Blog 7

The government shutdown/ debt ceiling/ economic crisis topic is very confusing. There seems to be a fairly apparent issue, the government is spending more money than they have. Now, when the average person spends more money than they have, they usually decide to balance their budget. They recognize you cannot spend more than you bring in. Failure to appropriately balance a budget results in a ever increasing debt. The government pretends to balance their budget, or at least minimize the rate of their debt acquisition, by setting a meaningless debt ceiling. The supposed incentive to get this meaningless debt ceiling set, is a government shutdown, which of course is fake. I fail to see the logic behind this shutdown, which didn't seem to be much of a shutdown. I think the idea of a "shutdown", at least in its current use, should be abolished. The shutdown no longer serves any financial purpose, in fact, it costs a lot of money and congressional time. To me, the shutdown seems like we are shooting ourselves in the foot for no reason.

I think some sort of "balanced budget" constitutional action should be taken. Right now it seems the U.S. government looks to be bankrupt. The government needs to prioritize how they should allocate their income, and follow the plan with a superficial ceiling. If such prioritizing cannot be agreed upon, perhaps equal cuts across the board on spending will have to be the method. One way or the other, the U.S. needs to stop spending more than they can, using a national default as a political weapon, and get rid of the meaningless debt ceiling. We are rapidly closing in on a default, some say we essentially already have defaulted, so rapid change in policy needs to take place to give ourselves  a chance. We will find ourselves in the "government shutdown" fiasco at the next date that has been set. Other countries can see we have no control over our spending, and that our dollar is becoming increasingly useless.

Blog 6

Watching the events of the “biker” incident unfold was pretty shocking. It seemed much more like something out of a movie than reality. I was appalled by the actions of both parties involved. However, the actions of the “biker gang”/ “gang of bikers”, whatever you feel comfortable labeling them, sparked the driver’s overreaction. Therefore, if your goal is to pin “blame” or to determine which one of the parties acted in the wrong, you have to elect the bikers. Of course I don’t think the driver’s decision to run over a biker was ideal, but the bikers should accept that acting in manner they were, in the middle of a busy highway can have some potentially unsavory consequences. Riding your motor bikes recklessly and illegally in the middle of New York City with fifty of your buddies can be hazardous to one’s health. It is safe to say the bikers recognized (or should have) this fact before they set out on their tear. You cannot be so naïve to think that behaving in such a manner will not inevitably enrage some drivers. You also cannot be so naïve to think that, of these drivers you will inevitably enrage, all of them will be so courteous as to politely ask you to get out of their way. Of course some people will completely overreact and behave recklessly. It’s called road rage and it happens all the time. That is the risk you take when you behave like this “gang of bikers” did.

To the point of the SUV driver’s behavior, my first reaction was that he completely overreacted to the situation. I tried applying Smith’s “empathy/sympathy test”, putting myself in his “shoes” and then determining how I would have acted. My first answer was that of course I would immediately call the authorities and try to plea with the “gang of bikers” to not stomp me. Then I wasn’t so sure, after all I have never been in any situation close to that of this man. I suppose this is the problem with empathizing in this manner. I cannot truly determine how I would act in this man’s “shoes”, therefore I cannot completely empathize, only speculate. As I stated before, this event seemed more like a scene from a movie, not reality, how could I realistically and confidently state how I would behave in the situation? I would like to think I would respond in a civil manner and I could never imagine myself driving over someone with my vehicle. On the other hand, I don’t know how afraid the man was for himself or his family, I also don’t know if I would have been equally afraid or less afraid. For these reasons, I don’t think I can say with total and unwavering confidence how I would have acted. I suppose some will feign a greater sense of self-assurance than this, but I cannot be so certain.

 

Blog 5

         When examining the government shutdown and debt ceiling crisis, most assume that Obamacare is the main point of concern. Obamacare is the current topic of concern, since a resolution of the policy between the two parties would temporarily alleviate the government shutdown. However the belief that Obamacare is the issue holding the U.S. back from having a  prosperous economy and that when a resolution is passed we can forget about the debt crisis is rather naïve. I think something much more fundamental must change before real, long lasting improvements can occur in economy, politics, and the debt situation.

       More importantly than Obamacare, the obnoxiously partisan mindset in politics, more specifically the Legislative branch needs to drastically change. United States' politics is more polarized and more partisan than ever before. Members of congress worry more about scoring points with their extremely partisan campaign donors rather than helping improve the state of the country. Since reelection is always the main concern of a congressmen, they vote in a manner that will appease their donors (very extremely to the left or right). I recommend looking up members of congress voting histories. You'll find that "Republicans" essentially vote conservatively 100% of the time and "Democrats" 100% for the left. Voting action like this ruins the two party system, and is why nothing can get done at the Legislative branch, and in the political world in general. It is all a big pissing contest. Of course Adams and Washington warned of the very situation we find ourselves in today, a fight between two political factions, constantly trying to get back at one another. The founding fathers are certainly rolling over in their graves. In fact a change in policy or issue stance is frowned upon in the current political culture. Campaign ads are filled with accusations of "not staying true to the party" or "flip flopping on stances", politicians love to brag that they "haven't changed their stances on the issues EVER". Why would close mindedness like this be a point of pride? Why is  changing a stance inherently bad?  I think a major reform in political thinking needs to occur in the U.S., maybe a movement away from the two party system, maybe an emergence of more parties (like Germany), maybe some alternative option. The culture of picking either "Team Conservative" or "Team Democrat" and then fighting for your chosen narrow beliefs to the death is ridiculous. In what other aspect of life is their only two restrictive, with no room for variation stances to choose from? If you watch the NBA, you do not have to choose between being either a Lakers fan or a Celtics fan, with no other possibilities, there are dozens of teams in which you can support. Once you pick your favorite team, you are not forever bound to the team til death. If your team doesn't make it to the Finals, when it is time to decide a champion, you pick whichever team you dislike the least to cheer for (I hope you understand the point I am trying to make with this vague analogy). The point being, government and politics must be more free thinking and breakaway from partisan restraints.

         On the topic of Obamacare, I don't think it's the government's responsibility to meddle with an individual's health. It increases everyone's premiums and decreases quality of care. Healthcare should be privatized, which would make care more affordable and quality increase. I don't think a completely privatized healthcare system would leave the poor and disadvantaged out on the streets to suffer because they cannot afford care, I have more faith in humanity than this. More than likely doctors (who I think it is safe to say possess a general care and interest for people's health) would charitable help these disadvantaged.

       I can see how one could think this post is rather hypocritical, at one moment I bash partisanship, then proceed to express what could be viewed as a very partisan stance. I suppose the difference is I don't consider myself absolutist in my position and would be open to hearing evidence for opposition stances. If evidence or statistics or a valid constitutional interpretation would present itself, I would be more than glad to alter my stance to better it. I have no blinding emotional or indoctrinated association with my beliefs and always open to change. I think leaving emotional attachment to your "Team" is probably the best way to think about things in politics and life, be a free thinker.

Blog 4

Unlike what seems to be the majority of the class, I have no substantial history with these "memes" or "adorable pet videos". When it comes to the writing on this subject I am quite the novice, and for this I am proud. So please excuse how greenhorn-ish this blog may be. One thing is for sure, the general public does seem to hold some interest in the cute animal culture. Whether this interest has traceable origins or simply sprouted from human nature, it captivates millions.

The task of finding something substantial in the material provided was quite the challenge. However, the thought that being  a "dog person" or "cat person"  could influence or predispose someone to a certain economic ideology was interesting. Or perhaps the causal claim goes the other way, does your economic policy stance predispose you to being a cat or dog person. The claim that, "Trots prefer cats, whilst Maoists, dogs, because cats embody class independence, whilst dogs rely on cross-class alliance" may be complete nonsense, nonetheless humorous to consider. It  would be interesting to investigate if there is a correlation between pet preference and ideology. Are Republicans dog people? Democrats cat people? That leaves Moderates as fish people? Or maybe Republicans are more Golden Retriever-ish and Democrats more Beagle-like. If you want to get real edgy, perhaps you claim Republicans are Siamese cat people and Democrats lean more Persian. The possibilities are exciting.

Blog 3

The Aurora shooting, the Newtown massacre, and the naval yard tragedy, among several other recent public attacks, raise serious concerns among U.S. citizens. Such acts of violence baffle essentially everyone, which makes the task of understanding the cause of them very confusing. Because of the difficulty of identifying the reason for such acts, deciding how to prevent them also raises much debate. Commonly, people rush to brash opinions on preventing such acts. For many, a seemingly easy route of prevention is to simply take away guns from citizens. The popular stance seems to be that if the government took away guns from the people, either by directly doing so or by increasing the difficultly of acquiring them, these acts would stop happening. I disagree with such a claim. Increasing gun control would have no impact on the frequency or severity of these acts.

I think that it is rather naïve to believe that if the government tried to increased gun control, difficulty of acquiring guns, and so on, that these acts would stop happening. United States citizens have owned guns since the founding of the country. We all know the 2nd amendment gives us this right. Yet such attacks did not occur with the frequency and severity as they do today.

What seems to have changed in recent years is an increase in mental health issues. I am no psychologist nor expert on mental health, but from a laymen's prospective, this seems evident. Taking for example the naval yard shooting, it seems that Alexis' extreme mental health concerns and the inability of those around him to recognize and act on his issues more directly led the attack,  than his ability to acquire a gun. I would argue he would have found a way to act violently regardless of how strict gun laws were. Whether he would have illegally acquired a gun or simply used one of the many other possible modes of conflicting harm on people. I do not believe there is  a streamline way for the government to take away the ability of a citizen to harm other citizens, much more than what policies are already  in place (background checks for guns, building security, etc.). What needs to improve is the ability of citizens to recognize when an individual has mental health issues, and  what measures need to be taken to address them.

Blog 2

If you don't already know, the conflict in Syria poses quite a dilemma to the United States, and the world. A civil war rages on, fueled by attempts of majority sects to over throw a minority sect who govern the country, lead by president Bashar al-Assad. It also appears that Assad has used chemical weapons on thousands of rebels, including innocent children, a direct violation of global laws, to fend off the attempts to overthrow him.  For years their have been public demands for Assad's resignation from office and the resulting civil war has lead to around 100,000 lost lives and millions of fleeing refugees. The Syrian economy has been crippled and many of their cities are destroyed war zones.

This situation leads to many questions, "What must done?", " Can anything be done?", and "Should anything be done at all?". All valid questions and several valid answers exist for each. Many would argue, including Barack Obama, that the U.S. must militarily strike down Assad's rule to bring about order and peace in the nation, save innocent lives, and to enforce U.N. laws. The strike would destroy chemical weapons, remove the tyrannical, unpopular leader, and allow the rebels to set up a government that is in the interest of the public. Others would say, that a military strike would be ineffective, create more violence, and enrage the Syrian and various other governments, such as Russia. Then there's the isolationist view that the conflict in Syria is not U.S. business, cannot be helped or mended by our actions, therefore the U.S. should leave it alone, the last thing the country needs is another military conflict or enrage a dangerous government. Clearly, the answers to the above questions depend on one's views of morality.

Recent developments have resulted in what appears to be a diplomatic solution to the conflict. The Syrian government has recently agreed to a plan that would require them to destroy their chemical weapons by 2014. While this sounds like a solution, many remain skeptical. The agreement does not address the tyrannical Assad, who many would say is the root of all the issues, he remains in power and seemingly without punishment. Will removing the chemical weapons really solve what the actual problem, will it stop the  refugee crisis, will stop the civil war, will it save the economy. Or must more blunt action be taken. I don't mean to suggest any answers, as I don't think I have one, but I think it is important for people to ask themselves these sorts of questions and to consider the moral dilemmas that result in the various options.

Blog 1

   This blog post will consist of my interpretations and thoughts on “Section V: Concerning our Reasoning…” by Francis Hutcheson. This essay took me quite some time to drudge through, as the 18^th century writing style was often cryptic. However, after some time and several re-readings of paragraphs, I was able to gather what seemed to me to be Hutcheson’s main notion. This notion being that humans’ share a sense of beauty, an appreciation for regularity, uniformity, and consistency, of which can never come to existence by randomness but by a designer. One sentence that somewhat summarizes this notion sits in the third paragraph when Hutcheson proclaims,” that wherever there is any Regularity in the disposition of a System capable of many other , there must have been Design in the Cause; and the Force of this Evidence increases, according to the Multiplicity of Parts imploy’d”(Hutcheson, Concerning).
   Hutcheson’s thesis presents a very interesting but dated argument. He uses the majority of the writing to defend his thesis through legitimate mathematical reasoning, however his conclusion many would debate. To summarize, Hutcheson claims that the regularity or “beauty” we see in the natural world is extremely mathematically improbable, therefore, this regularity could not come to existence by chance, but by design.  Today, most scientific thinkers would of course agree that the natural world’s regularity and beauty was not brought about by chance at all, but through a selective process called evolution. In fairness to Hutcheson, he presented a very logical argument at the time he made it, as the theory of evolution did not come to presence until after Hutcheson’s death.
   I think Hutcheson makes a very respectable claim, given the knowledge of the world he had at the time, as there seemed to be little alternatives. In terms of his work refuting or clashing with Mandeville’s, Fable of the Bees, I think some disagreements occur. To summarize, I think Mandeville gives mankind little credit and faith, whereas Hutcheson would argue that man naturally possesses an innate ability to see beauty and reason. One could then assume that Hutcheson would argue that this natural sense lead humanity to organizing itself into a civil society as it would be the reasonable action to take.