Of the two readings, I chose “The Tyranny of the Nanny State.” I chose it because, on average, I think the federal government does an okay job. That doesn’t mean I agree with everything they do, but I think that if they weren’t there we’d be in trouble. This article made a lot of good points of where the federal government has overreached. I agree- there are points where the federal government has unnecessarily gotten involved in situations like this article brings up with the arrests of parents for “child negligence”. But, I think people neglect to consider all of the good they do. In general, I believe that the federal government does its job to the best of its ability. Should it be the be-all, end-all for our everyday decisions? No. But for its true purpose, to unify our country with an overarching set of rules? I think it does okay.
0 Comments
I think there is a lot of truth in this article, and I like it because it’s coming from a perspective that people don’t usually take. I think that women are becoming more represented in politics than they were, but we could definitely be doing better. She said in her article that family roles don’t take any effect on women’s decision to run for president, but the perception that a woman can’t take the role still exists. The biggest reason women don’t run in politics is that they are less likely to be encouraged to run or chosen for a position when a position opens up. The electoral gatekeepers are typically surrounded by male-dominated industries. It isn’t that there is a bias against women, they just aren’t prevalent in the pool of candidates.
I watched maybe half of the GOP debate last night, then I had to turn it off. It got way too frustrating. It wasn't substantiative at all- I felt like I was watching the most verbose "your mom" fight I'd ever seen. To me, half of the debate was political pandering and fearmongering, while the other half was just everybody personally offending everyone else. Really, Trump? Using Jeb Bush's wife as his reason for a lenient standing on immigration? That was a low blow, and nobody can deny it. If anyone "won" this debate, I'd have to say it would be a tie between Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina, and Ben Carson. They were the only ones who acted like adults for most of the debate! I don't agree with a lot of things they spoke of, but at least they seemed more responsible in their reactions to burns from the other candidates. However you felt about the debate last night, I just have one closing thought: if you didn't follow Bernie Sanders live-tweeting the debate, you missed everything good. Everyone's accepted that during the GOP race, there are seven key issues that are going to have to be addressed: immigration, foreign policy, climate change, economy, education, abortion, and gay marriage. In my opinion there's only one that requires our immediate attention in the very beginning: immigration. It's affecting the economy in ways that nobody could have predicted, and it has to be addressed tactfully and appropriately to avoid damaging our relationships with the Mexican people and without significant economical impact.
Since his seems to be the most radical, intense plan, I chose to focus on Donald Trump's immigration plan. I found it particularly amusing because his plan had one main point- build a wall. Build a big wall, then ship out thousands of people a day. In my opinion, he has an idea that comes from a genuine place, but it completely unforgiving, and it's financially unfeasible. Shipping and processing thousands of illegal immigrants a day would not only put unnecessary strain on the economy by putting through all of the paperwork for each person, it would remove the option for one to gain legal access to the US. It leaves us with the question- how do we keep our country safe and secure, while still giving these people, who come to the US looking for a better life, a fair chance to live the lives we take for granted? |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
November 2015
Categories |