World Police

Mr. Obama's presidency is coming to an end. Soon, the US will have a new chapter of executive leadership and a new Commander-in-Chief. The role of Commander-in-Chief is not one to be taken lightly. The president has supreme authority of the U.S. Armed Forces and the ability to deploy troops without consent from Congress.

The White House plans to deploy 250 troops to Syria in addition to the 50 troops already stationed there. The White House says the additional troops will be used to help local forces combat ISIS. The US has been conducting airstrikes in Syria for some time, and while airstrikes may be a safer option for troops, a "boots on ground" approach could prove to be more effective. However, there is a huge problem with this approach. The problem with US Special Forces in Syria isn't a question of effectiveness, but it does have the potential to anger a more dangerous foe, Russia. The Kremlin has sent troops to support Syrian President Assad battle rebels and terrorist groups. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has denounced the White House's decision and says the US deployment of troops in Syria is illegal. Russian combat jets recently "buzzed" a US aircraft carrier, the USS Donald Cook. Another Russian combat jet conducted a barrel roll over a US Air Force reconnaissance plane. Russia is clearly not impressed with the US's military might.

The concern I have is with that of POTUS's power to conduct police actions around the world. A police action is a military action without a formal declaration of war. Vladimir Putin has about an 82% approval rating, and there is no indication that Vladimir Putin will be out of office next year. Who will sit in the oval office next year? Will the next President be able to conduct police actions in the middle east and stay on the Kremlin's good side? Will that person be able to keep a cool head? I hope so. I am not a huge fan of the 114th Congress, but maybe we should look to restoring some of their power regarding the issue of troop deployments. President Barrack Obama has said that he wouldn't send troops to Syria, and has since changed his stance. Whatever the reason, the US has an addiction in regards to police actions. Whether it be for safety, freedom, the economy, our allies or an oversized ego, it has become a big problem. Our troops need to fight in order to stay sharp, but they don't need to die if the US has nothing to gain from it.

Russia has announced plans to exit Syria. They may renege and continue to conduct operations leaving the potential for conflict between US and Russian forces. There are two options from here: have faith that the next POTUS will be able to conduct operations without angering a military giant such as Russia, or write to your congressman/congresswoman and tell them to start some legislation reducing the presidents ability to deploy troops at will.

Progress takes time.

The constant threat of terrorism provokes strong emotions in the hearts of many US citizens. There are many theories on how this epidemic should be handled, but few have proven truly effective. The US Armed Forces is a major tool used by Washington, D.C. Author Alfredo Jaimes believes we should not use our military to terrorize other countries in his post Are we ever going to witness progress ?

Jaimes' purpose is that of expression. He provides a link to a post titled, The Right Approach to Terrorism. In that article, author William Astore provides a persuasive argument on how terrorism shouldn't be handled. This article allows Jaimes to provide an emotional post without having to get into specifics. Alfredo Jaimes expresses his distaste for a military approach and refers to the US Government as, "The United States Terrorists." There has been considerable amount of collateral damage due to the US military's urban ops and drone strikes. However, the author never cites statistics and rather prefers to reveal his personal values. Jaimes feels the military operations are only creating more enemies and states, "it doesn't take a genius to figure this out." The language of the post tends to lean slightly toward persuasion, yet Jaimes offers very little support for his claim. Instead, he focuses on his opposition toward US involvement in the middle east and fills his article with subjective-language. Jaimes lets readers know he doesn't agree with terrorist overseas, and also doesn't agree with how the US has approached the situation. He ends the article with a call to action which reflects that of author William Astore.

Alfredo Jaimes provides an emotional article which has a few elements of persuasion. If Jaimes want's to provide a call to action to a very important issue, he should put more focus on how this issue affects the reader. In the realm of time itself, US involvement in the middle east is rather new. There is no easy approach to unconventional warfare. However, if people like Jaimes continue to express their concerns, it might just push the government to make some changes.

The Clown Show

July 12, 1804. Alexander Hamilton died following the aftermath of a conflict between two politicians. Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr can be seen as two sides of the same coin. A necessity in politics, and an attempt to balance the will of the people and the laws that govern their lives.  They decided to settle their differences in an honorable fashion by dueling. American politics have become more civil since that time.

It's election year, and once again, we are all invited to attend the circus as candidates try and win our hearts and votes. This election season promises to be a good one. Sexism, racism, narcissism and xenophobia, and that’s just from one candidate. So, where did these candidates come from and how were they selected? In order to better understand maybe we should first examine the requirements for POTUS:

-       a natural born Citizen

-       at least 35 years of age

-       have been a resident of the US for 14 years

So how do Americans decide whom to nominate with so many “qualified” people living in the US? They don’t. The political parties do. Members of those parties nominate themselves, and spend about a year trying to prove that they are the best person to represent this nation. This, in turn, causes candidates to push their agendas further in the direction of their respected party with no regard for their own beliefs. For example, when Hillary Clinton held the position of Secretary of State she once stated, “natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel available for power generation today.” After presidential candidate, Senator Bernie Sanders, made it clear that he was against fracking, Hillary Clinton began to change her stance to better suit the voice of the liberal voters she hopes to win over. Senator Ted Cruz hopes to put US jobs back in the hands of US citizens and lower crime by building a better wall on the US/Mexico border and tripling border security. However, during his presidential announcement speech, he tells a story of a Cuban immigrant who moved to Austin, TX, worked for 50 cents an hour and “drank too much”. He was talking about his father.

While trying to convince the public of their agendas, these candidates seem to have created a rippling conflict with people of their own political party as well as their party’s opposition. Supporters of Senator Bernie Sanders have interrupted rallies for Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump supporters have violated and have been violated by some of these protesters. Also, Donald Trump has declared war on Senator Ted Cruz’s wife for some reason. Why is this happening? Because we love it. Americans love conflict. Trying to have a centralized view of important topics and discuss them with reason is BORING. People love to see those “Housewives” talk trash and throw wine in each other’s face. We troll websites and leave hateful comments. We love conflict with no regard to why it’s happening. Unfortunately, this is the real reason the left and right are shifting further apart. Politicians are trying to appeal to our conflict-loving nature while staying on their side of the political spectrum. With this in mind, it’s hard to believe anything that’s being said. We have to cool our jets and stop being so “angry” at the left or “angry” at the right. All eligible voters are adults and should act accordingly.  We’re never going to get anywhere when the angriest candidate seems to be the best choice for POTUS.

In my opinion, this entire election season is deplorable. If we are not willing to discuss topics with calm and reason, then we should at least be honest about what we really want to see. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders taking ten paces, turning around and firing. It was considered honorable in 1804 and is definitely more honorable than what is happening this election season.

Political Pitchman

The current bid for the presidency has brought with it, an array of colorful characters, and has left US citizens with the daunting task of evaluating the best candidate. Rich Lowry was kind enough to provide his opinion on GOP hopeful Donald Trump. Lowry claims that, if elected, Donald Trump would become the first celebrity pitchman to become president.

In an attempt to reach GOP voters, Rich Lowry compares the energy Trump displays with that of late pitchman Billy Mays. He describes Trump as a marketer and salesman with methods that "have their roots in infomercials and before that on boardwalks and carnivals." Lowry then goes on to reference some of the products Mays has advertised such as, OxiClean and The Quick Chop. Lowry's feels the tactics used by Billy Mays are no different than that of Donald Trump, and he uses these tactics to "draw a crowd." Mexico building a wall on the border is an example.

Rich Lowry mentions Trumps "scammy business ventures" as a "resemblance to his campaign." Lowry references Trump University and compares the promise of success that is prevalent in Trump's campaign. Trump University's success is questionable, yet Trump is promising to hire only the best and brightest. Lowry then mentions Trump's decision to defend his products on television.

Rich Lowry believes support for Donald Trump is a way for voters to send their discontent to politicians. I feel Rich Lowry made some great points when comparing Donald Trump to a pitchman. He could of offered more evidence to support his claim, but I feel he may be able to persuade some GOP voters to think twice before they support Donald Trump. The full editorial can be accessed below.


http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432645/donald-trump-republican-primary-pitchman

Apple Inc. vs FBI

There is currently a battle between public privacy and public safety raging between Apple Inc. and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Because so many Americans own smartphones, this issue concerns us all. Is Apple right to deny the FBI access or have they just taken the side of extremists. The Editorial Board at The New York Times claims Apple Inc is right to challenge the FBI.

In a piece written by The Editorial Board labeled "Why Apple Is Right to Challenge an Order to Help the F.B.I.", the author(s) reference a Supreme court case from 1977 to further their argument. The court case they are referring to is United States v. New York Telephone Co. The author(s) state that due the the case ruling "the government could not compel a third party that is not involved in a crime to assist law enforcement if doing so would place unreasonable burdens", and feel that Judge Pym's order places that burden on Apple Inc. Their argument is due to the fact that Apple Inc. has already given the FBI data that was backed up to iCloud.

The author(s) also feel that creating a backdoor for the FBI could set a "dangerous precedent" for future investigations. The current software will place a passcode lock on the iPhone if it is entered incorrectly 10 times. Once this happens, the only way to unlock it is to erase the device. This would require Apple Inc. to write software specifically for the government. In the article, the author(s) feel that if Apple is required to help the FBI, "courts could require it to use this software in future investigations or order it to create new software to fit new needs".

The Editorial Board offers no evidence that this case can set a precedent for future investigations, but makes a compelling argument that the FBI is placing an "unreasonable burden" on Apple Inc. As an iPhone owner and former AppleCare advisor, I agree with Apple and the Editorial Board at the New York Times. However, I feel the Editorial Board could have done a better job at arguing their point than using scare tactics. The piece can be accessed below.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/opinion/why-apple-is-right-to-challenge-an-order-to-help-the-fbi.html?_r=0

Hello.