Donald Trump, delete your twitter

I don't spend too much time on twitter, but I will admit to following our President's tweets. Trump has become infamous for his twitter rants, something very new for someone in that office. I think its just crazy that a 71 year old man is at any and all times liable to lose his temper on the internet in front of the world and act as immature as any pre teen.

The office of the president is no stranger to criticism or scorn, it has been that way since the beginning so I wonder if Trump really knew what he was signing up for. Our "fearless leader" needs to be a lot less sensitive and stop embarrassing us as a country by publicly attacking celebrities and athletes, throwing fits about being disrespected and calling anyone who disagree with his a "loser" or a "hater". 

What has this country come to where our President uses social media as one of his main way to communicate with the country he represents? Maybe it's fitting with the times, but I believe there is something to be said for professionalism especially in such a prestigious and powerful position. I mean come on, only America would have a cyber bully as a president! Make America great again indeed... 

If Trump really wants to be taken seriously as a president he needs to delete his twitter, or at least delegate that responsibility to someone with a bit more mental stability. But maybe it's a good thing that he is being so transparent, hopefully that will be his downfall. 

Gerrymandering: It's just not sexy

In today's intense political climate you get used to hearing a lot about the same issues, (immigration, healthcare, gun control, etc.) and don't get me wrong those are all really important, but there is one underlying practice that shapes our national policy and influences our federal government. Gerrymandering. It's not exactly catchy, and even more it is a malicious practice to manipulate votes and silence certain viewpoints. Basically its cheating, and there are no rules against it.
There are 435 seats in The House of Representatives, and each of those seats represent the interests of a district. These districts are defined by arbitrary lines which just happened to drawn by the party who is already in power. For example here in Texas, Austin (a relatively small area compared to the size of the state) is split up into more than 12 districts, splitting apart the more liberal voice of austin and over-representing rural areas which are predominately conservative. Democrats and Republicans alike are guilty of this mischief. Either side could manipulate districts to reflect political leanings that benefit their own causes even if that wasn't a true representation of the people in that area.
I think the best solution to this problem is to implement The Shortest Splitline Method. I wont get into the specifics but basically it is an effective, non-partisan way to divide up districts in a way that is a more true to life representation of the views of the citizens in a area. It is a way that everyone's voice can be heard. For better or worse, it would be more fair. That's a big part of Democracy, or so I've heard? This country needs to be fairly represented, whatever happens after that is our own fault.

No one is Pro-Abortion, not really

Greetings from somewhere above Panama City, I am currently on a plan headed for Lima, Peru, and then on to Cusco and Machu Pichu. Tonight on this flight I read my first op-ed in The National Review, because I wanted to expose myself to opinions that would differ from my own, to be a "well-rounded citizen". I thought that perhaps a well written argument from the "other side" would offer me some new perspective on an issue that as a woman is extremely important to my own life (SPOILER ALERT: I am the same godless liberal I've always been, FUCK the national review). Honestly it was difficult to get through. So lets get into it...

The article is titled, "The article is titled, "In Blocking Abortion Legislation, Democrats Will Display Their Extremism". Lets start by analyzing the target audience. This article was posted on October 18 on a blog called The National Review, a conservative political blog. The people who read this blog are largely looking for content that will confirm their existing biases. I can tell this biases are Pro-Life (an inappropriate name in my opinion because there is not Pro-death party), from the authors use of extreme description to signal his disagreement, e.g "bizzarely", "extremist", "politically toxic", "aversion to bipartisan compromise", etc. I guess that's nothing new, liberals and conservatives alike all like to read the articles that tell them they're right. I can't help but take it personally when its telling them that anyone besides a female individual should be able to make their own call on whether abortion is the right choice for them; an extremely difficult and personal decision. And just for the record, the author of this article is a man.  

The arguments that this article makes is that fetuses at 20 weeks should not be legally aborted besides the obvious exemptions of rape, incest, and endangering the life of the mother (the last thing I don't believe is actually considered as it should be). It is a rant against "Pro-Abortionists", considering abortion nothing less than infanticide. The only problem with this is that people don't actually want abortions, its an option that should be legally considered because it is not always the most humanitarian decision to bring a child into this world without the means to care for it or offer it a suitable life. When it comes down to it, the decision to procreate doesn't come down to just money (although admittedly kids are expensive), but to the capability for it's parents to appropriately care for it. Some people just aren't suited to raise children and all the money in the world couldn't change that. The author repeatedly refers to "science" however does not actually back up his argument with any specific study or concrete evidence. The only data he provides is that countries in Europe such as France, Germany, and Sweden permit abortions after a range of 13 to 18 weeks.

The conclusion to this article simply states that when this issue is brought to a vote in congress the Democrats will prevent the vote. Perhaps that's true, it is a pretty general statement after all. There isn't really a "why" answer provided at all. This entire article attacks "Pro-Abortionists", however no party adopts that title. Democrats, or anyone, do not encourage abortions, but it is only right and fair for women, or people with vaginas, to be able to make those kinds of decisions for themselves. ". Lets start by analyzing the target audience. This article was posted on October 18 on a blog called The National Review, a conservative political blog. The people who read this blog are largely looking for content that will confirm their existing biases. I can tell this biases are Pro-Life (an inappropriate name in my opinion because there is not Pro-death party), from the authors use of extreme description to signal his disagreement, e.g "bizzarely", "extremist", "politically toxic", "aversion to bipartisan compromise", etc. I guess that's nothing new, liberals and conservatives alike all like to read the articles that tell them they're right. I can't help but take it personally when its telling them that anyone besides a female individual should be able to make their own call on whether abortion is the right choice for them; an extremely difficult and personal decision. And just for the record, the author of this article is a man.  

The arguments that this article makes is that fetuses at 20 weeks should not be legally aborted besides the obvious exemptions of rape, incest, and endangering the life of the mother (the last thing I don't believe is actually considered as it should be). It is a rant against "Pro-Abortionists", considering abortion nothing less than infanticide. The only problem with this is that people don't actually want abortions, its an option that should be legally considered because it is not always the most humanitarian decision to bring a child into this world without the means to care for it or offer it a suitable life. When it comes down to it, the decision to procreate doesn't come down to just money (although admittedly kids are expensive), but to the capability for it's parents to appropriately care for it. Some people just aren't suited to raise children and all the money in the world couldn't change that. The author repeatedly refers to "science" however does not actually back up his argument with any specific study or concrete evidence. The only data he provides is that countries in Europe such as France, Germany, and Sweden permit abortions after a range of 13 to 18 weeks.

The conclusion to this article simply states that when this issue is brought to a vote in congress the Democrats will prevent the vote. Perhaps that's true, it is a pretty general statement after all. There isn't really a "why" answer provided at all. This entire article attacks "Pro-Abortionists", however no party adopts that title. Democrats, or anyone, do not encourage abortions, but it is only right and fair for women, or people with vaginas, to be able to make those kinds of decisions for themselves. 

The political implications of this is that it supports the idea that some rich old white man can make this important and personal decision for an entire nation of women without having met or talked to any of the people his laws are affecting. The title of this article "In Blocking Abortion Legislation, Democrats Will Display Their Extremism" is completely meaningless as there is no evidence provided of extremism in any way by democrats. 

In conclusion the I really didn't get very much out of reading this piece, except for perhaps a headache. My body, my choice! Ive yelled this at protests along side many women and men who believe in free will and a choice that although may be controversial, in the end its is still a PERSONAL choice. Anyway, it seems these conservatives care a whole lot less about the well being of these children after their born, and I'd like to read something addressing that. Real issues that living conscious people have to live with like not having affordable healthcare, or not being able to send kids to college because they cant afford it. The world is a scary, horrible, wonderful place and just popping out kids just for the hell of it should not be taken lightly (may I remind you overpopulation is already becoming a problem). I am not pro-abortion but I am pro-choice, because women should I have a right to their own bodies before some random man making the rules. 

Lets talk about gun control, and also the death of democracy

I came across and opinion piece on The Washington Post titled,  "Why the majority keeps losing on guns", one of the many articles of its kind to surface after the horrific events in Las Vegas this past weekend. What I found particularly interesting about this article however, is that their argument isn't about gun control, but why this issue is actually a microcosm of a much larger problem with the state of democracy in our nation.
The article was written by E.J. Dionne Jr., Norman J. Ornstein, and Thomas W. Mann, parts of which were drawn from their book, "One Nation After Trump: A Guide for the Perplexed, the Disillusioned, the Desperate, and the Not-Yet-Deported". Without even reading it, one can be sure of its liberal bias based on the authors' previous work, and because The Washington Post is typically a left-leaning news source. The authors clearly know their audience, and do a great job at pulling in their readers by framing the argument around such a polarizing and relevant topic.
Their argument is simple yet powerful, "the United States is now a non-majoritarian democracy". Our democratic system today over represents the interests of rural areas and small states, leaving a large portion of Americans living in more concentrated metropolitan areas with limited influence over national policy; in this case gun control and reform. Although I believe this is a solid argument, something to consider is that it does rely on the assumption that most rural and small states generally vote against the majority.
The first piece of evidence they provide is a gun control legislation in favor of more intensive background-checks introduced as a response to the Sandy Hook slaughter in 2013 developed by both a democrat and republican senators. The senate voted 54 to 46 in favor of the amendment but lost out due to a filibuster. the 54 votes represented 64% of the population but was defeated by those who only spoke for 37% of Americans. They also note that ending the filibuster would not have helped because even, "if all 50 senators from the 25 smallest states voted for a bill and Vice President Pence cast his lot with them... 16% of senators could overrule those representing 84%". This is especially significant because it is projected that by the year 2040 70% of Americans will live in 15 states and only represented by 30 of the 100 senators.
The second piece of evidence they cite that our system is unfair has to do with unfair gerrymandering by the GOP following the 2010 census. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, "Republicans derived a net benefit of at least 16 seats from biased boundaries" due to redrawing of congressional boundaries in key states. They go on to discuss the electoral college and the fact that in this past election, Trump had the largest popular vote deficit of any past winner (The second time in five elections that the popular vote has not lined up with the electoral collage).
The authors conclude this article with two suggestions: first, advocates for gun reform should keep up pressure on this issue as it already has the majority of americans behind it in varying degrees. Second, we as a nation must improve our system of government to make majority-rule a reality. While I agree with both suggestions, providing a more concrete solution would strengthen the argument as a whole and improve the effectiveness of the article.
The political implications of this article are serious, and suggest that our oh-so revered system is flawed. This may be hard to swallow for many citizens who still buy into American Exceptionalism. These authors are in favor of a more direct democracy, or at least for the majority to be fairly represented. This is an idea that I had never considered however after reading this article I completely agree.

Travel Ban 3: Trump listens to his lawyers

Earlier today I came across an article on Vice describing the latest developments for Trump's Travel Ban, and why this time there is a good chance it may succeed (link here).

First, a little background on the ban:

• Trump first tried to implement the travel ban (Executive Order 13769) back in January, days after he took office
• The first ban included seven Muslim majority countries such as Iraq and Syria
• This was an extremely controversial move and was met with protest in airports across America 
• A Federal Judge ruled this as unconstitutional for singling out Muslims, and halted the policy
• Trump attempted once more in March to reintroduce the ban, now eliminating some previous restrictions (i.e. exempting green-card holders, and only banning travel from Iraq), but it still didn't hold up in court

The Vice article I read today was about the latest attempt at implementing a Travel Ban, and why this time it may actually stick due to some changes that will help the ban hold up in court. Chad and Venezuela were added to the list (non muslim majority countries), and the new ban is more specific in who it applies to. These changes increase the legitimacy of the ban as not targeting a minority group. The article also features an interview on the subject with Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration law professor at the Cornell Law School. This article is worth reading because it is a simplified look at a super important and relevant issue in politics today, and it offers an expert's point of view.

this is a political blog