Comments on a peers blog

     Your points about lobbyist ruining our democracy are absolutely dead on. I like how you spelled it out, making three easy to understand statements on the topic.
      I'm not sure funding campaigns with public money will solve the issue, but it might be a start. I do however agree that there needs to be more regulation over lobbyists and their kick-backs to elected officials.

What Happen to Compromise

     America was a country founded on the principles of compromise, but in today's modern government I see so no willingness to compromise.  Our politicians refuse to even agree on policy change that majority of the general public wants.  Many politicians seem to have this winner take all attitude.  This unwillingness to compromise is only hurting the people.

     I believe that people are getting too caught up in standing for a single party or ideology.  And this unwillingness to even hear the other side out is ruining our government.  I feel as though the politicians are not all to blame for this.  I think Americans has a whole have become less willing to compromise with people who do not think as they do.  People are stubborn and stuck in their ways.  This is why people of Conservative thinking typically watch FOX News and people of more liberal thinking watch  MSNBC or Current. I believe people are aligning themselves with policies simply because of their political party allegiance. Instead of looking at the individual polices and deciding what truly suits them best. People seem to be content on just agreeing with what their preferred political party stance is even if it may be contradictory to what they really what from the government.
     People involved in politics are so busy worrying about winning and losing, that they lose sight of what is really important and that is making policy that can truly help the people. We need people in government who are willing to work with the other side.  Because, if everybody refuses to work with anybody on the opposing side nothing gets done.   

Comments on a colleagues work

I would agree with you but I’m not quite sure what your stance is. Do you support the continue occupation of Afghanistan  or are you against it. This blog post is quite confusing you make points that oppose the war and then make counter arguments that support it. I feel as if you had mixed feelings about the war. And if this was the case  you should have given closing arguments that expressed that. So that the reader could better understand what your position is.    

The War on Drugs, Really?

     The War on Drugs is a clear example of one of America's worst handled polices. According to drugsense.org the U.S. government, "spent over $15 billion dollars in 2010 on the War on Drugs, at a rate of about $500 per second."  Now to me this seems like an outrageous amount of money for a failing policy. The war on drugs is no doubt failing. If the purpose of the war is to completely eradicate the presence of drugs in America, then it is most definitely failing. There have already been 416,408 people arrested for drug law offenses this year alone and 214,874 people have been arrested for cannabis law offenses this year. This means that roughly half  of all drug arrest this year were for a virtually harmless drug. Lets be honest people, weed is not a dangerous drug. In fact there has never been a recorded death due to an overdose of marijuana. But thousands of people die yearly from alcohol overdoses. Yet alcohol is legally available at almost every corner-store. 

     If the government had the people's best interest at heart they would rehabilitate drug offenders who are users and not just incarcerate them. There is a revolving door for drug offenders in America's current criminal system. By this I mean that people who are arrested for drug offenses are very likely to end up in jail again for the same offenses. The problem is that these people are addicted to drugs and locking them up is not a means to help them kick their habits. Addicts need to be rehabilitated in order to have any chance of recovering from their addiction. Also when people are convicted of drug offenses their permanent record is negatively effected. Thus making it harder for those individuals to find a decent job that can help them be a productive member of society. This may force them into a life of crime and eventually behind bars yet again.

     GreenWellness blog post best describes the War on Drugs when stating,

I think we can all say that the “War on Drugs” seems to be some what of a disaster. Millions of citizens are irresponsible put through the court system, Billions of dollars are pumped into the fighting Marijuana’s “dangers” from reaching our neighborhoods, but still crack, heroin, and disease run ramped in most slums around the the country, not to include the huge increase in our youth getting hooked on pharmaceutical drugs.     

A Democracy For Those Who Can Afford it

   
      The New Times has recently published an editorial called "Donors With Agendas". In this article the author claims that, "the nations wealthiest can buy elections".  To me this is a very serious claim. The idea that policy affects us all and can be influenced by a few well to do individuals is quite alarming. The author states that through super PACs (Political Action Committee), wealthy individuals and companies are legally able to give very large donations to candidates who support their causes.    
     According to Wikipedia's page about PACs the articles fear of super PACs is justified. Because, "provided they are operated correctly, they can raise unlimited sums from individuals, corporations, unions and other groups"  The article states that over 80 percent of money collected by super PACs comes from, "just two dozen or so individuals."  To better persuade the audience of how the current political system is flawed; the writer gives some examples of how wealthy individuals have given large sums of money to super PACs with obvious intentions to get policies put in place that favor and benefit them.
     The author of this article wrote this editorial in order to inform the general public of what is happening on Capitol Hill. Because the author criticizes members of both major parties, I believe his intentions to be noble and true. I feel the article clearly explains what is going on and why it is wrong.  From the information given by the article it is reasonable to think that some wealthy people have entirely too much say in the U.S. government.     
    

  

Controversy Over Contraceptives

     I recently read a very interesting article in the New York Times by Helene Cooper called "Obama Acts to Calm Furor on Birth Control Coverage Rule". (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/11/health/policy/obama-to-offer-accommodation-on-birth-control-rule-officials-say.html?hp)  The article is about a new administration rule requiring health insurance plans to provide free birth control to female employees.  Including plans offered by Roman Catholic hospitals, charities and colleges.  The article states that the president has revised the bill so that insurance companies' not religious institutions would have to cover the cost of the contraceptives.  The article expresses that the revision came about because of pressure from religious leaders and "Republicans in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail".
     I feel this is a great article, because of how accurately it displays the political climate of today.  Since this is such a controversial issue that crosses over so many aspects of government.  Because it's not just about religious freedom but also about women's rights and health care.  The article shows, how it can be difficult to appease a public with a variety of opposing viewpoints.
     
    
     

Hi all my name is matt and this is my blog.