Blog Stage 7

The Real Problem Behind Drug-Related Concerns

   We are all aware that some of the main problems that our society faces today are drug related issues. These problems vary from consumption, to drug dealing, and trafficking and they convey so many other troubles within society. According to recent statistics the USA has the first place worldwide for marijuana, cocaine, and tobacco consumption. Also other drugs like methamphetamines are widely consumed across the country. 

  Despite the fact that some states have now legalized the use of marijuana as a recreational drug and also some others for medical use, the problems are somewhat consistent and the consumption of other illegal drugs is on the rise or has stayed the same. What I am trying to say with this is that the real problem relies within the society as a whole, so we cannot blame the government as the only part responsible in this situation. In my opinion once someone tries a drug, even if it is for the first time or an only time, they become part of the problem.

   In my opinion you can’t complain if you are part of this situation. Instead people should analyze it and see what is it that they can do to improve this situation. I know it may sound absurd but something that for some people may be insignificant, like doing recreational drugs while going out has an awful lot of hidden situations behind (for example, drug trafficking).

   I believe that this example doesn’t only apply to drug crimes, but to many other problems in society in which we blame the government for or other countries, etc. We should be able to take a look at ourselves and see if there is something that we are doing that may be contributing to these issues. I am a believer that all big changes begin with us so in every situation if you want a change begin by changing the way you act, think, and interact with one another.

Blog Stage 6

   I agree with most of the arguments stated in the essay “What to say when your neighbor comes over uninvited?” First of all I am also a firm believer that building a wall is not the approach we need to stop illegal immigration. Also that it has been proven that there are many factors such as environmental, territorial, and many others that make it practically impossible for a wall to be built. Perhaps in regions like the desert area in Arizona it could be easier but in areas like the Big Bend it would be almost impossible. Particularly here in Texas it would be catastrophic to put a wall where the Rio Grande is.

   I coincide that a wall is not the solution for this problem and the wall that’s already built in Arizona and California is proof of this. People are still crossing the boarder despite the fact that there has been a wall there for many years. In conclusion I agree that the wall won’t solve this issue.

   As she says, the US government should have a different approach. For example, the US should work hand in hand with the Mexican government to stop the illegal immigration that’s happening in the southern border of Mexico. The real issue here is the lack of control of the immigration from countries from Central America into Mexico and then into the United States. Also as this article says a national database of authentic citizenship might be a good idea and also making background checks. Citizenship should be obtained after an in-depth investigation to ensure that people don’t have a criminal record, drug use, and etcetera.

The Problem with our Current Administration: working towards a tolerant approach

   One of the main issues that I believe have grown exponentially during the current administration is the social disintegration that the people of the United States are now experiencing. We can easily notice a polarization on opinions and points of view, which was something that this society worked so hard in the past change.

   As someone who grew up in a different country I had a different perspective of the American society while growing up. From the outside, the United States of America is often perceived as a country characterized by social unity that always comes together in social issues, wars, prosperity, or worldwide competitions like the Olympic games. This has always been one of the biggest attributes of the country as a whole. Through this unity the United States has achieved great things throughout it whole history as a country.

   I believe that the main problem is that the current administration has promoted intolerance for one another and also the incapability of accepting different realities and points of view. It is clear that since the beginning of this administration – and even before Trump winning the presidential elections – President Trump’s arguments and proposals have been based on the incapability of seen beyond the limitations of his own beliefs and not being able to see the bigger picture and every issue that the administration is trying to defy. This outcome comes as no surprise since his campaign was mainly based on arguments such as “this is my point of view and I don’t really care if you agree with me or not”.

   This issue can also be seen in many decisions that are being made in international affairs. For example the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, leaving the Asia-Pacific trade deal, the desire for building a wall in the border with Mexico, the proposal of imposing tariffs on steal imports, among many other things. All of these examples are based on someone not being able to understand that their point of view and opinion is not the only one that is valid.

   In my opinion one of the most important traits that a country leader should have is being able to promote tolerance and encourage people to come together to solve society’s issues rather than encouraging aggression and narrow-mindedness. We have to be able to understand that everyone is a member of the same country striving for a better society despite his or her background. We have to realize that over the years this country has put a lot of effort in leaving the social challenges behind and work to achieve a more integrated society. We have to make this conscious and work towards a better society rather than working backwards.

   In conclusion we have to be able to identify the root of this problem and work on changing this approach before it becomes irreversible. Decisions made with this approach can have a serious permanent damage. We should be able to learn from this experience and make a transition towards a more tolerant and harmony based government.

Critique: Trump Just Started an Unwinnable Trade War

   Trump just started an unwinnable trade war is an editorial article published in LA Times written by the Times Editorial Board. The Times’ editorial board is conformed by serious, educated and specialized members. Their intended audience is diverse, but mostly adults.

   The article discusses Trump’s decision on putting a 25% tariff on imported steel and a 10% tariff on imported aluminum starting on March 23. This new tariff will apply to every country except for Mexico and Canada. According to him, the reason for this new law if to “bring steel and aluminum jobs back to the United Stated by making foreign version of the metals more expensive”.

   The editorial argues that this is not the correct way to respond to the problem and that this would probably just have more cons than pros. they argue that this type of policy only invites the United States’ trading partner to respond in the same way and impose similar policies. Most they discuss that this decision would most likely cost more jobs in many other different sectors of the economy than the jobs it could generate for aluminum and steel companies.

   I agree with their point of view because I believe that first of all Trump and his supporters need to realize that the world is not the same as it used to be in 1950, 1960 or even in the early 2000s. We live in a globalized world were every economy depends of one another and we need to realize that the United States doesn’t control the global market as they used to do in the post-war era. Those times the US had control over most of the countries and could impose the rules they wanted to because those countries depended on their supplies to rebuild their nations after World War II.

   We need to realize that we live in a completely different world where there are many countries that make up the global market and not only the United States. As we can read in the article other countries can respond to this tariff with another policy that might hurt the US’ economy. For example, Germany responded by saying that if this tariff becomes effective then they are going to impose a tariff to all the cars coming into their country that are manufactured in the United States. These are the type of things that Trump doesn’t realize. He can’t go around manipulating countries with his decisions because every country depends on each other. There is no one-way commerce. Every single industry is interconnected and by making a decision like the one discussed in this article it will only cause harm and bring more problems.

Critique: I'm a Republican. I Appreciate Assault Weapons. And I Support a Ban.

   I’m a Republican. I Appreciate AssaultWeapons. And I Support a Ban is an opinion article published in The New York Times by Brian Mast. Brian Mast is a Republican Congressman for the State of Florida and also a veteran of the Afghanistan War. I think that the intended audience for this article would be adult people with a high level of education in order for them to be able to have a critical view of what they are about to read.

   I believe this is an interesting article to read regarding Assault Weapons regulation because despite being a Republican and a National Rifle Association member, he gives good reasons on why to ban these types of weapons and also some suggestions to regulate what is already in effect. Furthermore the fact that he was in the army for many years and using an AR-15 as his primary weapon makes him competent to have a valid opinion on the matter.

   His first suggestion is that we should have a clear definition of what an “assault or tactical firearm” is to be able to stop people from purchasing such weapons. I agree that this is a good place to start. Such definition is necessary to define what people should be able and not able to purchase. I believe that it could also be useful to expand the list of weapons that cannot be held by general public (semi automatic weapons; weapons exclusively designed for mass killing).

   When it comes to the Second Amendment I disagree with his opinion that it should be unimpeachable. I believe that it should be analyzed within the present context and therefore actualized to the modern era in which there is no threat of invasion as there was when this amendment was first created.

   He also mentions how background checks should be a elemental requisite when for a person acquiring a firearm. In my opinion they should not only be a requisite, but they should be broader and more detailed. People with mental illness should be closely treated and excluded from the list of people that can own a weapon.

   When it comes to the sale of accessories and add-ons I agree that they should be banned on automatic firearms. Nevertheless I don’t believe that “increasing the ages at which individuals can purchase various categories of firearms” would a helpful change. It is a fact that these massacres not only occur at schools and by young people but they happen in many different scenarios and people from many different backgrounds and ages perform these massive shootings. A good example would be the most recent and deadliest shooting in Las Vegas executed by 64-year-old Stephen Paddock or the Sutherland Springs church shooting by a 26-year-old.

   In conclusion, I believe that he has some good arguments on changing some of the current regulations for purchasing and selling firearms, however some of them are just suggestions on how to change some of the existing laws to make it harder to purchase an assault weapon rather than banning them completely from the general public.

EPA's Scott Pruitt asks whether global warming 'necessarily a bad thing'

   “EPA’s Scott Pruitt asks whether global warming ‘necessarily is a bad thing’” is an article published in The Washington Post written by Dino Grandoni, Brady Dennis and Chris Mooney. The article talks about Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and how he questions if ‘the rising levels of carbon dioxide from human-fueled activity’ are really a hazard to the planet.

   The article also describes how this comes as no surprise because ‘not long after taking office last February, Pruitt seemed to reject the established science of climate change’. Also how this goes in hand with President Trump’s opinions about the global warming being a hoax.

   I believe this is an important article to read and analyze because it is a fact that planet Earth has existed for millions of years and in less than a hundred years we have seen dramatic climate changes due to the effect of human activity in the planet so in my opinion it is disturbing that the head of the EPA gives this kind of declarations based in assumptions and with not scientific background. This statement is unacceptable to make for a person in his position because he is supposed to be in charge of protecting the environment not only in the US territory, but in the whole world. It seems that he doesn’t understand that every consequence on the global environment is also a consequence in the US. It is his responsibility to be informed and fully consider scientific data and proof rather than making statements based on his own opinions.

Hello