Response to Abortion

I agree with Mebeb Lemma’s point of view on abortion, to add to her article. Donald Trump, our president, is not a big fan of abortion. Although not being a female himself, this doesn’t exactly make sense. Trump believes that abortion should be banned with the exception of rape, incest, and if it is a danger to the mother. Even though these are of course great reasons this shouldn’t ban abortions for other reasons. The family, mainly the mother should be able to abort the life living in their own belly. There could be a million other reasons which is not protected under Trump’s theoretical ban. The family could not have enough money to raise a child. They could be in college focusing on their school work. Maybe the father doesn’t want to be involved and the mother can not raise the child by herself. These are valid reasons for an abortion. Another thing Trump is rooting for is getting rid of the Affordable Care Act which helps helps us get free birth control and free prenatal care, both of which is extremely important. I believe that we have been through this before, this is the right of a woman to do what they want with their body. It is ridiculous what Trump is trying to do. Men who cannot have children and do not carry a baby in their belly for nine months should not be able to tell us, women, what we can and cannot do.

Medical Marijuana?

Marijuana has been around for quite sometime. It has been classified as a Schedule 1 drug because it is prone to addiction and apparently has no medical value. Other schedule 1 drugs include heroin, LSD, cocaine, and many more. Now why would thus Schedule 1 drug have medical value, if it’s a Schedule 1 drug? For a very long time scientists have ruled out the possibility and would not even consider testing the drug to see if it had medicinal value. Now we are becoming more open minded about marijuana and marijuana has been approved for extreme cases of epilepsy: Dravet Syndrome and Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome.

The big question is: Should we legalize marijuana? I don’t really know. But the bigger question is should we legalize medical marijuana? I believe the answer lies within the research. Recent findings show that Epidiolex, a CBD drug given to patients with Dravet syndrome and Lennox-Gastaut syndrome, has shown that in most cases have significantly stopped their seizures. This drug was FDA approved in June 2018.

33 states have legalized medical marijuana and 10 of those states have legalized recreational marijuana. Nobody has ever died by taking to much marijuana, a fatal dose is pretty much impossible. Now alcohol... a legal drug once you turn 21 kills about 88,000 people per year... so just think about that. That’s a lot of people, but that’s a different story. Anyway, I believe that we should do more research on this horrible illegal Schedule 1 drug and not be biased on its effects and its legality. This could be a good thing or it could be a bad thing, but we will never know unless we do the research.

Response

This is a response to Marijuana Should Not be Legalized - Drug Education is No Solution. I see your side of the story according to the research that you have found. Many states are starting to legalize marijuana because of it's helpful medical use. I feel that this is bias on your point of view as there are other medical journals that say that marijuana is not as dangerous as it says. Marijuana does not have addictive qualities, a person may become addicted to marijuana but not for it's properties. This is similar to anything else, someone can be addicted to eating, writing, watching movies, because it makes them feel better.
Another point is, there are many other drugs that are far more harmful. There are approximately 88,000 alcohol related deaths per year. The number of people that die from marijuana is very close to zero per year. There are extremely few reports on deaths linked to marijuana. Alcoholism is more of a problem than the use of marijuana.

Free College Education?...more affordable education?

I know what you're thinking. Free college education? Impossible! For everyone it probably is, but maybe more affordable education seems more reasonable. But.. how can we provide that?

Free college education will provide many benefits for students, especially for those who can not pay for tuition. The average university tuition is around $10,000 for in state public, out of state is at $26,000, and private colleges are at $35,000. That is a lot of money per year. Many students are juggling work at the same time to pay for their education. They are exhausted by taking out loans that will probably be with them until they can pay in off ten years later. Some can't even go to college because of money.

Some universities in New York have started free college education, only if you live in state. The system that they are using still need to be fixed here and there. In New York there is an application that must be filled out. Out of 95,000 students, about 22,000 to 23,000 students have received free education. Although it is a small percentage, it's better than nothing. Some colleges in Europe also offer free college education, including: Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Sweden, etc.

So, how can we afford it? There's no straight answer to this. Multiple things can create an abundance of money for free or affordable education. The number one is tax, increasing tax for the millionaires, billionaires, trillionaires... We can provide free education for K-12, why can't we do it for college too? Another option is to raise money. There is approximately 4,000 to 6,000 students per college. If students got together to do a fundraiser, maybe a bake sale or anything really. We could cut back on wasteful government spending, like building a wall. If other countries have figured out a way to free education, why can't we? Just a thought.

Blue Texas

Seton Motley is a writer, he writes for the Red State blog. He is also the president of Less Government a non profit organization for reducing the power of the government and protecting the First Amendment. He is also a policy advisor to The Heartland Institute, their mission is to "discover, develop, and promote free market solutions to social and economic problems. Motley has credibility with the public in many different areas. I believe the intended audience for this editorial are Republicans, since the blog is mainly for Red State conservatives.

Motley writes about Texas becoming increasingly Democratic. He argues that Texas, once was a red Republic state, has become blue because of the immigrants pouring in from Mexico. That the immigrants are voting for the Democratic Party because of the benefits that they could acquire. I strongly disagree with this statement, I feel that Texas specifically Austin is a diverse community and we are blue because we want to help others by sharing. I can see his view because of the percentages of Hispanic votes go towards the Democratic Party. I feel that this data is insubstantial because we don't know the reason why they voted for the Democratic Party, we cannot accuse them for voting blue because they only want benefits. Motley makes a point that Hispanics are conservatives but does not show it by the past presidential elections in their country. In the past election 75% of  Hispanics voted for Obama, the Democratic Party. This claim makes sense since Obama didn't want to build a wall. Hispanics may have conservative values, but why would they vote for someone who wants to build a wall separating Texas and Mexico?

The Punisher?

This editorial is from the New York Times, written by Michael Cottle who is a member of the editorial board. This gives Cottle credibility since he has been hired by the famous national newspaper to write these editorials. Also, the fact that this editorial had to go through many stepping stones before it could be posted. Cottle gives us an argument that our president, Donald Trump, is a "punisher." He explains that a punisher is someone who has a specific opinion on a problem and his or her solution is the ONLY solution. Cottle argues that Trump has threatened to shut down the border due to the illegal criminals passing through. Since his wall has found ineffective, the only other solution is to shut it down. Cottle also tells us the opposite end of the scale, which is a fixer. He explains that a fixer is someone who is open minded and will look at all possible solutions to see which is the best solution. I agree with Cottle that Trump is a "punisher," he is extremely single minded and shuts people down when it is not beneficial to him. We have seen on countless news casts where he rudely interrupts reporters and uses deragatory remarks to many women. If the question is unimportant to him, he will completely ignore them. The man that we call our president does not listen to the peoples needs and do not care about children who have been separate from their parents because they are criminals to him.

Trump's Border

On Feb 15, 2019 according to the New York Times, President Trump decided to call a national emergency to build a wall. He states that it is a matter of national security, that the wall will protect the people of the United States from "the flow of drugs, criminals, and illegal immigrants." This article is definitely worth the read because it shows how our president is reacting to the people disagreeing with his ideas. Another video shows that he is also refusing to let CNN reporter, Brian Karem, even finish his question because Trump continually interrupts him. Karem states that drugs, violence, and illegal immigrants has gone down significantly. Trump responds with the same answer and continues to ignore Karem because his question did not benefit Trumps' ideas. He quickly moves onto another reporter when Karem wanted to ask a follow up question.