Blog #8: Comment on Classmate's Work: Pink Tax

I found Rayroo's "Blog 5" about Pink Tax to be very interesting and unique. This is something I've never given much thought to, but it is something all women should be aware of. Products targeted for woman such as lotions, razors, and shaving creams cost more, and services are also priced higher. I'll use the example of a haircut. My boyfriend pays 15-20 dollars to get a hair cut from pretty much any men's barber--in multiple cities and states. This includes a beard trim as well. I have visited many salons in my life time--in different cities and states and at different "levels" of quality. They all share one thing in common--they are expensive! So while my boyfriend pays 15 dollars, I pay an average of 75 dollar for a simple trim and wash. It doesn't matter the length of hair, thickness, or time it takes. I have gotten a simple trim with no wash, paid 65 dollars, and was out of the chair in less than ten minutes. This specific example only touches the surface of showing the extreme difference between what men and women pay. I particularly found interest when Rayroo wrote, "We spend thousands a year just because of the 'disadvantage' of being a woman. Tampons and pads are charged sales tax because they are considered 'luxury' items and it makes no sense to me." Tampons and pads are not "luxury items." As Rayroo mentioned, speaking up and questioning companies is a way to put a stop to this. Congresswoman Jackie Speier opposes this tax and introduced the Pink Tax Repeal Act to the federal government. I am curious to see if anything changes with this in the future. I really enjoyed reading this blog, and it made me think about this specific topic in greater detail. It seems like such a small thing--complaining about spending more on products and services--but it represents the greater issue of inequality that needs to be addressed. 

Electoral College: Good or Bad?

The more I learn about the Electoral College, the more I believe it should be abolished or refined. I think using the popular vote would make the most sense, but some fear this would lead to parts of the country being politically lost. A realistic approach to fixing the Electoral College is to create a nation-wide system similar to Maine and Nebraska meaning we would eliminate the "winner take all" system that is done in other states. According to a ProCon article, "In Nebraska and Maine, the candidate that wins the state's overall popular vote receives two electors, and one elector from each congressional district is apportioned to the popular vote winner in that district." All states should be doing this because it would establish consistency throughout the country and allow the Electoral College to better represent the American people. Furthermore, this change could encourage eligible voters to vote. This is especially important in states that are strictly always red or blue and currently use a "winner take all" method. People feel their votes may not even matter in states like this--if their vote is on the opposing side of their state's color.

The question of the Electoral College's relevance has become a hot issue in recent years. People seem to have strong opinions supporting each side making this is a difficult issue to address. Even President Trump has been quoted going both ways on the issue. Trump said, "With the Popular Vote, you go to just the large States -- the Cities would end up running the Country. Smaller States & the entire Midwest would end up losing all power -- & we can't let that happen." However, could this statement be because this system is currently benefiting him? Earlier Trump said, "I would rather see it where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes and somebody else gets 90 million votes and you win."

I looked into some pro Electoral College arguments. One "pro" of the Electoral College is that the Founding Fathers put it there for a reason. They intended that it would ensure that educated individuals were choosing the president and that an unfit individual would not be put in office. In addition, the Electoral College is suppose to protect people in less populated areas of the country by providing them with representation and importance; after all, we do live in a representative democracy, and both of these "pros" support that.  However, the Constitution has been ratified and will continue to be so why can't we change how the Electoral College works? We do not live in the same time as our Founding Fathers, and we need to stop seeing them as gods. Political education is lacking in our country, but the information is available--unlike it was in the days of our Founding Fathers. Supporters say if the Electoral College goes away, small states and parts of the country will be ignored. But what about our current situation? According to ProCons, in reference to the last election, "Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have made more than 90% of their campaign stops in just 11 so-called battleground states. Of those visits, nearly two-thirds took place in the four battlegrounds with the most electoral votes--Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and North Carolina." This demonstrates that the battle states hold too much power, and others are being ignored.

I am an advocate for change. America has to stop being afraid to change. We need to let go of this idea that the Constitution is a holy document. Respecting our past and where our country has come from is important, but embracing change to make our country better is imperative as we move forward.

If you are interested in learning more about the Electoral College, here are a few interesting and informative articles:
New York Times
ProCon.org
ThoughtCo.

Blog #6: Comment On Classmate's Work: "Marijuana, don't mess with Texas?"

To legalize or to not legalize marijuana is a hot topic these days. The blog post "Marijuana, don't mess with Texas?" posted on April 5, 2019 by Arnelious Dominich gives an interesting perspective on the issue and raises many intriguing questions about the topic. I agree that marijuana should become legal, however, my only concern is that large companies may end up ruining the product. Companies will want to get their hands on it for none other than......that's right......money. Those concerns a side, I do believe marijuana should be legalized. I have a medical condition that would benefit from medical marijuana for pain management. I currently do not use marijuana for treatment, but I would like to have the option to obtain it legally if I choose to do so. Just as Dominich expressed, I grew up being told that marijuana was evil and only bad people used it; that is simply a misrepresentation of marijuana use. My favorite part about this post is comparing the safety of tobacco and alcohol to marijuana. Dominich writes,

"IF the people that don’t allow the legalization of marijuana say that it’s because of health concerns and they worry for the public, then why are things such as tobacco (which has been proven to cause lung cancer) and alcohol (which has been proven to damage the liver) still okay to sell and buy?"

I agree 100%. On top of alcohol and tobacco, opioids are prescribed legally which can lead to serious addiction and have other serious side effects. Pharmaceutical drugs prescribed today can be very dangerous and have multiple negative side effects. Marijuana can be used in place of some of these pharmaceuticals for different symptoms and diseases with the benefit of less negative side effects. 

I think Dominich delivered a great opinionated blog post with lots of good thoughts and questions. I encourage people to learn more about marijuana and look at the pros and cons of making marijuana legal. This is a good post to get your thoughts rolling. 

The Government's Role In Fighting Climate Change & A Closer Look At the Green New Deal

Climate change is an increasing topic of interest. On a small-scale, individuals can fight climate change by educating themselves, voting, recycling, eating local foods or growing their own foods, using energy wisely, being conscious of travel practices, and making changes to homes to become more energy efficient. If more people made an effort to do these things, we would be headed in the right direction to continue positive change.

What can the government do on a large-scale to fight climate change? 
You may be hearing a lot about the Green New Deal. But what exactly is the Green New Deal? Some extreme conservatives say that if you support the Green New Deal, you can say goodbye to ice cream, hamburgers, and airplanes. This is not true. Making sense of what the deal is proposing can be difficult, so let's take a look at what it has to offer.

The Green New Deal was introduced by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Edward Markey, and the proposal is ambitious. In addition to promoting positive practices to fight climate change, it also aims to address poverty and inequality. One of the main goals of the project is to get the entire world to "net-zero emissions by 2050--meaning as much carbon would have to be absorbed as released into the atmosphere--and the United States must take a 'leading role' in achieving that." To work towards this huge goal, the plan calls for a 10-year mobilization meaning the US would need to make extreme changes such as sourcing 100% of electricity from renewable power, digitizing the power grid, upgrading buildings to be more energy efficient, and making changes in transportation such as electric vehicles and high-speed rails. In addition, the deal says the government is responsible for providing job training that focuses on economic development; this is especially important to areas that have relied on the fossil fuel industry. If passed by congress, the deal would be nonbinding meaning nothing stated in the proposal would become a law. Their goals are huge, and a big question remains unanswered: Exactly how much is this going to cost? Let's look at an example from the New York Times which states, "Modernizing the electrical grid across the United States could cost as much as $476 billion, yet reap $2 trillion in benefits, according to a 2011 study issued by the Electric Power Research Institute." Change will cost money; there is no way around that concept, but the expected economic growth could be substantial and worth the initial cost to implement change.

In addition to the Green New Deal, let's take a look at a few basic steps the government can take part in to help slow climate change.This article is an easy read, straight forward, and a great resource to begin learning more about what the government can do and what Americans should be demanding. Government actions such as protecting and restoring ecosystems, supporting small farms, promoting green energy, and creating policy for short-lived climate pollutants will put us on a path towards positive change.

I encourage everyone to start taking small steps as individuals; your actions may seem small, but can have a large-scale effect. Do I fully support the Green New Deal? I'm not sure yet, but I do believe the proposal has many good and bold ideas, and talk of this deal encourages me to learn more. I am impressed to see leaders trying to take a stance to slow climate change, protect the environment, and protect our future and generations to come.

Should the U.S. make changes in the way it conducts presidential elections?

"8 Ways to Fix America's Messed-Up Presidential Elections" is an article by Ted Rall and posted on March 13, 2019 that discusses his take on how the election process can improve. His ideas are to the point, straight forward, and represent a progressive way of thinking. I really enjoyed his article, and I agree with many of his ideas. Rall states, "Presidential campaigns could be improved . . . and it wouldn't require revolutionary change, just common-sense reforms." This statement is really well put. Sometimes I wonder why our country resists change so much. We have this idea that what has been, based on the Founding Fathers and out dated political ways, is the only way; this simply is not true. Rall proposes that people consider eight steps to help improve presidential elections. These steps include: eliminating open primaries, amending Article II of the Constitution (requirements for running for president), giving presidential debates back to independent sponsorship, leveling the campaign playing field and limiting campaign spending, making voting easier for voters, setting limitations as to who can run for president, getting rid of the Electoral College, and giving third parties a better opportunity to get on the ballot. Of all Rall's proposals, I found one particularly interesting and unique: setting limitations as to who can run for president. Rall writes, "If you cannot pass a simple test about the U.S. and its political system, you should not be allowed to run." This concept sounds so simple, yet I never considered that a president may not be able to do this. That is a problem. In addition, Rall proposes that "if you're an incumbent officeholder, you should not run . . . If you own investments in a business . . . or hold office in a company, you should not present yourself as a candidate for the presidency . . . If a close family member by blood or marriage served as president or vice president, you should not run." I find this to be a very interesting take on the rules of selecting a president. At this moment, I can't say I disagree or agree, but I am intrigued with the idea. I believe Rall has some great ideas that could improve and bring great change to presidential elections. Unfortunately, others may not be open to change. I think refining the way we do elections is so important right now, and I enjoy reading other's opinions and ideas about how to take action and implement change.

Ted Rall is a columnist, author, and cartoon artist. Rall has gotten himself into some serious predicaments with some questionable cartoons. An example of this is a cartoon published in October 2007 saying, "Over time, however, the endless war in Iraq began to play a role in natural selection. Only idiots signed up; only idiots died. Back home, the average I.Q. soared." As you can imagine, this upset many people, both liberal and conservative. A number of other cartoons by Rall attracted negative attention throughout his career. In addition, Rall writes about domestic and international affairs and pays special attention to central Asia. He seems to be someone who speaks his mind. Is he someone I can always agree with? No. However, I find his ideas in this article to be well presented and a way to promote change in our country.

The Question of Morality

As I prepared breakfast yesterday morning, I heard the news in the background reporting on the meeting between President Trump and Kim Jong Un. I stopped for a minute as I heard what appeared to be Trump defending Kim Jong Un. Wait. Did I hear this correctly? Trump believes that Kim Jong Un didn't know about Otto Warmbier's torture and time in prison? Trump believes Kim Jong Un "feels badly about it."? I already have my issues with Trump, but this I simply could not believe.

Later that day, I came across an article in the New York Times called "Morality and Michael Cohen" written by David Brooks and posted on February 28, 2019. This was perfect timing after hearing about Trump defending Kim Jong Un. In his article, Brooks writes with pure emotion as he questions Trump's, Cohen's, and Republican House members' morality. In addition, Brooks is challenging all of America to take a look at their lives and evaluate whether they are being true to their morals. Brooks first addresses that Trump seems to mainly care about his brand and writes, "In turning himself into a brand he's turned himself into a human shell," suggesting that Trump has completely turned himself off to doing what is right. In Michael Cohen's testimony on Wednesday, Cohen reveals many of Trump's questionable actions. Brooks discusses how he feels Cohen in telling the truth, but he doesn't "believe he [Cohen] is a changed man . . . He's [Cohen] just switched teams and concluded that the Democrats can now give him what he wants." By observing the actions of Trump and Cohen, Brooks is questioning the morality of Republican House members. Brooks believes they are traveling down a slippery path where they turn their moral sense off at work and try to turn it back on when they return home. Is this true? Could this be true with many politicians? Brooks goes on to address America in general by wondering if Trump supporters are completely distancing themselves from their morals to defend and support a man that is morally corrupt. He writes, "Immorality usually bites you in the ass. If you behave in a way that betrays relationship and obliterates the truth and erases your own integrity, you will sooner or later wind up where Michael Cohen has wound up--having ruined your life."

David Brooks is a Republican columnist at the New York Times and describes himself as a moderate. He has worked as an editor for The Wall Street Journal and The Weekly Editor and as a contributing editor fo Newsweek and The Atlantic Monthly. While I admire Brooks for speaking his mind, a number or writers and journalists criticize him for not supporting his views with facts and statistics. Furthermore, when Brooks has included supportive facts, they have turned out to be untrue. However, an opinion writer named Tom Scocca has defended Brooks by saying that Brooks may not turn to facts "because he perceives facts and statistics as an opportunity for dishonest people to work mischief." I appreciate how Brooks wrote this article. He uses what he is observing and what many Americans are observing every day to form an opinion. It many not be full of hard facts and tons of statistics, but I don't think that is always needed when writing about morality. All Americans--Republicans, Democrats, and those in the middle--need to find a way to stay true to their morals, and we need to decide if Trump is a leader we can be proud of or if he is leading us down a path where we all end up lost.

The Great Debate of "The Wall"

I was recently introduced to the The Smirking Chimp, a collection of work, news, and commentary from a liberal perspective. In the article “The Psychology of the Wall” by John Feffer and posted on February 14, 2019, Feffer discusses ideas behind building a wall. This is a pressing matter in our country today. Feffer not only discusses the wall in the US, but he also brings attention to the history of walls being built in other countries. From small towns in Romania separating themselves to Hungary building a wall on its border with Siberia, Feffer examines what drives countries and cities to build walls. Why are humans so desperate to keep people out? Feffer writes, “In Trump’s mind, walls define the parameters of privilege.” In other words, only those who are citizens of the United States deserve the privileges that come with it, and those privileges should not leak out of the borders.  In addition, Trump is giving the idea of security without actually giving security. Feffer goes on to say, “A wall is largely a symbol. It means nothing when the United States refuses to address the true causes of insecurity, both at home and abroad.” I think these words are powerful, and I agree with Feffer. Overall, this article sparks interest with readers making them want to understand the idea of a wall on a different level. By doing so, readers can develop a strong opinion about their stance on the United States building a wall on the Mexico border. What do you think? Does America need a wall for it to defend citizen's privileges and provide security?