The Obama Era (Mediated #4)

The Obama Era


As I was looking for an article about the voter apathy for the midterm elections, I came across an older blog post from December 2012 titled,"The Obama Era: A new age in American Politics". As I read the title I wondered about a comment that was presented in our discussion last Tuesday night after the presentations. After bringing up a picture of President Obama onto the screen, I believe our instructor said that this man was misunderstood and underestimated in the impact that he has made for America. There was no explanation that night, so I have wondered since that night what was meant. As I read the article, and even though it is old, I felt like I could understand what had been implied by the comment.

I realize that I am looking at this story in hind-sight, which is not fair to the author because I know the end story. For this very reason, I thought that this would be a good challenge to dissect this argument and to also learn more of a perspective that I had not looked from before.

The argument of this article is that with two consecutive election wins by Obama, he has changed the face of politics for those groups of people who have not felt like they had a say or felt like they could participate before. The author further argues that as a new face in politics, he has changed the status quo from the stereotypical white bald man running for office. He did this by being able to relate to the every day kind of person. This in turn will continue to promote and energize enthusiasm in a portion of the population that has until now felt ostracized from the political realm.

The author then continued his argument in a very cogent way by furnishing the facts and figures of the election turnout numbers from the 2012 election. No other president in history had turned out such a diverse group of voters. Through his great victories he had been credited for opening the door for other minority leaders to step into the roles of political leadership where they could then make decisions representing their own social class.

Up to this point in the article, I could agree and follow the premise. I do think that Obama has changed the face of politics in our country. I think that he has opened doors. But, I believe the fallacy in the argument is to think that it was all him and him alone.

The dynamics of our society have been in flux since the mid '90's with the "dot com" era and then social media craze. These technological advances have created a journalist out of every person with a smart phone. This information age has allowed anyone to find the truth if they are willing to look hard enough for it.

I think that President Obama has changed the face of politics, but it was not because he is so relatable to the people (We know that now with his recent approval record) , it was because he could relate to the technology. The technology is then what related and energized the people.

This article was written soon after the 2012 election and I am sure that the author was still excited about the big win for his candidate that would explain the large amounts of emotion and bits of bias in his writing. I also believe that there were many other important issues that energized voters in that election as well as the large amounts of media coverage and ad campaigns for it.

The face of politics will forever be changed for those who are willing to make the changes with technology that will support them. 


 

The California Bag Ban (Mediated #3)

The California Bag Ban (Mediated #3)

The question of paper or plastic in California will now only be found in the history books. On September 30^th, California governor, Jerry Brown, signed a law into effect that bans the use of single use plastic bags. 

For me this issue has been of minor interest for some time. Having lived over in China, I experienced quite the phenomenon of plastic bag pollution. Every street vendor served their food in little clear plastic bags. After people had finished their meal, they would then discard the bag in the street, thinking that it was someone else’s job to clean up the mess. This cultural behavior produced a huge amount of plastic waste at any place where bags could be pushed by the wind. I have wondered for years what the solution to this problem would be. 

In recent years, I saw the other side of this argument, when I did some consulting work for a plastics manufacturer that was producing a biodegradable plastic out of certain minerals. This plastic could be used just as people were used to, but it would almost completely degrade after only a few months.

Once I heard the news that California had a bag ban, I was intrigued and began to read more. The article I found was quite cogent. It presented that there were two sides to this argument and shared the beliefs of each side. The environmental side wishes to get rid of the use of plastics because it degrades and the manufacturers want to keep making their products. 

This article continued to give evidence for each side while staying away from bias or opinion on this issue. It further explained the law itself. I learned that the ban is not for every bag. It is only for grocery stores, but not meats and produce. Non-food items are also exempt. It will take effect in 2015 for large stores and then smaller stores the next year. 

The author further explains that the municipalities spend millions on cleanup efforts in order to take care of plastic bag problems. I can see how Americans have gained a lot of the same behavior attitude as the Chinese in that they think that it is someone else’s job to keep the place cleaned up.

Paper bags or reuse bags will be used in place of the plastic ones. The grocery stores will also be allowed to charge for these bags up to 10 cents a piece. The author of the bill believes that people will adopt quickly to the change and then we will have cleaner streets and parks.

The author also presented evidence about the plastic bag recycling programs. They explained the failure of these programs that were implemented years before the law was written and passed.

The idea has many other states and large cities looking to implement the same kind of ban. The manufacturers (American Progressive Bag Alliance) of plastic bags are still looking to fight this ban by forcing the decision to be put before the voters. I feel that the idea is good if they are proposing true debate of the issue which could further collaboration and solutions that are better than the ban. If this could be done then I would support that kind of effort. Otherwise it is just boiled down to an issue of opinion and perspective.

Keep the Time Change- (Rebutal Argument)

Rebuttal Argument

Daylight Savings Time

“Boo to the time change” is an argument proposing that we should stop changing the time twice a year by staying on Standard Time all year or by abandoning the practice of Daylight Saving Time(DST). The evidence of this argument shared how the current changing of time twice a year affects our health, does not save energy, and creates economic loss. The fallacies of this argument can be easily explained by the development and purpose of Daylight Saving Time. I will further share evidence that shares the true Daylight Saving issues dealing with health, energy, and the economy.

   

For this argument, we must first understand what DST is and how it came about. In the United States, DST begins at 2:00 a.m. on the second Sunday of March by shifting ahead one hour from Standard Time. It changes back to Standard Time on the first Sunday in November. Of the fifty states, only Hawaii and Arizona have stayed on standard time. 

The time changes are tied to each time zone across the U.S.  Time zones were originally developed, by a Canadian railway engineer, Sandford Fleming, in order to standardize the times of the rail systems within Canada and the U.S.  As standard time between each time zone was seen to be more practical for communication and travel, standard time was finally put into U.S. law with the passing of the Standard Time Act of 1918, which was enacted on March 19^th of the same year.

  

The historical development of DST shows the logical reasoning for choosing the current system. The first suggestion of DST was introduced by Ben Franklin in a satirical essay he wrote while acting as an American delegate in Paris, France. In his essay entitled,  “An Economic Project,” he noticed that during the summer time the sun was already well established in the sky by the time most people began to stir from the comfortable confines of their beds. He then conjectured on how much oil for lamps would be saved if people would wake up earlier and take advantage of this free light held back by their closed shutters.  Many people there were intrigued with the idea and continued to correspond with him even after his return to the U.S.

  

More than a century later, a London builder, William Willett, wrote a pamphlet titled, “Waste of Daylight” (need link). He thought that everyone should push their clocks forward 20 minutes for four weeks in April each year and then back at the same increment four weeks in September. Like Franklin, he was so surprised that everyone’s shutters were closed even until the sun was well into the sky. He lamented how the beautiful spring and summer mornings were being wasted.

  

 In the U.S. the DST was first adopted during World War I in order to preserve resources used to produce electricity. Germany began the use of DST and many other European nations followed suit. The U.S. did not official adopt it until 1918, which only lasted 7 months. Most people didn’t like the law because at that time people would wake up earlier and go to bed earlier than they do today. It was later brought back during WWII as “War Time” from February 1942 to September 1945.

  

After the WWII and until 1966, each state and local jurisdiction was allowed to decide whether or not to observe DST and when to implement it. Throughout the country this created confusion and problems for the economy in industries like, broadcasting, railways, airlines, and transportation.  The Time Uniformity Committee of 1966 was created by congress at that time to study the subject.  In its research it found that one 35 mile bus route had to endure 7 different time changes along its route.

In 1966, congress stepped in to remedy the confusion and in April of that year, Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Uniform Time Act of1966. This law established a uniform system of DST through the whole U. S. and its territories except for those states whose legislatures voted them to stay with standard time. DST started on the last Sunday in April and ended on the last Sunday in October.

  

The law was further amended throughout the years in order to better take advantage of the resource of daylight. It was last updated by the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 which was implemented in 2007. Since that time we have experienced the earlier shifting of time in the spring and the later shift back in the fall.

Daylight Saving Time has been said to affect a person’s health by adjusting circadian rhythms. A change in a person’s internal body clock could theoretically affect ones sleep patterns which could then affect a person’s health. There is no complete data on DST as being the main cause of sleep disorders which are really the culprit of health issues that could cause a greater risk of heart attack, getting into a car wreck, or even injuring yourself at work.

One of the main health benefits of DST is that of more opportunity to extended exposure to sunlight, which helps the body produce needed vitamin D. It is proven that vitamin D has a role in helping calcium build strong bones. I t also can help regulate the immune system and the neuromuscular system. It is also a pivotal component in the life cycle of human cells. The usefulness of daylight saving time in the summer and the shift back to standard time in the winter can give many people the opportunity to help their bodies produce more vitamin D, which can keep them more healthy than any negative effects of shifting time twice a year.

  

The economic losses stated in the argument are subjective. The 850 million dollars of lost revenue due to lost productivity on the Monday after the Super Bowl is not a comparable example for DST lost revenue. I don’t believe that many people have a major party on the Sunday night after DST has been implemented for the season. Plus, in the fall, people actually get an extra hour of sleep the next morning. This extra hour of sleep in the fall should cancel any negative effects that come from the hour lost in the spring.

The assumed economic losses of this issue are not losses at all. Losses in productivity are typically only a shift in economy. A more proper name for Daylight Saving Time should be Daylight shifting time, or Daylight time shifting. This name would help us realize the true economics of Daylight Saving Time. The loss of production in one industry can typically be a gain for another.  Starbucks  has grown at a tremendous rate since the 1990’s and has grown this last year at a rate of an 11%. The growth that this business has seen has been not just for one day, but has happened over whole seasons.

The observance of Daylight Savings Time is a worldwide phenomenon. Throughout the world times are adjusted in order to make the best use of the natural light that we have through each season. Only one state in the continental U.S. does not adhere to the practice, but even the Navajo Nation within that state uses DST in order to take advantage of the benefits it provides. 

The debate of DST has been reduced to one of opinion, but it is really a discussion that would best be done on a national level. This would allow all states (Arizona and Hawaii excluded if they want)to promote uniformity for all affected industries and commerce. The State of Utah has attempted to enter the debate by the legislators requesting a study to find out what the people want in the state. The outcomes of the polls seems to indicate that many people have varying opinions about DST without understanding much of the background for it. More than 20,000 responded to a poll and stated their opinion to change the law or not. A video of responders to the study in Salt Lake City were only annoyed or irritated by the law and each had their own varied opinion of what to do even though the debate has been decided on a national level for the benefit of all.

There is only one clear choice for this debate. Daylight Savings Time should continue as it has been. The historical purpose has moved the debate forward over decades and has settled on the best solution that is now time tested. To move the time back to Standard time or just to stay on DST would create problems in many industries. The businesses that have adapted to the current use of DST would again have to adjust and adapt again which could cause harm to the economy. Harm would also be to our health without taking advantage of the benefits of extra useful daylight throughout the year. Reason has brought the best solution for this issue to the forefront. Now we should realize that we have the best solution and stop wasting any more time on the subject. 

The RAP Tax -(mediated #2)

On the November ballot this year, Washington County residents will be voting whether to adopt a new sales tax in the area or not. The tax would be 1 tenth of 1 percent of the sale of non-food items within the county. That is about 1 penny for every ten dollars spent. This would produce an estimated 2.2 million dollars annually. This new RAP tax is for the development of arts and recreation in the area.

A few months ago at a town council meeting in Virgin Town, a representative for this tax came to present the idea to the residents there. After her presentation and questions were taken, the town council voted to not pursue support of the tax at that time because there would not be any significant or direct benefit to the town due to the small population size compared to that of St. George or Washington City. 

  

Not long after that experience, I heard that the County Commissioners were voting on whether or not to support the tax and to have it on the ballot in November. Soon after that, I met with Commissioner Gardener and asked him what he had thought about the tax. He said that the County was just positioning itself to be able to get some of the funds that this tax could generate otherwise St. George would pass the tax alone and then get 100 percent of the money. I let him know what happened in the town of Virgin and he told me that the small towns wouldn’t really have a say whether this would pass or not, but they too could position themselves to at least get something out of the deal if it happens.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I am not for or against this tax, yet. I am still just been gathering information. I was hoping that someone would clearly put together an article or essay explaining both sides of the issue so that I could just read it and make a more educated decision. (What kind of dream world would that be?)

This last week I then read an article from the Spectrum and then one from the Independent that paralleled each other as they described an information meeting that had been held the night before on this subject. The articles were very cogent in their argument. The structure of their argument fit the templates that we have been learning to use very well. (Each of you should read them just to see how they structured their arguments.) They included the right definitions of terms, good claims, and then have warrants and grounds to back up most of their points. They even used banker and former Speaker of the House, David Clark, as their expert witness and spokesperson to further strengthen their argument. 

As I continued to digest this information from these articles, I felt that there should be something more. (I guess this is the cynical nature I have really begun to develop as I delve further into this class.) After reading more of the "fallacies" chapters in our textbook, I realized that the argument that they present may be cogent in the context of the information they have provided, but it is also fallacious in the information or content that they have suppressed or ignored.

As you read the article, notice how there is only a brief mention of opposition to the tax issue at all and that was met with another response of support for the tax. Notice that there was no mention of how this need was created or why it is so necessary right now. There is no clear premise justifying the tax other than they say that this is an “investment for our future.” There is also no discussion for alternatives to making this amount of money they want other than instituting the tax.

I ask why? Why can’t they just manage better the money they have now in their budgets to pay for starving artists and recreationalists. Why can’t private enterprise come in to provide the arts and recreation that we believe we all need right now! (The Veruca Salt Syndrome)  They suppressed the opposite side to bolster their argument but a true analysis of both sides would not hurt their case but strengthen it. As long as there are still unanswered questions, I will still have doubts of their intentions. 

The issue is Integration not Immigration (Constructive Argument)

There currently is an estimated 11.5 million illegal immigrants now residing in our country. This phenomenon has sparked a national debate about immigration. The debate has ranged from the ineffectiveness of current federal immigration laws to the possibility of amnesty for those who are already here illegally. The Senate even created a bipartisan committee, comprised of four democrats and four republicans, referred to as the” Gang of Eight.” They worked to draft legislation that would revamp our antiquated immigration laws. Despite the efforts of this group, any kind of comprehensive immigration legislation has yet to be fully passed by Congress and signed by the President, which leaves these illegal immigrants to continue on here without documentation. Even if new laws were passed or amnesty granted, many of the underlying issues dealing with immigrants who came here illegally would still need to be addressed. These issues would better be answered through a national debate on integration instead of immigration.

Immigration deals with laws pertaining to how people are allowed to enter the country where integration deals with how those people will become contributing members of our society and become a beneficial good for all parties involved. Immigration is what allows people to come here and integration is what keeps them here as contributing members of our society.

  

Immigration is an issue of the federal government. The founding document of our country, the US Constitution, clearly set forth in Article 1 section 8, establishes that congress is to enact the laws governing naturalization of immigrants to this country. Congress began establishing these laws as early as 1790. Through the Constitution, we the people allow Congress this right, so that we can equally share among the states the burden of regulating the kind and type of people we would want to come into our country. Even though we relinquished this right to the federal government to determined and establish specific immigration laws, we (the states) did not give up our right to regulate how people are integrated into our melting pot.

Furthermore, because congress retains this right to enforce immigration laws, the states don’t have any recourse against those who have broken these laws if the federal government refuses to enforce the immigration laws. The evidence that the federal government has refused to fully enforce immigration laws can be seen by the fact of the estimated 11.5 million who are currently here in our country without proper documentation. 

Recently, Arizona took steps to enact laws dealing with immigration that would basically force the federal government to enforce their current immigration laws. The federal government immediately initiated a law suit against the state for infringing on their duty to enact and enforce laws pertaining to immigration. This action was justified by the federal government through the constitution, but they still have a duty to uphold the laws which they obviously have not completely accomplished.  If Arizona had changed their focus from enforcing immigration laws to creating integration laws, their argument could be debated on a different front.

   

Integration is not an acceptance of amnesty. It sets a benchmark for those who would like to come here. The early founding of our country was based on the immigration of people looking for a brighter hope of opportunity in a new land. Many others came fleeing from the ravages of tyrannical governments and dictators. They came to a land that generally recognized the rights of the people to pursue happiness through their hard work and ingenuity. Has the purpose to come here changed? These are the individuals that we want in our country and as our fellow citizens. People coming now still want to have hope and an opportunity for success that will not be ripped away from them without consent. These are the people that add benefit to our country with new ideas and new hope for a better future. Integration debate focuses our attention back to the people it affects and not just on the laws that were broke. The statistic for immigration show that a largest majority of immigrants are still coming from Mexico as well as Asia. These people are fleeing their repressive governments and economies in order for an opportunity of hope in our land. 

In the 1980’s, during the Reagan era, a similar problem of illegal immigration was approached with an almost full amnesty for those that were already here illegally in the country. This action resolved much of the problem of people being here illegally by simply changing their designation, but did not establish a clear reasoning for these people coming here in the first place under the terms that they did. This move continued to bolster the hopes for many more, currently 11.5 million more,  that believed that if they could just make it across our border, that they would eventually be able to stay and be taken care of like their predecessors.  This is failed immigration policy, but integration laws could set an upfront standard for those people wishing to come here to acknowledge before they made the attempt to come across the border without going through the proper channels.

Debating integration instead of immigration allows the discussion of issues to happen on a local level. Each area of our country is different in its population diversity and amount of immigrants legal and illegal. Therefore, the laws that are right for one area may not be the best for another area of the country. Keeping the law making more local can further debate and provide more particular solutions to this issue.

Integration can provide an atmosphere for debate of the immigration issues where solutions can be discussed and decided. Immigration is very limited in its scope of issues where integration can include the  regulation of issues like English as an official language, how immigrants can get work here or start businesses and begin to pay their share of the tax burden, and how these people are dealt with in regards to American entitlements but on a state-by-state basis and level.

The current immigration laws have obviously not deterred very many from the dangers of crossing our borders, but tough integration laws could encourage only those who are willing to live by those laws to enter with the full knowledge that if they can meet the necessary criteria, they will be granted an equal opportunity just like the rest. Meeting these initial laws could relieve some of the burdensome restrictions of those wishing to eventually become citizens of our country.

A discussion of integration provides and atmosphere for a discussion of solutions to the issue of immigration. We have learned that immigration is a federal government issue that has taken years to develop and may take many more years to fix to the liking of a majority of our representatives. Until that time, we the people have retained the right to regulate the integration of particular aspects of immigrants into our society. Tough integration laws will further persuade only those who are truly interested in meeting the criteria of those new laws to come to our particular states and cities. Integration laws can be created on a local level, which would be more beneficial for each particular area of the country. These laws would ultimately help make better contributing members of society out of those who are currently considered illegal according to our current immigration laws. This would be a benefit to both the immigrants as well as the current citizens of the United States.