Blog Stage Seven

Blog Stage Seven

“Too Poor to Vote” is an opinion article featured in the New York Times by Danielle Lang and Thea Sebastian. Writing in the opinion article, Lang and Sebastian complain that, “If you’ve committed a crime and are rich, you can pay court fees and cast a ballot. If you don't have money, you might be left out of democracy” (Lang and Sebastian). In making this comment, Lang and Sebastian urges us to realize not everyone has the privilege to vote. I agree with their argument because this obstacle prevents a full democracy. We the people are the foundation for democracy. That being said these people should be required to vote regardless of unpaid court fines and fees because this is a principle of our constitution.

Our country’s felony laws prohibits people from voting due to unpaid court fines and fees. According to Lang and Sebastian, “In seven states- Arkansas, Arizona, Alabama, Connecticut, Kentucky, Tennessee and Florida- laws explicitly prohibit people who owe court debt from voting” (Lang and Sebastian).  Lang and Sebastian’s point is that people who owe court debt cannot vote. These people may never have the opportunity to vote due to excessive amounts of debt. We need to solve this issue in order to create a fuller democracy within our country.

An essential right the constitution offers is stripped away from people who cannot afford to pay off their court fines and fees. Lang and Sebastian states, “Constitution- that our government cannot deny poor people basic rights in our society simply because they are poor- is violated” (Lang and Sebastian). In other words, Lang and Sebastian believe these people should vote because the constitution says the government cannot deny poor people’s basic rights. Governments are violating the constitution. We need to improve laws within governments for these people in order to restore the fundamentals of the constitution.

People who have unpaid court fines and fees need to be required to vote because they have the right according our constitution. They need this right because our constitution says the government cannot deny poor people basic rights. Consequences for not resolving this position will result in lawsuits against particular governments that have violated this particular constitution fundamental. We need to improve laws within governments in order to restore the fundamentals of the constitution that allows these people to vote and create a fuller democracy.

Works Cited

Lang, Danielle, and Thea Sebastian. “Too Poor to Vote.” The New York Times, 1 Nov. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/11/01/opinion/election-voting-rights-poverty.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion&action=click&contentCollection=opinion

Blog Stage Five

Blog Stage Five

Danielle Lang and Thea Sebastian are civil rights attorneys featured in the New York Times. Writing in the opinion article, Lang and Sebastian complain that, “If you’ve committed a crime and are rich, you can pay court fees and cast a ballot. If you don't have money, you might be left out of democracy.” In making this comment, Lang and Sebastian urges us to realize not everyone has the privilege to vote. I agree with their argument because this obstacle prevents a full democracy. We the people are the foundation for democracy. That being said these people should be required to vote regardless of unpaid court fines and fees because this is a principle of our constitution.

Our country’s felony laws prohibits people from voting due to unpaid court fines and fees. According to Lang and Sebastian, “In seven states- Arkansas, Arizona, Alabama, Connecticut, Kentucky, Tennessee and Florida- laws explicitly prohibit people who owe court debt from voting.”  Lang and Sebastian’s point is that people who owe court debt cannot vote. These people may never have the opportunity to vote due to excessive amounts of debt. We need to solve this issue in order to create a fuller democracy within our country.

An essential right the constitution offers is stripped away from people who cannot afford to pay off their court fines and fees. Lang and Sebastian states, “Constitution- that our government cannot deny poor people basic rights in our society simply because they are poor- is violated.” In other words, Lang and Sebastian believe these people should vote because the constitution says the government cannot deny poor people's basic rights. Governments are violating the constitution. We need to improve laws within governments for these people in order to restore the fundamentals of the constitution.

People who have unpaid court fines and fees need to be required to vote because they have the right according our constitution. They need this right because our constitution says the government cannot deny poor people basic rights. Consequences for not resolving this position will result in lawsuits against particular governments that have violated this particular constitution fundamental. We need to improve laws within governments in order to restore the fundamentals of the constitution that allows these people to vote and create a fuller democracy.

Works Cited

Lang, Danielle, and Thea Sebastian. “Too Poor to Vote.” The New York Times, 1 Nov. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/11/01/opinion/election-voting-rights-poverty.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion&action=click&contentCollection=opinion

Blog Stage Four

Blog Stage Four

William Scheuerman, Guest Writer at the Huffington Post graduated from Yale in 1987 and is a Professor of Political Science at the University of Indiana. Scheuerman’s primary audience are subscribers to the Huffington Post, and those involved in the Democratic or Republican party.

On the Huffington Post’s website, Scheuerman’s opinion blog argued that the FBI did not take full responsibility for contacting individuals regarding the Kavanaugh case.  Throughout the blog, Scheuerman discussed helpful information he discovered on the Kavanaugh case, expressed he wasn’t the only person the FBI didn’t contact, and stated the FBI had not performed a thorough investigation.

At the beginning of the blog, Scheuerman pointed out that he went to Yale with Kavanaugh and they both lived in the same residential hall. Scheuerman had blurred memories of Kavanaugh in college. Scheuerman states, “his alleged misconduct against another of our Yale classmates, Debbie Ramirez, occurred during the academic year 1983-84 at a party in a room on the first floor. Based on what has been alleged and reported, the incident may have happened near entryway “B.” Though I did not attend the party, I was able to dig up an old yearbook and draw up a list of people I thought the FBI probably should interview. That list consists of residents of entryway “B” and others who might recall the event.” In making this comment, Scheuerman introduced Debbie Ramirez as another Kavanaugh victim while urging us to apprehend the potential list of residents he found that may help the alleged misconduct event. I admit Scheuerman’s evidence was a smart way to burden Kavanaugh with another load. According to Scheuerman, “I called the FBI to offer information potentially useful to its investigation into Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s alleged sexual misconduct. The FBI never returned my call. I was never able to provide that list to an FBI agent.” Scheuerman’s point was that the FBI looked as if they didn't care enough to thoroughly investigate the Kavanaugh case. When I read between the lines, the situation appeared fishy. I wondered, what was the FBI doing?

Scheuerman hasn't been the only one ignored by the FBI. Scheuerman states, “I have since learned from other Lawrance Hall friends and neighbors that many of them similarly offered potentially useful tips to the FBI. The FBI has not bothered getting back in touch with them, either.” Basically, Scheuerman warned us to be aware that the FBI ignored others too. This was a great fact to include because I realized that the FBI may had been trying to cover up the Kavanaugh case. In Scheuerman’s view, “the FBI has not reached out to people it should contact for a thorough investigation.” The essence of Scheuerman’s argument was that the FBI had not been investigating nor enforcing like it ought to be. When I read this statement I agreed with Scheuerman. However, in order to agree fully I would need to see actual evidence to prove this claim.

Through out the blog, Scheuerman discussed helpful information he discovered on the Kavanaugh case, explained that he was not the only person the FBI did not contact, and stated the FBI was not useful. Scheuerman and his list awaited for the FBI along with his friends and neighbors from Lawrence Hall. 

Works Cited

Scheuerman, William. “I Lived With Brett Kavanaugh At Yale.The FBI Never Returned My Call.” Huffington Post, 04 Oct. 2018, https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-kavanaugh-fbi-investigation_us_5bb58157e4b0876eda9afeff

Blog Stage Three

Blog Stage Three

What would you command out of The Kavanaugh hearings? David Brooks, Opinion Columnist at The New York Times discusses the hearings between Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh. According to David, the trial resulted in “what did or what did not happen 36 years ago.” David’s suggests there are no collaborating evidence to prove either party.

The primary audience are subscribers to The New York Times and those in Democratic or Republican Parties.

New York Times states, “David Brooks became an Op-Ed columnist for The New York Times in September 2003. His column appears every Tuesday and Friday. He is currently a commentator on “PBS NewsHour,” NPR’s “All Things Considered” and NBC’s “Meet the Press.” David has been working with The New York Times as an opinion columnist for over 15 years! With this fact in place, my trust towards David is high because of the data he presents.

David advocates us with the hearing results, “Sixty-nine percent of Americans in one poll called the hearings a “national disgrace,” and the only shocking thing is that there are 31 percent who don’t agree.” David delivers the hearing results along with his “shocking” reaction. It’s more clear that David embraces Christine over Brett.

In David’s view, “These hearings were also a devastating blow to intellectual humility. At the heart of this case is a mystery: What happened at that party 36 years ago? There is no corroborating evidence either way.” David gives us his ultimate opinion: there is no true result to solve this debate between Christine and Brett. David suggests that he isn’t on either side.

I began to discern that David was more on Christine’s side at the beginning of his article. However, toward the end, David gives impression that he is not on either side.

David’s suggests there are no collaborating evidence to prove either party. Overall, David is limited in his decision. This is due to lack of evidence that the hearing is unable to provide. I agree with David’s final decision because there isn’t evidence that can prove Christine and Brett’s side of the story.

Works Cited

Brooks, David, Opinion Columnist, “A Complete National Disgrace.” New York Times, 4 Oct 2018, Page A29

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/04/opinion/kavanaugh-hearing-partisan-national-disgrace.html?module=inline

Blog Stage Two

On September 20, 2018, Securitytoday.com published an article by Jordan Lutke titled Government Website Vulnerability Exposes Over 14 Million Customer Records.

Our government is believed to have some of the strongest if not the strongest online security. A Texas based company named Securus Technologies took over Government payment services inc. This company was bashed for having a “lax security” and many Americans are fearful about their private information. Securus stated that no one was hacked according to their system, but the fear is still present. Most of us have government information stored in a database somewhere. Whether it’s in the IRS or simply your bank of choice. It’s important that our information is kept safe. This article proves that anyone is vulnerable to being hacked. This article is for those of us that are interested in government blunders. They happen more often than you think

https://securitytoday.com/articles/2018/09/20/government-website-vulnerability-exposes-over-14-million-customer-records.aspx?m=1

Participation Topic #1

An electronic direct democracy does sound enticing to the public; however, there are more cons than pros. Direct democracy is when the people have a say in any government decisions. That does sound great and there will without a doubt be support for that; especially if it can be done electronically. However, there are many problems that come when one goes online. A problem that comes first to my mind is the fear of hackers. If our own national government can get hacked then an electronic direct democracy is just as vulnerable.  (NYT) Another problem is bugs, people will click on a button voting for a side and the system may malfunction and vote for the other party. Furthermore, most of the general public has little interest in politics and is uneducated on our current political events. Therefore, most people would view the electronic direct democracy as just another website to post wild opinions on. I for one am against it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/10/us/office-of-personnel-management-hackers-got-data-of-millions.html

Hello everyone! I am testing my first blog post.