Albert (Fritz) Gallun Blog 8/29/16 Article: A clash of Police Policies

Earlier This month, 2 nights of riots broke out in Milwaukee over another police shooting. This has put Milwaukee and Wisconsin Lawmen under the microscope. This showed a disagreement in law enforcement policy among two of the main law officials in the state. David Clark, the Milwaukee County  Sheriff, and Edward flynn the chief of police in Milwaukee. Flynn believes that a more preventive manner should be used as to take the problems that spark crime before it can even happen and that police should act more like social workers than law enforcement, while on the other hand Clark believes that a more aggressive approach should be used and that those who broke the law should be punished and enforce the law even if you need to use force. These two views have been argued in society for a while. When we look back on history we can see that crime rates went down when issues in low income areas were being ignored, but After 1960 ideas of more aggressive law enforcement came over the country and the crime rate flew up.

This article is extremely important and relevant because today we face so many issues with police and how they handle themselves it's important to understand the history. I think that this could help evaluate how police policies work and maybe how they should be changed because things are not working today as crime and homicide rates are up significantly in our nation's bigger cities, it could be time to take a new look not at who is committing the crimes but whose enforcing the law.

This article relates to what we're reading because we can see the issue and Milwaukee and the clash of law enforcement ideas and relate it back to the voters who are in charge of voting to choose a sheriff and voting for the mayor who will then appoint a chief of police. This goes to show that voters should be politically knowledgeable and know who they're picking and what their views are.

Question: Should police be more aggressive and enforce the law by any means necessary or should they act more like social workers and try to prevent crime? Why?

Bronson Engel-Why Latinos Should Vote For Trump

   FOR       

The main idea of this article is that immigration is and should not be the main concern for most Latinos. This article is written in a format of persuasion or even a debate of some sort. The author argues that Latinos should vote for Trump because he is the strongest candidate on jobs, since the job and the economy are Latinos main concern. Latinos should vote for Trump because if you are actually a pro-Latino then you should be wary of undocumented immigrants because they cost American workers  500$ billion a year and if you are already in America then how is it good. A huge reason why Latinos are not voting for Trump is because of the famous line where he calls Mexicans rapists where he actually does not. The media used it out of context because what he actually said was, Mexico is sending their bad people which are carrying drugs, rapists, and some, I assume, are good people. He said that there are illegal immigrants that are rapists and some are actually good people. Clinton on the other hand was one of the first in 2006 to support building a wall of some sort because she was adamantly against illegal immigrants. The media destroying Trump even though he could actually become a great president and we should care because if Hillary wins its not Hillary that is going to become president but it is going to be the Clinton Machine with years and years of special interest that they need to pay back. Why should Latinos vote for Hillary?
                                          

Henry Finer

Henry Finer

When is a Scandal Really a Scandal?

Scandals in politics is something that has always been around intertwined with politics. People see scandals has a danger to our government and it also serves as a source of entertainment for many people. However, when is a scandal really a scandal? In the case I was reading about the Clinton Foundation and it's connection to foreign leaders. This isn't the first time or even most prolific Clinton Scandal (Lewinsky and email scandals) but it still has generated conversation and has been making people ask if there's a conflict of interest in this matter. The Clinton Foundation has accumulated as much as 170 million from various different foreign governments. Questions have been raised about if many of these wealthy foreign donors have used their donations to gain favors from the state department with Hillary Clinton. Corporations and foreign leaders giving money to campaigns and foundations is nothing new even more so with the ban lifted from corporations in Citizens United v. FCE. Their are plenty of critics of Hillary and her foundation with Mr. Trump being one of them calling the Foundation "the most corrupt enterprise in political history." While others back the Foundation saying that there's no explicit contain saying that these favors happened and talking about all the good the foundation has done. The tricky thing about all this is how can we tell  "whether a donation is idealistic or transactional?" (Ted Shaffrey) 

Free Speach Colin Kaepernick- Lauren Kelleher

By now we have all heard the story of the 49ers quarterback who did not stand up with pride to the United States flag and our national anthem. Colin Kaepernick claims he did so because, “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.”  Everyone from my Uncle Steve to all kinds of NFL players have been putting in there two cents about Colin’s stand (or lack there of), some in support and some criticizing Kaepernick for his lack of patriotism. Chicago Tribunes The sports correspondent for the Chicago Tribune David Hough, has neither an argument in support or disapproval of Colin’s view. Instead he makes the argument for the 1^st Amendment. He argues that it is more disrespectful to the flag to tell Kaepernick that he must stand rather then the action of not standing himself. The first thing that our founding fathers wanted the citizens of the United States to know is that in this country you have the freedom to declare what you believe. The main point of David Hough’s article is that we can all state our opinions and express them as we see fit. Colin Kaepernick has as much right to protest the egregious mistreatment and oppression of people of color by sitting down to the American flag, as others to criticize him for doing so.  

 We should all care about protecting freedom of speech in America because when Donald Trump tells Mr. Kaepernick to “find a country that works better for him” he is saying to all of America that opinions that question the workings of America are not welcome. Even though freedom of speech, expression and assembly are promised to all citizens, our track record is far from perfect in this regard. When John Lewis lead the peaceful March on Washington protesting the inability to vote, he was met with brutal beatings meant to deter them from perusing their rights promises them as citizens of the United States. In the end, the 1^st amendment supports the ideal that I can believe whatever I want and so can you, and further - we can both say what we believe. 

Should there be any restrictions or exceptions to free speech in America? If so what would they be and how would they be enforced? If not explain why

 (direct threats and violent protests­­ are crimes and not considered to be “speech”)

Predicting this Election's Turnout- Nick Baumann's Blog

The main idea of this article is that even though Clinton is winning the election, it could take a catastrophic turn and Trump could pull out a win. Also the article talks about how citizens will vote out of hate for the other candidate. For example, some cannot bear to see Trump win so they will vote for Clinton to support that cause, and vice versa. The main idea of the article is important because it is a close race and nobody has a clear path to victory. This is relevant to Americans who care about the leader of their country and care about what their motives are. Connecting the article to chapter one, the article talks about the checks and balances that Trump would unwillingly face as president. This is also relevant in chapter one because it explains democracy and that the president doesn't have complete power over the country, they are contained by the checks and balances. The question that I have about this article is what groups, other than whites, does Trump appeal to and why?


Profile Picture

Ben Baker-Katz

What A Clinton Supreme Court Would Mean For America

The article's main point is how bad it would be for our country if Hillary Clinton gets elected president; with an emphasis on the impact of the Supreme Court. It discusses how Clinton will appoint a liberal to the currently open seat, and she will possibly have an opportunity to appoint a second liberal judge in her first term. The article also includes six cases that would would be decided differently or overturned with a liberal Supreme Court. The article ends with a plea from the writer to keep Clinton out of the White House in order to ensure the “future of this country”.

This article addresses one of the biggest factors in deciding who to vote for in this election: who do you want appointing judges to the Supreme Court. While I do not agree with the writer's position, I do think this is a major issue. The Supreme Court makes many decisions that matter to everyday Americans, and people should be thinking about who they want appointing people to this court, and what the candidates will try and get passed by the Supreme Court. All of this ties into what Lippman said about citizens being “unprepared to play the the role democracy assigns them.” Whoever wins this election will have a major impact on decisions made in this country for the next 20 years. So why are people not more interested? Why do people just ignore the election because it might not apply to them?

Mollie Hartenstein

In the article “What Republican Turncoats Forget”, author Stephen Moore explains why most reasons for leaving the republican party because of Trump is a mistake. This movement of so called ‘never-Trumpers’ is partly made up of lifelong republicans leaving their party behind because of their problems with the candidate. Personally, I feel that partisanship should always take a backseat to personal politics, but in the case of republican party members and politicians voting democrat or liberal in the 2016 election these people are seen as betraying their parties. Here Moore compares republicans switching to team Hillary “to putting the other team’s jersey on and running a lap.” He responds to each criticism of Trump made by republicans systematically and carefully, all while overlooking more liberal issues that are completely disregarded by the Trump campaign. Moore attempts to prove that Trump can win, won’t ruin our economy, can preserve house and senate relations, and can continue to support the conservative movement. The most impactful thing about this article to me, is the idea that partisanship overtakes all other reasoning. I believe that this idea is a major problem our country faces today, and moreover that this lack of bipartisanship is greatly impacting our ability to move forward as a country. Congress is stagnant, and party polarization needs to decrease if we want anything to change. Parallels between Moore’s article and our current study of the nation’s history of politics and basis for political culture can be drawn, such as the idea that understanding both sides of an opinion are important to being a responsible citizen (John Stuart Mills). The fact that Moore overlooks many ideas and spends an entire article affirming his own opinion shows his unwillingness to be a responsible citizen. This article illustrates the unwillingness and laziness plaguing our country right now, and shows how these traits can lead to disaster. So, this begs the question, why value partisanship so much? Why do so many people prioritize pleasing their party over their own values?

Of Course Hillary Clinton Deleted those Benghazi Emails on Purpose

This article, Of Course Hillary Clinton Deleted those Benghazi Emails on Purpose, clearly lays out Kerry Jackson's opinion of Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Jackson claims that Clinton didn't just delete personal emails, but also emails about Benghazi because she knew that the attack was going to happen and the emails would get her in trouble. It also says that Clinton should have known Benghazi would be in trouble because of a 1976 attack and that this lie falls into a long pattern, going back to her husband's presidency.

The entire article focuses on Clinton's faults and lies, including those of her husband, without giving any data or sources for these claims. Without sources or evidence to back her claim, Jackson is just complaining about Clinton and trying to turn supporters away. Jackson is using 'framing', as Chapter 1 talks about, to make Clinton look like a villain. Shaming Clinton's email use without any actual evidence makes her look bad to conservatives and those who are against her, without actually telling the real story.

How has framing candidates as villains changed the 2016 election?

Miles Lynn

The article "Trump is a Vanity Project Run Amok" by Paul Brandus, is about Mr.Trump and how if he loses this race he will go down in history with comics and showmen rather than past nominees. This article tells of how Mr.Trump has ruined the 2016 presidential elections as well as the republican party. Trump has turned this election into a ratings show, putting himself center stage, his huge rallies are examples of this along with saying anything he wants while he’s at them. Trump has bashed previous republican presidential candidates like Mitt Romney, McCain, and is embarrassing himself as well as the republican party with saying things like "we are going to put a ban on Muslims from entering the United States". He has made wild claims, like President Obama and Hillary Clinton founded ISIS and that he is going to build a wall between the United States and Mexico. The only reason Trump has got this far is because of his years and years as a TV celebrity has given him name recognition. This article relates to our current chapter, because it is all about politics and the political race for presidency, Donald Trump is within reach of claiming the 45th presidency spot. My one question is if Donald Trump did win the presidential election, and became the president, do you think he would be impeached? Why or why not?

Trumpism Could Be More Dangerous Than Trump by Reyanna James

This article, from the Huffington Post, titled “Trumpism Could Be More Dangerous Than Trump”, asserts that even if Clinton wins the presidency in November and the Democrats win back the senate, the nerve that Trump has struck and the voters he has energized will remain a major political force. After the election, the author speculates that Trump may create a third party or become a leading pop culture political icon. He and his supporters, mainly disaffected poor whites (especially concentrated in Appalachia), aren’t going away. The author makes an important and very relevant point- while we may breathe a sigh of relief when Clinton is elected, the relief should be short lived. The issues in our country run much deeper than Trump himself.

In this article, the author also speaks about how Trumps supporters often receive misinformation from the media, and believe only what they want, even if it is not rooted in fact. He cites the positive impact of ObamaCare on Kentucky, but the corresponding disdain for the program, as an example of how the media can “spin” the facts.

What, if anything, do you think Hillary Clinton can do to relieve the sense of disaffection among Trump supporters?

Elliot Davis

            "Trump Blame Game, His Personality or His Positions?" By Bill Scher is an article that discusses the possible reasons for Donald Trump’s unpopularity in the polls recently. The many suspected reasons are being thoroughly debated between the two parties. Trump’s explanation is the media misrepresenting his personality to make it seem as though he is an enemy of American civil liberties, but many people think that it’s instead his radical plans, namely the ones regarding immigration. His policies about banning Muslim immigration under the pretense that the majority of them are terrorists and the policies about somehow deporting 11 million untrackable people are starting to wake up the public to the absurdity of many of his campaign promises. This has caused his popularity to drastically decline among all of those that aren’t white males and non college graduate white women, which can also be seen merely by the demographic of his campaign rallies. However, Trump does counter these criticisms by releasing multiple statements on media corruption, attacking them and saying that it’s their fault that people see him in a light that, in actuality, isn’t a correct portrayal of himself. The debate regarding why Trump is down in the polls seems to be prolonged and heavily opinionated, probably never to reach a consensus. This is a crucial article to read if one wishes to understand the current state of Trump’s campaign because it not only provides an overview of how he is doing in the polls, but an analysis of the reasons on why he is doing that way. When one thinks critically about an issue, they must not only answer the ‘what’ of the question, but the ‘why,’ as well. This article not only provides the answer to the ‘why’ question, but it weighs both sides of the argument and gives the audience some availability for free thought. This applies directly to the chapter we are studying in two ways; the first one being that it is centered around free political thinking. As said earlier in this post, Bill Scher addresses both sides of the issue and allows one the ability to formulate their own opinions based on the information they are given, deconstructing one of the main obstacles of political thinking. Secondly, it questions, to some degree, how much Americans actually want to grant citizens liberty and equality. The fact that Trump has risen to the top, even while flaunting his religiously and racially biased campaign plans, just validates the fact that many US citizens don’t know what they want when it comes to many aspects of LIES.

 Question: Do Donald Trump’s policy plans violate civil liberties or is he just misunderstood by the majority of the American population as a result of the media embellishing and fabricating ideas (or other factors)? LINK: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/08/22/trump_blame_game_his_personality_or_his_positions_131559.html

Ethan Mitzen

The article, Can Progress On Climate Change Keep Up With Its Quickening Pace? By Tom Steyer, is about the reanalysis being done by climate scientists about the timescale on which climate change is occurring. Previously it was believed that global temperatures would rise 2 degrees Celsius (which is The Danger Zone) by 2050, but new estimates have the Earth entering that Danger Zone several years earlier. This is relevant because if we do nothing about climate change for too much longer it will have detrimental effects on future generations, and even on current generations as we are already seeing climate changes devastating consequences. This article relates to the current chapter, political thinking, because in American politics one major political party denies the existence of climate change despite overwhelming evidence that it exists. This is an example of flawed political thought, they are not making using correct information to make political judgements and therefore are not anchored in reality when talking about issues relating to climate change, such as regulating the energy industry and subsidizing clean energy. What is it going to take for those on the right who deny the existence of climate change to finally accept reality and allow real clean energy reform to be passed? https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/can-progress-on-climate-change-keep-up-with-its-quickening-pace/2016/08/26/f5934118-68b8-11e6-8225-fbb8a6fc65bc_story.html?utm_term=.b6d888cb2335