Reservations, Concentration, Internment, Detention Camps: Always Illegal? Always Immoral?

Today, and for the foreseeable future, Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp remains open. The camp currently holds over two hundred prisoners that have never been convicted of a crime. These men are being held against their will, against their country's desires, and against every law. The Bush Administration started this camp in the name of fighting terrorism but that has been nothing but a farce. Lawrence Wilkerson, a member of George W. Bush's Cabinet as the Secretary of States Chief of Staff, spoke out vehemently about the illegal actions regarding Guantanamo. He states that Bush and his staff have claimed knowledge that most of the inmates are innocent and not involved with any type of crime, let alone terrorism.

Prisoners have claimed to be tortured daily by sensory deprivation, stress positions, and other heinous forms of punishment. Their hunger strikes forcibly stopped by shoving tubes up their noses and down their throats, their requests for trial denied, and they are emasculated and religiously persecuted. All of this is being done because our government created a loophole through which it does not need to follow the law nor be accountable to it. Since Guantanamo technically is not on U.S. land it does not need to abide by the Constitution. Further, the Bush Administration just decided that these prisoners, because of their status as "extraordinarily dangerous", were not entitled to protection under the Geneva Conventions. Thankfully that has been overturned.

When America did it to the Native Americans with Reservations, it was wrong. When Hitler did it to the Jewish People with Concentration Camps, it was wrong. When America did it to Japanese Americans with Internment Camps, it was wrong. When America is doing it now to Muslims and Arabs with Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp, it is wrong. The prejudice and persecution of a people because of fear has been governing humanity for far too long. How long do we ignore it? When will we end it?

In the Weed? Or Over It?

On Monday November 2, 2015, David Acosta published a blog post on his blog Dave the Rep. entitled, Legalize the Use of Recreational Marijuana!. Acosta postulates that the legalization of marijuana for recreational purposes will benefit the national economy, incarceration rates, and the quality of life. Acosta makes a quality argument utilizing logic and emotion to make his case.

His first point is made in stating that many of the presidential candidates have participated in recreational marijuana use and that they possess no issue with this activity. Acosta's language choice, however, indicates that his support of this movement is conditional upon the candidates' support, which doesn't seem to be his truth. He goes on to emphasize the beneficial effect legalizing marijuana would have on the economy by creating extra money through an undermining of organizations. Does he mean crime organizations? Acosta's argument may have been strengthened by including evidence from Colorado's success in legalization or in the creation of jobs nationwide. Next he proposes that by removing the criminal aspect of recreational marijuana use incarceration rates will drop, reducing tax spending, thus improving the economy. This portion of his argument is very strong. Acosta's final appeal is an emotional one, pointing out the increase in quality of life of the terminally ill and people in pain through marijuana intake. Attuning to compassion through an ease of suffering viewpoint is an incredibly smart and solid argument.

David Acosta has a few word choices that cause confusion but creates a well formulated and strong argument for the legalization of recreational marijuana.

Mass Graves? Or Minor Changes?

As of October 1, 2015, America has accomplished a new feat, there have been more mass shootings than there have been days in this year. 294 mass shootings for 274 days. In addition to this, in the last 30 years there have been more than 70 popularized mass shootings and even more that have not been covered in national news, a little over 200 more. Nearly 11,000 people have been murdered, 22,000 have been injured, and about 600 of those killed and harmed have been children. According to Mother Jones, 57 of the popularized shootings have been committed with legally obtained weapons, that means more than 75% of the shooters obtained their weapons of mass destruction completely within the constraints of the law. However, despite this, the blame is nearly always placed on mental illness. While the reasons for why an individual becomes a mass murderer are, indeed, vastly complex, and mental health treatment in this country is still stigmatized and laughable, the infantile ease in which one can obtain a weapon is terrifying. It is obvious, whatever your belief about gun control, that something must change.

This meme has been circulating the internet lately with the increased attention on gun control and what America should do about it. The argument presented by this picture is that guns are not to blame for the violence they inflict but that the individual is responsible. For those unfamiliar with the Star Wars franchise, the individual wielding the Light Saber is Anakin Skywalker, a Jedi, who uses his weapon to commit a Jedi genocide, murdering all of the Padawans, or Jedi students. The main problem with the logic this meme is attempting to create is that only Jedi, after years of training and providing proof of skill and mental wellness were allowed access and the ability to wield their weapons. No one in their right mind, not even George Lucas, would give Jar Jar Binks a Light Saber.

As a fan and logical person this meme is insulting and unfortunately a popular opinion among not only the public but my peers. I believe wholeheartedly in equality and inalienable rights, I do not want to limits any ones rights to defend themselves. On the contrary I want to make sure that right is extended to the 600 children America has harmed in its negligence.

Increasing the regulatory processes of gun licensing and the penalties for infractions on that license is where we should start.

Reality? Or Parody?

On Monday October 12, 2015, Errol Louis published an article to CNN.com titled, The problem with Ben Carson. Louis details Carson's gaffes and missteps, as well as the many critiques coming from within his own party. The article further describes the former neurosurgeon as insensitive, incompetent, and unaware due to his responses during interviews and the GOP debate. Louis uses direct quotes from Carson and his critics to demonstrate the ways in which Carson is creating his own political demise.

Errol Louis is a tried CNN political commentator, in addition to being the host of NY1's Inside City Hall, a program about New York politics. Louis has a Bachelors in government from Harvard, a Masters in political science from Yale, and a Juris Doctorate from Brooklyn Law School. His target audience should include a heavy New York base and those that read CNN.

Louis establishes a logical argument by utilizing interviews, editorials, and the candidate's own campaign. Basing an argument events that were recorded and nationally broadcast is brilliant due to its inability to refute. He also takes the proposed poll strength of the former doctor and fashions it into a tool to undermine Carson's credibility. "Carson, like Donald Trump and Carly Fiorina, has enjoyed considerable political success in the polls so far simply by being a nonpolitician. Carson frequently makes a point of emphasizing that he simply speaks his mind, unencumbered by political correctness.The idea of plainspoken, unvarnished talk sounds great -- until you realize that leading a nation of more than 300 million people of every religion, race and ideology might require some diplomatic skill and a lot of knowledge."  Further, by using criticisms only coming from within Carson's suspected and supposed supporters, Louis is able to sew the seeds of discord within Conservatives.

I agree with Louis' argument. I hope that America is able to see that the things Carson is saying are the best indication of his inability to lead this nation. The absurdity and insensitivity that spews from that man's mouth makes me feel as though I am living in a political satire, it is absolutely surreal.

Funding? Or Fearing The Bern?

On October 1, 2015, Sam Frizell published an article to Time Magazine entitled, Why Hillary Clinton Should Fear Bernie Sanders' Fundraising In 2 Charts. Frizell demonstrates through graphs that although Senator Sanders has not raised as much money as his competition, he has many more contributors to his campaign. The article also discusses Sanders' feat of surpassing the number of dollars and contributors President Obama attained during his third quarter campaign. Frizell utilizes these points to inform his readers that Senator Bernie Sanders is not only a serious contender for the Democratic Primary Candidate but also for the Presidency.

Sam Frizell is an accomplished journalist writing for several established periodicals. He is currently employed by Time Magazine to write about Politics specifically from the Democrat perspective. Therefore, one can assume his target audience are American Democrats who read Time Magazine, with the potential to reach a broader readership.

Frizell creates an empirical argument through graphs, facts, and figures. This data has been previously published by the candidates' campaigns without dispute. Utilizing "hard numbers" to establish an opinion creates very little room for opposition. Despite the article relying heavily on the data, Frizell uses language to imply Sanders' formidability. The word "fear" has immense connotation and is, therefore, extremely loaded. Suggesting someone should be afraid of anything or anyone, nearly always implies the weakness of those who fear and the strength of those that inspire it. "And Sanders has significantly outpaced Obama in total individual contributors, as shown here, based on statements from the campaigns themselves. (Clinton’s campaign hasn’t said how many individual contributors she has.)" This quote alone demonstrates Sanders' accomplishments and simultaneously proposes Clinton is apprehensive in revealing her support because she doesn't measure up.

While I don't think Secretary Clinton should be afraid of her competition, I do think that if she desires to be the President of the United States she should be aware of what other candidates are doing and of how much support they possess.

Cashtags: Innovative or Guerrilla?

On Tuesday, September 15, 2015, NPR published an article titled #Cashtag: Twitter To Allow Direct Campaign Contributions. The article is about Twitter creating a direct drop for constituents' funds into a campaign through the use of its social media power. I think this article is worth reading because it indicates many potentially important changes to our nation. Firstly, this shows that politics are moving with the times. Not only are all candidates campaigning through social media, now they can take your money and information with a simple tap. Through embedding themselves in what's "trending" politicians are making themselves relevant to anyone who has an online presence, and let's be honest, that is a far reaching arm. Given social media's anonymity, which allows people that might otherwise not express their political leanings, it provides a platform for a more guerrilla style of campaigning. In addition to rallies and traveling, candidates will now have donations that can come from the every-man. The article mentions that most of Senator Sanders' donations have been under $200.00. Its possible this will allow more individuals to participate directly in the political system. It may change candidates being funded by interested groups and corporations to literally being supported and accountable to the people. The last possible change this Twitter creation indicates is the end of our current monetary system. Since the U.S. left the gold standard, our currency's value is based completely on faith. We, as a nation, continue to encourage electronic money in debit and credit cards. In an increasingly paperless world, where I feel bad I never have cash for panhandlers and I believe anyone who does carry paper money is a drug dealer, it makes complete sense that the politicians are collecting their money digitally as well. This article while not saying much suggests huge implications for our nation.   

Intro

Hello Government!! K. Seago