The 50 year debate - Comment No. 2 on a colleague

In this unit, I learned more about Roe v Wade, a case that was taken to the court in 1971 and even though this happened almost 50 years ago abortion is still a very controversial topic. We all have our own points of view and opinion on things and I believe that as a society we should all be more open-minded and be willing to listen to the opposing side. There are people who say to be open minded but as soon as you talk against or different to what they believe they will say you are insane, don’t know what you’re talking about, you’re wrong, and walk away or not want to hear the conversation anymore. I have also learned that there are people at both ends who take things to the extreme. For example; extremely to the right or extremely to the left, and being like that, I believe, is not a way to be balanced.

I was browsing through the different blogs to see who’s post I would comment on and I came across “Originally Commentary on Abortion” by Dawson Walton. So, I chose to comment on this blog because only a few days ago I was watching some YouTube videos and came across a type of interview/movie titled “7 Reasons” and it touches on the subject of abortion. I find it very interesting and educational when I watch a debate or look at both sides of a topic/story. I feel doing this broadens my perspective. It makes me see more rather than setting my mind to just one thing as if I was in one small box.

In his blog, Mr. Walton writes that “It shouldn’t be up to lawmakers to decide whether a woman can abort…” And to this statement, I say that lawmakers have made many decisions that don’t go according to what the popular vote is. I feel as if many decisions are taken without asking the public. In class this semester we learned how there are different topics that concern the U.S.A. and a great majority of the public feel strongly one way yet when laws get passed it goes the opposite way. Why does this happen? Is the question I always wonder about.

Mr. Walton states that “…a teenager is most likely unfit to take care of child.” And I agree 50/50 on that. Because I have seen and know of many moms who got pregnant in their teens and fought through it and became really good moms and other moms who became pregnant in their teens and gave up the responsibility to someone else. So in that, I believe a better education system should be put in place to avoid teens to become pregnant.

Overall I give deep thought to what Mr. Walton wrote about and thank him for sharing this with all of us.

“Let me inject heroin in a safe place, it’s my citizen right”

A few months ago, I came across some videos where in some cities (I can’t remember where in the U.S.) they created a space where people could come in and use illegal drugs and in case they overdosed they had professionals there to help them right away. A few questions came to my mind as I watched these videos: What is the purpose of creating these “safe places”? Who is paying for the building, staff, professionals? And wouldn’t creating spaces like these just encourage people to continue to use drugs, seeing that there are no consequences?

As I was wondering on what topic to write about I came across this topic once again “Should cities open drug ‘safe places’ where people who are addicted to illegal drugs can use them under the supervision of medical professionals?” I imagine addiction can be a very difficult thing to live with, maybe it was easy to fall into addiction and now it’s difficult to come out of it. And I believe that if cities do open spaces like these, they would just encourage the use of those drugs. Why not create more programs of help? If someone wants to change for the better and quit addictions they will seek help. But how can we help those who don’t want to be helped? By opening up a space so they can freely inject those drugs? What’s next, providing the drugs for them?

Some might argue, “opening a safe place will allow people to come in and be protected from the bad people out there. From people who want to abuse them, steal from them, and maybe even kill them”. Yet, shouldn’t these reasons/circumstances push the people, who are addicted to illegal drugs, to make a positive change for their lives? To run away from that life and pursue some positive goals or career?  

Perhaps I’m missing some info and I would like to see, read, and hear the point of view from someone who supports the opening of these “safe spaces”. But if the opening of these places, to have the staff, and with medical professionals (which we know won’t be cheap) is coming out of our pockets, citizens who work hard to earn their money and pay their bills, I don’t imagine many people agreeing with the opening of these spaces.

We live in some very interesting times. With there being so many other things that we could work on, just as one example, free college education. Why not provide the opportunity for many people to receive a very good and free education, to have a well-educated and knowledgeable country? Feeding the hungry? Amongst many many other things to work on. But maybe there is a very good outcome for opening these spaces, like I said earlier, some information that I may be missing. I would really enjoy reading about it. How would opening up these places be beneficial to our society?

WOMEN PAYING MORE IS NOT A NATIONAL ISSUE!!!

“WOMEN PAYING MORE (or “pink tax”) IS NOT A NATIONAL ISSUE!!!” ... some might say or have this mentality, but the more you think about it and begin to explore it, you will see how it affects the population of the U.S.  When I first read the instructions for the blog no. 5 assignment issues such as immigration, national security, healthcare, amongst others crossed my mind right away but this issue never crossed my mind to talk about as a national issue. Yet this issue affects a great portion (women) of the U.S. Population (more than half) and therefore it should be brought up for discussion and be seen as a national issue. 

The first time I heard this statement I honestly thought it was just something being made up. I didn’t think nor imagined that women would get charged more for similar products that men also use. I heard women pay a higher prize for some pink razors than those blue or black razors from the same brand but are in the men department. I have begun to wonder more and more on things such as why I can get a $20 that takes anywhere from 30-45 minutes yet women with long hair (and maybe even men with long hair, I need to ask about this) get the hair ends of their hair evened out or cut slightly and yet get charged double or even more compared to what.  

Could it be that beauty has a price? But what about men then? Does their “beauty” also have a price?  

I wasn’t even aware of other items that you mentioned that are priced higher for women, like diapers or canes. Could it be that the pink dye is more expensive? If someone makes that argument, honestly- no comment. Could it be that they have to add extra glitter, sparkles, designs, etc.? Something simple shouldn’t double the price of things. Extra money here and there for services and products does begin to add up and there should be more equality for the same or similar products offered to both men and women, changing the color or things of that sort on the products shouldn’t increase the price outrageously.  

Rayroo, you also argue that women shouldn’t give into buying the men version, as others may suggest, and should instead fight it. But how can or will you fight it? I believe if many women just started to buy the men (same thing less cost) that would send a clear message to the companies. And hopefully, equal the prices. Social media would be a great tool to communicate with other women, make plans of boycotting, and even reach out to the companies and in great amounts and send emails or to let them know about the concerns.  

It makes me happy to read when you mention that other companies and congresspeople are bringing awareness to this is issue and fighting for a change. And it also makes me wonder why I haven’t heard feminist groups bring this up or seen them fight for it. I believe unity is the key to making a change. More people should be aware of this issue and fight together to make a positive change. 

Commentary on rayroo blog five

Marijuana, don't mess with Texas?

Was I the only one or how many people were told/taught things like “don’t do drugs” “stay drug-free” or “marijuana is so bad”? As a result, I always had that idea that anyone who smoked marijuana would be a bad person, someone my family didn’t want me to talk to, and that if I ever consumed marijuana I would end up on the streets. When I grew up and was more able to think for myself, read articles, interact with marijuana users, I began to realize marijuana was not this horrible life-ending drug that people such as teachers, media, and family had told me. Just like we learned a few weeks ago, our world view is really shaped by the people around us.

IF marijuana is this horrible thing, why is it being allowed in other countries? And also being legalized in other states? I understand hardcore drugs being illegal such as heroin or cocaine, which can cause addiction or even worst; death right away when overdosed. But marijuana not having any reported overdose, horrible side effects, etc. and yet being illegal? My question is why?

IF the people that don’t allow the legalization of marijuana say that it’s because of health concerns and they worry for the public, then why are things such as tobacco (which has been proven to cause lung cancer) and alcohol (which has been proven to damage the liver) still okay to sell and buy?

I don’t want to call it a conspiracy theory because I believe any time that word is heard, whatever sentences follow after, will be discredited. So I will just call it a theory; what if someone is giving money or should I say “donating” to people who pass/make laws in order for marijuana to not be legal? But then two questions arise: who would be so interested and with what purpose do they want to keep marijuana illegal? Could it be pharmacy companies? Instead of just using medical marijuana, they would rather sell you ten different medication to treat the same health problem. What would be more profitable, one medication or ten medications? But would this be like corruption? Corruption in the US? I find that a difficult pill to swallow. And unsure if there’s much corruption in the US. We live in such a big state, other states have already legalized it. Then what is the holdup Texas?

Perhaps many people already have a similar belief, perhaps others believe marijuana is this horrible thing, but when my family makes comments about marijuana such as “look at that drug addict” or “look at that stoner” I try to educate them by asking them if they know that marijuana has medical uses too. That no one has ever died from a marijuana overdose, that it doesn’t cause damages like alcohol and tobacco. Etc. It is very valid to form arguments against this theory. And I’d like to read those arguments. Being educated and learning from others is a life experience that we are lucky to have.

Unequal opportunity unmasked

Judy Rothman took a different approach to make an opinion about the topic because she didn’t write or comment much about it. Judy posted a transcript, a conversation between a “desperate parent” and a “cooperating witness”. I don’t agree much with the in quotes (“ ”) names she gave the characters of this story because before reading the story I thought “cooperating witness” was going to be someone who was doing good and not cheating the system. But when you read the transcript you realize that both the parent and the “money hungry witness” (which is what I would name them) are at fault, they both did wrong, one offered money the other one accepted. Maybe by creating these names for these characters, Judy, wants us to form a negative opinion against the parent and a positive one against the witness and see the witness as more of a victim.

That aside, I still believe it has really good information, and perhaps her intention was just to put the transcript in its entirety and show people what is really being said, and make the readers come up with their own thoughts about it instead of Judy making comments. Judy seems to be directing this transcript to anyone who is against the offering of money to enter the schools. It’s very disappointing what people will do for money, for the love of money that is, because money is not bad since we need it to buy food and other essential needs, but when people do corrupt thigs for money it is then that it becomes a problem.

I am referring to the college admission scandal where many parent’s payed so that their children would be accepted to elite universities such as Yale, Wesleyan, etc. The name of the opinion article is “Satire: Whatwere Loughlin, Huffman & other parents thinking in college admissionscandal?” I believe it should have a different name because Judy didn’t make much of an opinion or comment. But over all it’s a good read. And makes me wonder how long things like this have been going around. And sad to know that equal opportunity for elite college acceptance is farther than I had realize, unless you have money to “donate” that is.

Aid for a positive change?

Until what point, can or should, the US support and help other countries? This question crossed my mind as I read: “Build Central America, Not a Wall” a critique published on February 25, 2019 by The Editorial Board on The New York Times.

If it was brought to a smaller scale, for example, lets say the writers, of these comments on this article, have a house and people just start to come over to stay in their home. Would they be happy to feed them, support them, and cover their expenses? Where would the writers get the resources to support the people? It’s easy to make an opinion and say “support this” “support that” “support them” etc. when the help is not being provided only by the writers, to the people.

The U.S. has many problems of its own, many things they need to take care of, how can someone (whether it’s a person or country) be able to help others when they themselves need help?

“President Trump chose on Monday to reaffirm his punitive bent, complaining about the exodus of migrants and saying he told the leaders of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, whose countries receive millions of dollars in annual aid, “We’re not sending it anymore.” But what if the United States truly prioritized helping these nations?”

The writers said “…prioritized helping…” yet, these countries have been helped and continue to be helped till this day. If these countries have been receiving millions of dollars annually, for some time now, then why is there no change? Why do people continue to flee their homeland seeking a better future? Where is all the aid and money going to? I suspect that it’s due to so much corruption. The government of these countries probably keeps the money for themselves instead of helping their people. Corruption is a major problem in many central and southern countries, and it’s happened in the past; where aid is sent but it doesn’t reach nor is given to those who are in need.

It’s very heartbreaking to see a government/leader whose love for money is greater than love for their people. They would rather feast and dine like kings, from the money that was sent to aid the poor and needy, than to help them out.

“Plagued by corruption, violence and gang terror…”

Yes, this article mentions the corruption and violence faced in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, but these are problems that need to be addressed within the country, within the leaders and by the leaders.

“…need stronger and more honest judges and police officers, better schools and economic development.”

Yes, there need to be honest judges, police officers, and people of authority. Also better schools, etc. so why not make propositions? Such as: if the country doesn’t improve in areas of corruption, education, poverty, etc. then the aid will be taken away, or less aid will be given. Why is this not addressed in a meeting of some sort between the U.S. president and the presidents/leaders of these nations?

“In the end, it is Central American leaders who must carry out reforms. They are more apt to do that with international support.”

I absolutely agree in the first part of this sentence (that Central American leaders should be the ones to make the changes) the changes to improve their country. But how much more help do they want? Because if the leaders continue to be corrupt and keep most, if not all, the money then there will be no real positive change.

It’s like having someone who asks for money all the time instead of going out into the world and finding ways to make money, to self-support. Anyone would be happy to just stay on the couch at home all day and receive money, not having to worry about doing anything or paying bills. But if that money is reduced or taken away then the person, due to their needs and survival, will get up and work to get money (making a positive change).

Similar to this, if the aid is removed, then that might make/motivate those leaders to rise up, action, and make a positive change. If the leaders don’t want to, nor rise up, and make the changes no matter how much “international support” they receive, they will just sit back and do nothing to help the country. It’s not only a matter of needing the resources/aid but also wanting/desiring to help their people.