problem with it.

Utah's New Abortion Bill (reaction by Olyvia van Loon)

The new abortion bill signed by Utah's major pro-life advocate governor states that women receiving abortions later than 20 weeks gestation require anesthesia. This law is not based on sound scientific evidence, but rather on political values. Despite no scientific evidence that a fetus at 20 weeks can feel pain, the reasoning behind the bill is that it is inhumane to put a fetus through the pain of an abortion. Many people are also complaining that the bill is just a back-door way of banning abortion. Requiring anesthesia would not only raise the cost of an abortion, it also puts the woman's health in danger by giving her unnecessary medication (no respectable doctor should be okay with putting their patient at unnecessary risk).

I am pro-choice; that is no mystery among my peers. I believe, as the Supreme Court has stated, that a woman has a right to make decisions about her own body. By denying a woman that right, not only is it unconstitutional, it is also saying that a human being does not have a right to their own body. Women have the right to any method of birth control they choose, without a specific reason for why they choose that method, and they definitely do NOT need to explain their decision to the rest of the world. I personally would never have an abortion because I believe any life I create is special and beautiful, but I would never tell someone else how to feel. Everyone has a right to make decisions for their own bodies and who am I to tell them they can't abort a fetus, especially when I don't know their circumstance? If a person is not mentally ready for a child, or for birth, they should not be forced to go through the trauma of giving birth or carrying a child they don't want, or even attempting to take care of a child they don't want. Having a child without wanting that child makes for a very hard and tragic life for the child. That is why I believe in a woman's right to choose abortion.

Now, you can probably guess my reaction to this new Utah bill. That's right: I hate it. Not only is Utah promoting unsupported scientific research and exposing women to unnecessary (and dangerous) medical treatment, the state is also taking its people back many decades to when women had few to no rights to their own bodies. While I am not a medical professional and I have no experience with abortions, I find it hard to understand the state's reasoning for intertwining political values into scientific medical treatment. You would think that with the Supreme Court's decision upholding a woman's right to abortion would deter legislation banning abortion or making it extremely difficult to get an abortion, but apparently there are still people out there that will not accept that decision and still try to take women's rights away.

I hope other states do not follow in Utah's footsteps, but I'm not very optimistic. When states find loopholes around federal laws, they run with it. With so many pro-lifers in the United States, I can see similar bills being passed across the nation, but I hope they don't. If more bills requiring anesthesia for abortions later than 20 weeks, the United States will be thrown back in social progress to the mid-1900s. The United States must continue to progress and not let one group regress medical treatment based on political values.

CNN article on Utah's new 'fetal pain' abortion bill
NY Times article on fetal pain research
The Journal of the American Medical Association research on fetal pain *actual research conducted about fetal pain*

North Carolina Trans Gender Law Raises Eyebrows

North Carolina Trans Gender Law Raises Eyebrows

In recent Political News.......... The state of North Carolina is being sued for passing a law that "makes it illegal for men and boys who pose as females to use women’s shower rooms and restrooms throughout the state". This bill also made it so municipalities can't pass non discriminatory bills aimed at advancing the transsexual agenda. 


In other words, 
The state of North Carolina thinks it shouldn't be allowed for a men, who changes to female, to use a woman's bathroom or shower room. Personally, I don't see what is wrong with this. The state has an obligation to the safety of it's citizens. I don't feel as if the state is targeting the groups, but protecting gender equality regardless of the fact of a sexual change that has taken place. I feel as if this is a very understanding bill that should be passed in every state. Doubt it will due to the commotion that North Carolina has caused. These issues are becoming greater and greater as the transsexual world expands. Soon were going to have to accompany for prisons, work place environments, and many other aspects of equality rights for something that would be completely unheard of 20 years ago. 

But WHO cares about my views? certainly North Carolina doesn't. They are probably more concerned with the corporate monsters who have shunned them because of this bill. 

With SO much confusion about gender nowadays, it is going to be much more difficult to identify people. This raises many issues, and makes discrimination that much harder to define. Somewhere a fine line has to be drawn, someone cant certainly be of "two sexes". It's just weird to me how these issues were not even thought of 20 years ago, But then America recognizes same sex marriage, Bruce Jenner becomes a female, and then two people want to bring the state of North Carolina to court because of where they have to be told where to go to the bathroom. I think this case is a waste of tax payers dollars in the state of NC, but i'm sure the judge will grant the civil union the case, and once again, the LGBT community will have risen again. I just think we live in such a watered down country. What happened to the days where kids wanted to aspire and be astronauts, firefighters, actors, etc.  Now girls want to grow up to be guys, and guys want to grow up to be girls. It's just hard for me to wrap my head around. 
VS

Links Used:
http://fortune.com/2016/03/26/tech-condemns-lgbt-legislation/
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/29/bullied_by_the_government_north_carolina

Controversy about Cuba

Double standards are kind of entertaining, right? 

As most people know, Pres. Obama made a historic trip to Cuba earlier this week. He's the first sitting US president to visit the island nation since Calvin Coolidge in 1928. Unfortunately, no one is really talking about his trip to the land of cigars, mojitos and old-timey cars, but rather his visit to negotiate with a communist and betray our system.

Obama has gotten a lot of flack since opening communication with the country back in 2014. Obama wants to ease tensions between the two countries and establish a friendship despite our history and our current differences. This is a travesty to a number of people, like Armando Valladares, who wrote a commentary in the Washington Post (mentioned in this link but not printed in its entirety). Obama's desire to end animosity towards Cuba is interpreted as weakness and his excuse to make waves in his last year of presidency; he's giving in and allowing the communist government to do whatever it wants. Marco Rubio, born to Cuban parents, is perhaps the most vocal in his problems with Obama's visit to the country.

Here's the thing: the worst thing to happen to Cuba isn't a dictatorship. It's the blockade. It's killed more people than the Cuban government and is a much bigger struggle in the everyday lives of Cubans than politics. Cubans call the blockade "the country's biggest genocide." And this embargo has been in place for the past 50 years to discourage their form of government - guess what, it hasn't worked. And it probably isn't going to. Something that bothers me the most about American foreign policy is that we stick our noses in business that isn't our own. I agree, people all over the world shouldn't be suffering at the hands of their government. But if the rest of the world has decided that trading with Cuba and allowing Cubans to survive and eat more food and get cheaper goods, why is America lagging behind?

If you talk to the Cuban people, they are very pro-Americans. They dislike our government, sure, because why wouldn't they after the conditions we've imposed on them? They're very nationalistic and they believe they are still fighting the revolution. And they won't forget their wars and their suffering, but they see it as part of their history, not something that they are fighting against today. Cubans want to meet Americans, they want to have a relationship with us. I think we should be able to do that despite our differences. Sure, it would be cool if they would adopt a democratic government system but that's clearly not going to fix our problems - remember when Gaza held their first democratic election which we ruled undemocratic because we didn't like the winning Hamas?

(For the record, if you want to put aside all of this political stuff and look at the beautiful country of Cuba, I've got some pictures from my trip over Winterim - look out, I must be a communist!)

Used in this post:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-35874559

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2016/03/20/marco-rubio-obamas-cuba-trip-is-a-disgrace-n2136923

Media and Politics

The media has become a sweeping factor in not only how politics function, but also in the results of it. In today's society news and media is everywhere, whether it be newscasts and social medias, or websites and journalist articles. Political media is an expanding factor simply because the public has become lazy. Rather than reading books, longer articles, and watching long debates the people would rather read a short paragraph or watch a three minute news clip. A majority of the people of the United States yearn for news to be given to them in a way that requires minimal effort, causing media politics to thrive.

The television news is supposed to inform the people of the United States daily, bringing noteworthy information to the citizens, but often times it only shares exciting and grasping stories. Once a television news station discusses a topic they immediately move on, not referring to it again. Currently, in regards to Politics the news is solely mentioning results and minor things that are of little importance. Issues and political information that remains remarkably important are no longer or hardly mentioned. The information and stands that candidates have need to be shown more than one time and then discarded. Showing these stands and beliefs multiple times would make it easier for people who choose to get their information from newscasts, helping them decide who they truly relate to most, as well as with what the politicians agree and disagree with. Another substantial aspect, along with newcasts media is what stories are chosen to be aired to the public. When one story about a certain candidate is more intriguing than others they are talked about immensely, leaving the other candidate in the shadows and not mentioned at all.

Journalism is another method of media that affects politics considerably. Journalists commonly write stories in attempts to make the front page, juicy, sizable stories that are aimed to grab the greatest groups of peoples attention. If journalists wrote only about politicians stands, views, and plans then many people would simply not pay attention. To a large number of people within the United States, they would skip it and turn the page. Another issue with news papers is that journalists often times only focus on the black and white areas, for example areas that are understood and clear to everyone, rather than gray areas that many people find confusing and possibly do not even understand. Rather than clearing up what people are confused about they share simple facts that many people already know.

A positive portion of media however, is the Presidential Candidates use of websites (although in some cases they manage to make it a negative one). Each Candidate has a website in which their issues, positions, events, and news are clearly shown and accessible. But how many people take the time go online and read about the candidates views when they have facebook, twitter, and other social medias begging for their attention?  An intriguing idea for the website side of politics would be including a feature where all candidates are found on a single website, where valuable information is listed, and certain issues could be exhibited side by side to comprehend the contrasting views.

Through the use of media in regards to politics it is challenging for people to know who truly stands for what, and this can be directly connected to the low number of voter turnouts. Real, unbiased, reliable information is hard to find, and when people vote without knowing proper information, it causes the American voter to be very frightening.

http://www.uky.edu/AS/PoliSci/Peffley/pdf/ZallerTheoryofMediaPolitics(10-99).pdf

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/2016-election-social-media-ruining-politics-213104

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/

https://www.tedcruz.org/index.html

Internet Memes and Attack Ads

I wanted to make my first post on the John Oliver video, but I think the video is too old now. Also, I've watched it three times; once by myself, again with my mom, and a third time with a friend. They have very different political views, and I think my analysis/review would be too skewed and ranty now. I will say, I think the video is well put together and its worth the 20 minutes watch time (like I said, I watched it three times, which equals an hour). Although I will also say, I don't know how factual the information is because I didn't fact check. I'm one of those people who recommends a 20-minute without knowing the validity behind it. It's not that I don't want to fact check, it's just... I don't have enough hours in a day to google everything I read on the internet (and okay, maybe I also don't want to... just a little bit). If I don't want to check the facts, as a person in college studying politics, what makes any other average person motivated to check?

With social media playing a bigger role in this election than ever, there is A LOT of information flying around. Facebook LOVES memes. Check out these I found just scrolling through my newsfeed today:

Some of them had over 100,000 shares and thousands of comments. Most found images are targeted at Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. Some of these images (not the ones above) are helpful infographics to get information spread quickly but others sadly most informed. It is easy to spot out the false ones if you have been paying attention to the world around you. Others are less obvious and require some research. It is real easy to assume pretty pictures with facts and numbers are true. The question is, are these "memes" hurting the political system?

Attack ads are nothing new to campaigns. Remember the Daisy Girl ad? The Huffington Post in 2014 published an article written by Christopher Lamb, believes these types of ads bring humor to a usually dark subject. Like I said, here in 2016, the internet loves images. While yes, they are funny sometimes, but it's unprofessional and demeaning to how serious the presidential campaign is. On the other hand, are these memes and images bringing more people into the political world? Attack ads on TV are paid for... with money. Making an image then posting it on the internet costs nothing and anyone can do it. Anyone can share or comment on them. Ideas and opinions are spread so rapidly because we can like and share things instantly. Sharing images and ideas allow people to be connected to the campaign. However, those connections are not always beneficial to the knowledge of the voter or the integrity of the candidate. 

Webpages mentioned/inspired by:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5856984

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-primaries/272288-study-76-percent-of-attack-ads-target-trump

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0221-mcmanus-ad-report-card-20160221-column.html

http://www.newschannel5.com/news/could-political-memes-impact-election-results

Blog Schedule

Week of March 7

Kelsey 

Week of March 21

Samantha
Sophia
Sean
Brooke
Justin
Rory

Week of March 28

Joseph
Taylor
Kevin
Sophia
Cullen
Olyvia

Week of April 4

Joseph
Taylor
Kevin
Brooke
Stephen
Rory

Week of April 11

Zachary
Sean
Ben
Megan
Ryan
Stephen

Week of April 18

Robert
Trevor
Zachary
Moises
Megan
Olyvia

Week of April 25

Robert
Moises
Nitsa
Haven
Ryan
Cullen
Ben

Week of May 2

Trevor
Nitsa
Haven
Kelsey
Justin
Samantha