Caleb's Blog number 8 post

I am going to write my editorial and commentary in response to the editorial authored by Wark, “Actions of America and the world: Just or unjust.”  I agree with some of what is said. However, I think a lot of the facts have been presented in a way that’s misleading. It’s my opinion this blog was written with only the little picture in mind.

                Wark starts off by commenting on how “incredible” it is for the U.S. Army to lose 5.8 billion dollars in eight years. To put this “incredible” figure into perspective it may help to reference a chart on www.globalissues.org.  According to a chart that was published by the U.S. Department of Defense the military has spent a total of 5106 billion dollars since 2006. You should take into account that 5106 billion dollars is representative of the budget of all five branches.  Even with that said I don’t think that’s an unacceptable figure by any means especially considering the circumstances a portion of that money has been spent on.

                Wark also implies that it isn’t a good investment of the U.S. to give funding to countries that have “no love for the United States”.  I don’t think the general opinion among a country’s population toward the U.S should dictate whether or not the U.S. Government provides funding to that particular nation. Generally speaking, there is a major U.S. interest involved when the U.S. is handing over funding to a foreign government.  That’s why it makes no difference whether or not the local populations like Americans or not. The only thing that matters is that the money being spent is helping to protect a U.S. interest abroad.   For the same reason, I think it’s in the best interest of the U.S. to continue to be the UN’s number one contributor.                            

                All things considered, I liked reading the blog it was interesting and thought provoking.                

               

Blog number seven

I am going to write my commentary about the U.S. Government’s response to a recent no fly zone China established. The no fly zone was put in place over some disputed islands located in the East China Sea.  Immediately after the no fly zone was established the U.S. Government flew two unarmed B-2 bomber planes through the disputed area.

It’s a complicated situation because China’s motives aren’t all that clear. It’s thought that a combination of factors have led to China doing this now. The China defense minister believes China has the right to control its air space. However, Japan disagrees with this assertion.

The U.S. Government has made it clear it will not recognize this newly declared air space. Most U.S. officials look at this newly declared air space as a rhetorical statement.  Not only will the United States not recognize the air space, but the U.S. will stand behind its allies in the region.

Blog Stage six

                                                                                                                                                                                   I am going to write my “stage six” blog in response to Noah Fleming’s blog post. I picked his blog because it is quick to the point and easy to read. I agree with some of what he wrote and disagree with other things he wrote. This paper will contain both “editorial or commentary” and “reasoned criticism”.

                                                                                                                                                                                   He stated, “Shouldn’t saving American lives be a higher priority instead of maintaining a large global military.” He’s alluding to the idea that a large global military doesn’t save lives here at home. In order to understand how important maintaing a large military is to American interest you have to look abroad. A lot of countries are very unstable and could quickly become a threat to U.S. interest abroad.

                                                                                                                                                                                   On the other hand, I do agree with changing the American immigration policy. I look it that more as a human rights issue then any else. However, whenever the author states, “We could spend the money we save from defending our borders.” I think he’s suggesting a completely unprotected border and that’s a bad idea.  If we had less border protection more drugs would make it out of Mexico, and into the largest consumer of the Mexican drug trade. All of the "extra" drug money would fuel even more violence in Mexico and likely affect parts of South America.

That concludes my blog stage six.

Original Editorial

My editorial is going to focus on U.S. federal gun laws. Particularly, how critical Obama has been toward gun ownership in America. Obama tried to pass a bill that was part of a package of measures he promised to put the full weight of his office behind. The bill was intended to make it more difficult for criminals to get guns. According to CNN.com, this legislation was set in motion around the time “20 first-graders and six educators were killed last December in a mass shooting at an elementary school.”  Other incidents similar to this one have happened while Obama has been in office. Every time an incident similar to the one I have previously mentioned is in the media Obama tries to push for stricter gun laws.  According to Rense.com, Obama was pushing to ban the following weapons: assault rifles, “Any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds (except tubular magazine .22 rim fire rifles), a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds,” and shot-guns with a detachable magazine that holds more than five rounds.    

In my opinion, the shooting at the elementary school in New Town, Connecticut was what pushed Obama to try and make the new laws I previously mentioned.  However, an elementary school is a gun free zone in accordance with the Gun Free-school zone Act of 1990. The federal law supersedes state law therefore, even if a citizen  has a license to carry a concealed hand gun he or she is committing a serious offense by caring the gun on school property, but of course the nut job that shot all of those people didn’t care to much about that. My point is that stricter federal gun laws aren’t going to prevent people who are for whatever reason a threat to society from accessing means to hurt people. It’s my opinion; the stricter gun laws prevent law abiding citizens from having accesses to means to defend themselves more than the gun laws protect us.

There is one exception to what I just wrote. In Texas (state law), under the current gun laws it’s legal for a citizen to sell another citizen a firearm, basically no questions asked. The citizen doing the selling must be turning over his or her “personal gun collection”, and that is a tricky part of the law to for the ATF to enforce. I think there should be federal legislation put in place that would mandate private gun sells be done thru a licensed firearm dealer.  The gun dealer could run the person purchasing the gun to make sure he or she isn’t a criminal, and record the seller’s name and address.  

I think Obama is putting his focus on the wrong part of the issue. I know it sounds cliché but guns don’t kill people. People kill people. The people using these guns to do these things need to be in some way dealt with or “helped”. It looks to me like stricter gun laws will just hurt an American citizens chances should he or she needs to defend him or herself. That’s my perspective on the issue.

Blog Stage Four: Substantial commentary or criticism #2

I selected an article titled “Most Likely to Attack Iran”.  My primary reason in selecting this article is because it looked interesting.  The article talks about various reasons why Obama would be more likely to take military action against Iran and how his “intellectually elevated” personality could persuade European nations to stay in Afghanistan.

The author is Glenn Greenwald. According to Wikipedia, Greenwald has received the following awards: Izzy Award for independent journalism, Online Journalism Award for Best Commentary, and the EFF Pioneer Award for coverage and analysis of the 2013 mass surveillance disclosures. Greenwald is also a published author. The first ever book he wrote was titled How Would a Patriot Act? Defending American Values From a President Run Amok. According to Wikipedia, “Greenwald practiced law in the Litigation Department at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.”  He has also had numerous guest appearances on various TV shows. I think that all of the above make Greenwald a credible author.

Greenwald’s main claim is that Obama would be more likely to “risk other people’s lives with the use of military force against foreigners.” Greenwald believes that Obama would be more likely to confront Iran militarily “should sanctions and negotiations fail”. Greenwald’s evidence behind this claim is that Obama would be more likely to use military force against Iran then Mitromney is as follows: Greenwald thinks that from a political standpoint “Obama will be freer to attack Iran than Romney would be because Democrats, progressives, and the “international community”.  Greenwald also mentions “Obama’s more extremist assassinations without any judicial review or transparency”, as being even further evidence to support his claim. His logic behind this claim is that not only has Obama done things as president that would indicate he would be more likely to take military action against Iran; he would also face far less persecution from the international community for doing so.

I think that given when this article was published, Greenwald intended audience was undecided voters. He was trying to persuade voters. I do see how someone could read this article, and think that Greenwald was simply voicing his political beliefs. With the intended audience being other people who hold a similar view. However,  Greenwald published this right around election time, and meantionded to opposing candidates. That’s why I am positive his intended audience was undecided voters.

Critique an editorial or commentary from a national newspaper

I decided to write my critique about an article titled “Official Warns Shutdown Could Make Spies Double Agents” by Denver Nicks.  According to Wikipedia, Nicks work has been published in the Nation and Huffington Post. Nicks got his Bachelor’s in Political Science and International Studies from Southern Methodist University, and he got his Master’s Degree from Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. I think that given his educational back ground as well as the reputable news agencies that have published his work he is more than a credible author.
In my opinion, Nicks intended audience in writing this is the American people. He concludes his article with a quote from James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence. Clapper writes, ““This seriously damages our ability to protect the safety and security of this nation and its citizens.” I feel that Nicks picked this quote from Clapper because it would appeal to his intended audience, being the American people.
Nicks is claiming that our current government shutdown “heightens the risk that American intelligence officers could be flipped as double agents.” His logic behind this claim is that government employs are not being paid by the U.S. government, therefore government employees will look elsewhere for a pay check. Nicks quotes Clapper a second time: “This is a dream land for foreign intelligence services to recruit.” Nicks is alluding to the idea that our U.S. Government employees will start working as "spies" employed by foreign nations there for becoming "double agents".  Nicks is proposing that spies who currently work for the U.S. Government may decided to start working for other nations. Nicks logic behind this claim is that the U.S. government is not currently paying its spies.
Nicks main source of evidence to support this claim are the words of James Clapper. As I have previously stated Clapper is the Director of National Intelligence, therefore he is a credible source on this matter.

Stage Two: Article introduction and colleague’s blogs

“Gun control is not the answer” is an article that focuses on how shooting incidents cannot be generalized, and asserts that “ridding the country of guns is a hopeless -- and unconstitutional mission.” The article explains how in order to stop violence in our country we need to address the cause of the violence.  Granderson believes that guns are a symptom of a larger problem. The larger problem being “poverty, mental health and failing schools.”  Granderson’s main point is that not only is the notion of ridding America of guns impossible and unconstitutional; It would not address the problem of violence in our society.  

                In my opinion, this article is worth reading because it takes a unique an practical angle on why gun control is a bad idea in America. I think that even people who strongly oppose gun rights could get something out of this article.