Trust Issues

I find it very hard to trust the government. I feel like that’s a problem. When I look back on what I know about sociology, I know that to take part in a society and be governed by others we sign a social contract. If we want to be protected and looked after we have to play by the rules. And of course, this makes sense. Especially when living otherwise was once described as nasty, brutish and short. So we allow ourselves to be governed, so that someone bigger than us can have our best interest in mind. That’s what a government is supposed to be doing, and in most aspects of our every day life our government succeeds.

Despite knowing the essentiality of the entering into the social contract it is hard for me to voluntarily let somebody else take the wheel. Can I really trust these people to have my and the rest of our best interests in mind? It seems kind of ridiculous to let a creature as corruptible as the human being, direct the proceeding of government and democracy. And I’m sure I’m not the only one that feels a disconnect from our government. With slants in media coverage, political parties and people representing us there’s a lot between us and the people in charge.

There are definitely representatives and other politicians that do what they do for the greater good. It’s not them I’m concerned about. It’s the politicians that can be bought that I worry about. Business and money are the two greatest evils in government. When people make selfish decisions for money there’s usually someone that gets the short straw. And power and influence are dangerous things if used for dishonest reasons. So how can I trust that every politician and representative are incorruptible?

I hate to think that way about my government. I guess it really does pay off to pay attention and stay involved in what’s going on around you. Being knowledgeable about who represents you allows you make informed decisions that you can feel proud of. That’s really the least you can do. If your not up for protesting or being an activist the least thing you can do is making intelligent votes. I can’t say I can ever trust everybody’s intentions in our government but for now I’ll work with what I’m dealt.

I'm here today to talk about Jaren's Blog Stage #5.  Read it here.  Jaren is arguing for the legalization of medicinal marijuana. Jaren makes several good points, all of which I think make great arguments. I want to build upon Jaren's post to really send home some notions that will hopefully get people thinking a little more progressively about decriminalizing or even legalizing marijuana.

Did you know that George Washington grew fields of the stuff up at Mt. Vernon? Read about the history of marijuana, it's a trip, and pay special attention the the racial factors of it's outlaw. It's pretty messed up.

I think that the way the DEA and the Federal government look at Marijuana is just as wrong. As Jaren mentioned, the DEA classifies marijuana as a schedule 1 drug. That's up there with herion! Above even cocaine and meth!  That can't be right. I think the DEA needs to re-asses where marijuana really belongs on their list of priorities. Here's a link. One might think that arresting pot smokers would be good for a community but i believe it is exactly opposite. Prisons are filing up with people charged with possession. I just think that's a silly thing to be thrown in jail for. Especially when taxpayer money must be used to care for them while they're locked up. In 2011 possession arrests were higher than violent crimes arrests. Check this out. If anything, arresting people for possession only makes more criminals. Every one arrested for possession that walks out of jail is still considered a convict. Good luck finding a job. And of course there's the potential for those arrested to get involved in more crime.

The DEA shutting down dispensaries should be illegal. Those places are very carful to operate within their's state's laws. There's something obviously wrong if the DEA can arrest your dispensary employees because it's illegal at the federal level. Of course the federal government reigns supreme over state governments, but it's a sticky situation. How can something be legal (the people of california obviously support it) yet ultimately illegal? It's apparent that the federal government needs to re-think it's stance on marijuana.

At this point our culture is so ingrained with the notion that Marijuana (medicinal or recreational) is an "evil drug" that ruins people's lives. So much so that it'll be interesting to see if we can ever shake free of this stigma in the years to come.

Let's Step Back

Can’t we all just get along? Lately I’ve felt as if there was something gumming up the works in D.C. I’ve never been more frustrated and perplexed by the Government. It’s gotten to the point where I’ve checked out almost completely from the political arena. And that’s what it is; an arena. Politicians duke it out for power and influence; winning at any cost. And a lot of people I know have checked out too. “Who cares about government?” I hear that a lot. I feel that a lot of people are discontent. Personally I feel like the Government might benefit from it taking a step back and assessing the government and it’s functionality. It would be nice to take a look at the constitution and discuss what’s working and what isn’t. The Government was conceived two centuries ago and the constitution shortly after. Times were different back then. Values were different, ways of life were different and technology has exploded drastically changing our way of life today. The constitution could afford to grow with us. Evolve to meet the changing needs of the people. I don’t think anyone in his or her right mind could say that the government is absolutely perfect. But I guess it could be worse right? One thing we could get started on in my lifetime would be reforming the voting system. Giving direct democracy a try would give the people a different voice. Political games get in the way of progress. The governed get their power from the people. It might not seem like we really have a say in who enters an office but with the different influence of direct democracy there’s a chance we could see some real change. Another thing about the government that we can see throughout history is that it’s always changing. Ever few generations there is change and reform. I say it’s only a matter of time before we see another big change. Out government was formed with stability and longevity in mind. It will take a while. I’m sure we’ve all felt that we’re just a long for the ride. With more influence we can change the path of progress, hopefully for the better.

This week I chose to read an article titled, "How the 'Know Nothing' Media Extended the Shutdown". It was written by Thom Hartmann and it discusses how the media is responsible for perpetuating the recent government shutdown. His audience is probably liberals, however his argument is not confined to a particular political ideology. His argument is for all americans. Mr. Hartmann argues that the media is responsible for perpetuating the government shutdown by lying to the American people. he goes on to say that the media misinformed its viewers about what was really going on in Washington. Apparently there were enough Republican votes to end the shutdown sooner, but John Boehner continued to go on camera saying there weren't enough votes. The media ran with this lie and the shutdown continued. If the media had reported the truth Boehner would have been forced to vote right away. The media also lied about President Obama not willing to "come to the table". This furthered the stalemate. But why all the lies? It's funny, in class we just covered the media. We learned all about yellow journalism and that sensation and crisis sells. The cable news networks raked in the big bucks during the shutdown. If the media had just done it's job and reported the facts, one could argue that the shutdown would have been over sooner. The media had everything to gain in elongating the shutdown with misinformation.
I agree with the author's arguments. However, the only issue I have with the article is his lack of resources. Sure I believe him, and he seems very reputable. I only wish I could see this info for my own eyes. As I was reading, it almost seemed like speculation. I just wanted to know more; I found the argument so interesting. But I suppose the information I wanted to see for myself would be difficult to physically produce. But I'm nitpicking. Other than that, I think Mr. Hartmann makes a great argument.

Polls of Conspiracy

I chose to read, "Half the Republicans You know are Insane" by written by William Rivers Pitt. A poll was taken of Republican voters and their belief in government conspiracy theories. Some of the theories held by these voters are downright ridiculous. I had a hard time believing some of them. Check it out and see what I mean. This group of republicans pulls a lot of weight when it comes to elections. Why? Because they always vote. That’s why voting is so important, so that these groups aren’t always having their way in elections. The writer even argue that the current government shutdown can be attributed to these voters choices in 2010.

I think the author makes a very good argument. One thing I appreciated about Mr. Pitt's commentary was the usage of numbers and facts to support his argument. The purpose of this commentary was to bring to the reader's attention (The reader being common voters) that there exists a group of voters that believe in some of the ridiculous conspiracy theories mentioned in the article, and also that everyone needs to vote. He succeeds in sending the message home by shedding light on these Republican’s thought process though polling numbers and examples. He even supplies the readers with his source here, and the source even has a link to the actual polling results. Without this information his argument would fall short. Without solid numbers the examples he’s mentioning are almost to crazy to fathom. If you’re going to make an argument you’d better back it up. In this regard Mr. Pitt has hit a home-run.

The Real Second Amendment

On September 20th The Smirking Chimp  published an article titled, "How Fake Second Amendment History Kills." It was written by Robert Parry, and it discusses the true meaning of the second amendment and how it's interpretation has become twisted over the past few decades. The purpose of the second amendment was to allow the states to form a well organized militia. You can read the full article for more history and discussion on the subject.
I think this is a great read, especially in light of recent events and history. For as long as I can remember I've always heard that the second amendment protected the right to "bear arms". I've been taught this over and over again from friends, television and even many of my teachers. The sad truth is that this is a false interpretation. Please read this article. The history of the second amendment is important to understand, especially after the recent Navy Yard shootings, and recent talk of gun regulation. I found the article very interesting and eye-opening. Check it out.