Comment in Response to "Body Cameras"

The blog post titled, "Body Cameras" has some interesting points but overall I agree with what they say. Cameras for police officers has no drawbacks that people already encounter. If people are afraid of being recorded then they should never step outside their home or they should move to the country. Cities even smaller cities have recording devices placed at every business, ATM, traffic cameras, home security systems, etc. All day some camera is recording the public, not to mention all electronic devices with built in cameras. Regarding police video taping sensitive situations, the cameras have an off button and the footage can be erased. The positive aspects are tremendous and should not be ignored. Police and citizens will act better knowing they are being filmed, as the blogger mentioned. However I disagree Congress will know how to implement this program. I think academics and privacy experts should spearhead writing the law and seeking Congress' approval.

!Effects and Affects of the American Government!: Body Cameras

!Effects and Affects of the American Government!: Body Cameras: There has recently been some suspicious killings of unarmed black men that has brought up the question of whether or not our police for...

!Effects and Affects of the American Government!: Body Cameras

!Effects and Affects of the American Government!: Body Cameras

A Time for Action

The US government continues to ignore the plight and denigration of the socioeconomically disadvantaged and minorities. This precedent started very early in this country’s history and continues to propagate in society. Constant maltreatment, deprival of opportunities, and the breakup of communities has strained many places to the precipice. The animus of those in government has been lackadaisical and one of insouciance. What is expected when people are marginalized and oppressed and an event occurs that conflagrates the situation? This would be what has taken place in Baltimore and many other cities throughout the country.

The Washington Post contains an article about the downward spiral of Baltimore’s urban neighborhoods. It provides insightful facts, highlighting specific details, as well as providing broader information concerning other areas. What it points out perfectly is the network of agents involved in breaking apart the city. The government constantly put infrastructure, and commercial interests ahead of its citizens. Now the people feel less as citizens and more as denizens. To make matters worse the mayor, police commissioner, the governor, and politicians across the nation are calling for the people to control themselves. They demand that the people conform and follow the law, respecting the property and rights of others. How can these people be told to follow the law when the situation they are in derives from injustice? In addition the government officials frame the situation as a problem caused by the people and solvable only by the people, this is preposterous.

The US government’s inaction in addressing Baltimore’s problems and others around the country is aggravating and pressuring the communities involved. These communities are not able obviate or forfend themselves especially in the current political climate and the current economic climate. The sufferance of the government towards the problems longstanding in the country are building to a breaking point. If they are not addressed more riots will occur with great frequency. People will acquiesce for only so long before they protest and possibly become inimical. The government needs to educate the people, employ them, strengthen their communities, and provide parity under the law. 

Response to: Knowledge is power.: Yes to Iran Nuclear Deal

     The situation concerning Iran and the nuclear research and development it is undertaking is dubious at a minimum and worthy of attention. The blog states the negotiations in progress, with Iran and a coalition of international governments, should be accomplished and this is true. Delaying a treaty or some other political detente is pernicious to the Iranian people and the world if not the region. The main instrument in pressuring Iran comes in the form of sanctions which trickle down hardships upon the people. An extreme example of this is air quality and pollution increasing drastically after sanctions went into effect. Unfortunately the common people have no choice or recourse to improve their situations. The Iranian government controls the country from media, to internet, to elections, and activism.

    As the blogger stated one of the concerns is if Iran will "cheat" in its responsibilities. What should be considered is that if Iran were to break promise there are methods to know this scientifically, intelligence wise, and militarily. The science required to enrich uranium and the infrastructure needed is beyond this discussion but Iran definitely needs help and time to do this.

     Second the IAEA is adept at inspecting for compliance and violations. Though they do not have policing or enforcement authority they are able to inform the international authorities of problems when they arise. If for some reason Iran does not allow the inspectors to conduct their duties, red flags will appear and Iran will have to deal with possible sanctions and other recourse.

     Third Israel and the US Republican Congressmen are attempting to incite discord. To the benefit of the negotiations Israel continues to sour relations with the US though this is minor. The Republicans are seen in a negative light for this and other political maneuvers they employ, but it has not stopped negotiations. In the grand scheme of things both of these parties probably realize that Iran can be better controlled and persuaded if they are brought into the international "fold."  

     What should be understood is that it is in the benefit of Iran to strike a deal. It is isolated economically and politically from the rest of the world. If it came down to it, military action could be taken to stop Iran from building a nuclear device and that is always an option everyone knows.

The Military

The US military's capabilities are nearly incomparable to the combined might of most if not all the militarizes of the world. Spending figures alone place the US well above the expenditures of the next few countries added together. Obviously gutting the budget of the military would damage the country and its ability to defend itself. In addition the budget of the military is not the largest expense percentage wise of the gross domestic product of the US. However the expanse of the military physically, geographically, and economically is troubling. The US has built bases in many places across the world and continues to create more and more. The size and numbers of military personnel and equipment are also increasing quickly. These two result in large dollar figures steadily moving upward and projected to increase. An idea to change this should be simple but nontraditional. The US should eliminate nearly all bases throughout the world leaving as few as possible. Many bases are sources of problems for host countries and require funds to maintain. The US should also limit the increase in military spending to a specific percentage level and match the increase in funding to increases in funding to other areas, personally NASA, FDA, or NIH. Many areas in the government are lacking adequate funding or the funds to accomplish new research or development. The US should also consider consolidating the military branches and refocusing foreign policy to more peaceful ideas. Undoubtedly this will take time and effort but something needs to be done to fix as many areas of the government as possible soon.

Wayward thoughts on nonexistent issue

Reading media outside of a liberal perspective is definitely beneficial. This allows for arguments that counter held ideas or notions, and bring to light the concerns of opposing thought. A piece, by way of Canada Free Press, on the Free Republic blog site does not do this. It is understood that this was written for right-leaning consveratives, however this piece borders perpostuousness. Without employing pejorative requires work for this blog piece, as nearly every line is hyperbolic or hypocritical. Here is a breakdown.

A.   The author of the piece opines that President Obama works toward internally damaging the US with the intent of destroying the country. This was clearly stated in the opening line as a thesis of sorts for the rest of the piece.

1.      President Bush advocated for many public interests as documented by On The Issues, an organization with a goal of shedding light on politicians’ stances. A quick search in Google news archives from 2000 to 2008 did bring up articles criticizing his “public activism.”

2.      Even if President Obama becomes the US’s most outspoken president, does not detract from his symbol as “Head of State” or unofficial “Leader of the Free World. These titles bring implied responsibilities which include advocating on behalf of the public to Congress, the country, and any who will listen.

B.    Though not a claim but blight on the article is the description of the election of President Obama. Whether you voted for him or not does not diminish the integrity of the election as the article implies. It was not a “…coup d’état… [or just] another presidential election…” This sentence disgraces our government and what the country stands for.

1.      A counter to this point is the debacle of the Bush-Gore election; the US public accepted the event and eventual president despite the international embarrassment.

C.    The last point critiqued was on the location and content of President Obama’s response to the two police officers shot at Ferguson. The piece ridicules the President responding on a comedy show, and how he condemned the shooter but still spoke of the problem happening there. The assumption is the President should have only condemned the shooter and praise the police despite their years of racist actions.

1.      First, rarely does a President respond to a police shooting with a press conference. Even with the heated situation, the Justice Department is taking control of the situation under the delegation and supervision of the Presidency. As was expected Attorney General Eric Holder publicly responded to the event.

2.      Second, the President is a politician and will respond accordingly. He must still satisfy his political base and constituents. On the other hand he has an obligation to keep pressure in Ferguson due to the prejudices committed and indignation felt.

3.      Last, the President does not control where he receives news. Not to harp on President Bush but he heard of the terrorist attack at an elementary. He kept his composure and continued with his public engagement until he found a suitable time to leave and address the situation. President Obama’s reaction was appropriate to the severity of the event.

This piece is terrible even when reviewed with the benefit of the doubt. It is de rigueur to attack the President and over analyze every movement or word, however the entirety of the piece is spent demurring anything the President does. Going back to the first line and onward one can see that this piece is salacious, playing to false concerns, and instigating unsubstantiated claims. 

Death by Veto: A Keystone XL Pipeline Story

On Tuesday the 24th of February 2015, USA Today ran an editorial titled "Kill Keystone XL once and for all: Opposing view." The author Rhea Suh piggybacks on the Presidents veto of the pipeline to opine that the pipeline should be killed completely. The author speaks to the common citizen using her experience and education in environmental areas, and voices concerns pertinent to a varied group of citizens using summarized information from studies conducted by the State Department, EPA, and information from the public domain.

The article appears written for the common citizen that is either concerned for the environment or will be directly affected by the pipeline. The rhetoric and verbiage is clear, simple, and illustrative. This style implies that the reader is possibly simpler minded and needs attractive ideas to keep their attention. The presentation of the article harks to the reading That's Infotainment. It uses soft journalistic methods to keep the reader engaged: a pic of people protesting the pipeline, an editorial style layout, and quick bites of summarized information. The author understandably wants the reader to agree with her position considering her role as an environmentalist and mainstream journalist. She uses her expertise as President of the Natural Resources Defense Council to bring forth information that supports her case. This however may be interpreted as bias in both her information and her reasoning behind using certain information.

The gist of the article is that the pipeline is detrimental to the country on multiple fronts. The argument relies on oils direct and indirect pollution of the country and its use for foreign consumption.

1. The first claim is the location of the pipeline. There is the possibility of polluting the breadbasket of the country due to the location of the pipeline through oil spills or leaks. The Environmental Protection Agency has studies and contingency plans for oil spills from established pipelines and the chemicals used for these spills. According the EPA oil spills happen and the precedent of the US is to use toxic chemicals to clean up spills. This claim has merit for concern to our food supply.
2. The second claim is the consumption, type, and economics of the oil being transported by the pipeline. The oil would be sent overseas for refining, use, and is markedly less efficient to obtain from the earth. This lack of efficiency hurts the climate. The State Department has many studies assessing the pipeline and the oil and details information that is in line with these claims. It puts doubt on the safety and economic usefulness of the pipeline.
3. The last claim is purported by the oil industry on whether the pipeline will increase safety. Evidence provided in the article claims it will not and cites yearly incidents of train derailments and plans to increase rail and oil transportation. There was not sources cited but it implies the information could be in the public domain, especially considering the newsworthiness of train explosions.

Overall I do agree with the article and author. It is conceivable to be persuaded by this article as it touches on protecting the interests of the country on a national level and local level, and is both short term thinking and long term considerate. It does make one reconsider why the US and Canada are pushing with such vigor and passion a project with a body of evidence to the contrary.This project has many political consequences. It may make or break politicians and reelections. Jobs on the short term will be affected for it not being built and long term the price of oil will probably be slightly more expensive. The prospect of renewable energy and the environment for the long term can improve if the pipeline is not built.

Farm Subsidies back in the news

A new article from The Economist, titled Milking taxpayers, reintroduces a complex subject: the exploitation of farm subsidies graphically depicted to be wealthy individuals or organizations, the mismanagement of subsidy payouts, and peculiar cost saving measures implemented by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). The article touches on improper payouts by the government to farmers that did grow any crops and payments to deceased farmers. The cost for these payouts both correct and incorrect amount to $20 billion and it is stated that most is directed to, "...big, rich farmers producing staple commodities such as corn and soyabeans in states such as Iowa." Unfortunately political clout of farmers creates an environment that stifles reform on the subject. Congress addressed the problem in 2014 by passing a reform bill to modify the payout system and cut cost to the program. Part of the savings came from cuts to the food assistance program for needy families, an untoward byproduct of the USDA administering said program. The new, modified payout system links subsidy payments to commodity prices and output. The newest forecast by the USDA predicts a decline in farm income resulting in increased compensation to farmers. Taxes pay for the program hence taxes will be affected somehow. This has far reaching implications to the general public and the government. Unless the public demands better reform from politicians the expensive tax burden will continue, favoring many well positioned people and disadvantaging those in need. The article is interesting and should be given attention, it can be found here, http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21643191-crop-prices-fall-farmers-grow-subsidies-instead-milking-taxpayers and supporting material here, http://frac.org/leg-act-center/farm-bill-2012/ and https://www.congress.gov/113/bills/hr2642/BILLS-113hr2642enr.pdf.