A Call to Intervention is Trickier than it Seems

In Consequences of US Intervention in Syria, a blog post written by Mustafa Hussein the Syrian war crisis is explored and possible outcomes outlined by possible actions that the United States government could take. It is clear at the beginning of the article that the conflict in Syria is not one that could be easily deciphered as black and white; it involves an intricate number of parties and groups. Each group fighting for a differentiating cause and only forming alliances when their similarity pertains to their belonging in the Shia or Sunni faction. 

As stated in the article, the conflict involves groups such as President Bashar al-Assad governmental forces, Hezbollah (representing Shia Muslims) forces, Iranian forces, ISIS, the Islamic Front, Al-Nustra Front and other groups (representing Sunni Muslims). All of these are inside groups that seek to penetrate into the Syrian society and eventually take over the country. 

What the author speaks about in the end, is something that perhaps could have been elaborated more upon. For the role that the United States takes in this present crisis occurring in Syria is of great magnitude. Hussein clearly states that the two options available have down sides, however the United States’ action is vital to the termination of this war and therefore intervention in Syria should be made.

A point he failed to consider is that intervention won’t be easy. If the United States were to favor president’s al-Assad forces and fight off all the rebel forces, it would have to consider a Russian alliance and relation. Not only that, but also keep in mind wether al-Assad’s actions as a leader are actions that the U.S. government would want to partake in. And if the mass center force defeats ISIS and the Sunni-affiliated front, then what guarantees that al-Assad would be able to prevent future disputes from happening. Sponsoring a mass genocide and not proving to lead a country in crisis doesn’t speak much for Bashar al-Assad’s capability of recovering the state of a failing country. If Instead the United States government were to aid the rebel groups that are fighting al-Assad's regime and terrorist groups, it would find itself in a situation at odds with personal interests. It would escalate tensions in the world, since Iran is supporting Syrian government and ultimately create a greater divide between the people of the middle east and people of the western hemisphere.

U.S intervention is vital to the current chaos, however intervention should not be made in a hurried notion. Therefore instead of emphasizing in the groups fighting this civil war, Mustafa should have focused more on the long term effects that each decision would create. Personally speaking the U.S. government would have a better, and neutral stance, if it were to fight along al-Assad's government and Russian forces. That alliance would lessen expectations from the Syrian government to provide all the force and artillery needed, it would guarantee a coalition that would benefit the world in any future conflict and eventually would help diminish radical groups that terrorize the world.

Cultural War - Will the Transgender Transition Ever Occur?

The Current Change

On April 19th, The New York Times and many other media outlets highlighted a current event that changes things for a troubled group in society. The event described in the article pertained to a recent ruling from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals which favored a transgender student in Virginia and his right to attend the restroom which corresponded with his personal sexual identity. This new ruling is of great importance because it is the first of its kind to grant a transgender person, the right to choose simply on the basis of identity. It is certainly a sign that times are changing and that changing people are fighting for their right to live as they choose.

An Act of Disapproval: The Boycott

The surge of change has always come with limitations and unexpected challenges, therefore it is with reason that when The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled in favor of a transgender student the wheels of dissenting views started rolling. More apparent than before the American public began making statements against the pro-transgender ruling that gave transgender people the right to choose where they please to go to the bathroom in public buildings within the state of Virginia. With the aide of social media people, who did not sympathize with the idea that transgender people should be able to occupy whichever bathroom they choose, began to take action. Perhaps the best example of initiative that the America public showed, is seen through the current boycott that is taking place against Target.

In an effort to embrace the ruling made by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Target announced that,  "it would allow men to use women’s restrooms and fitting rooms, and vice versa, if the facilities correspond with the customers’ gender identity." Upon this announcement the American Family Association, which holds many conservative values, began an online pledge to boycott Target and any place that offered the same provisions to transgender people. Within a week, the online pledge earned nearly a million signatures and its numbers keep growing. People who support this boycott, feel at odds with the Appellate Court ruling because 1) they are uncomfortable with the idea that bathrooms will become gender neutral and 2) they are fearful that gender neutral restrooms will only generate an increase in cases of sexual assault. According to dissenting views, society should never transform itself to fit the needs of an outcast group.

The crisis America is facing, is not one that can be describe as a red and blue fight. It is a moral and ethical dilemma that affects society at its core. While some people think Target's actions are to be applauded and followed by other chain stores there are those that certainly condemn the store and view its actions as an insult to their religious or moral values. With the Supreme Court's decision that enabled same-sex marriage in place, and this most recent decision made by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals many people are wondering what role the American government should take at this time.

Role of the Government Should Take

The truth of the matter is that the American government functions strictly on the basis of providing order, justice, and opportunity. The founding fathers were wise to separate the church from the state, making sure further generations would understand that in the world of politics there would never be a focus on religious ideals. At the same time however, the legislative process was created to ensure that unless change was necessary the personal needs of a minority group would not harm all of the stable citizenry. 

Regarding the Transgender community and their goal to get legislation to support their stance, the wise choice is clear: politics should not intervene with the matter and government does not need to create laws in favor of transgender people. If change is bound to happen it must first obtain momentum and support from society. When the transgender community has enough support from society and when it comes to affect more than the existing 3% of the American population, then it is the governments role to do something. As of now, actions like those of Target are good forms of making a change and creating the conversation.

America in a Contradicting Stance: We are Terrorist Too

One of the main issues in the campaign trail has been that of terrorism and foreign affairs. It is of no question why the subject is so important, for the future  of our sovereign country lies in the decisions that diplomats make in the world-wide spectrum. As of now however, it seems as if all that America is worried about is to destroy the enemy and even kill people because if advances our way to victory. Rarely do people bother to think of the effects that a war in the Middle East has brought upon our every-day way of thought. 

In a commentary, written by Alfredo Jaimes, the author focuses on the idea that our country’s effort to get rid of the threat, that a war imposes, has caused a systematic way of thought wherein we don’t recognize how our military actions are terroristic in their manner. While the most patriotic people of our kind, that is American people, may argue that they (Middle Eastern countries) have initiated the war due to their reckless and malign actions it is also true to say through retaliation America has extended the horrors of war. 

As everything in life, Jaimes makes a point of indirectly stating that everything is relative. Because no one holds the same perspective in life, we as a race of humans will always see things with a different eye. So while the fall of the Twin Towers on September 11 signaled the beginning of a dispute, it was American military force that retaliated with deaths and caused a repetitive cycle of “I’ll get you back twice as bad.” Does America as a whole ever bother to think that all of the bombarding and air strikes result in the deaths of innocent human lives? That to the average Syrian, Iranian, Iraqi and Afghani WE are the ones constantly killing and showing acts of defiance? We are the existing threat and fear that they constantly face everyday.

Is the American ego so high above the ceiling that no one ever sees our military actions as terroristic in nature as well? And if a country has been terrorized for so long, is it not their duty to develop a human army to destroy us? It only makes sense, because that is what American history teaches us to do. The war on terrorism and the war in Syria will end when the American public realizes that retaliation and revenge are not always the answer. By no means does this statement translate to: “Lets be weak and let them destroy us” It simply means that instead of resorting to military tactics our government should rely more on democratic solutions, organizing conferences with affected countries and forming a world-wide coalition against crimes. Because the United States is not the police of the world it is is a police officer, part of a larger entity. United we serve humanity best.

The Impact that "Black Lives Matter" has on our Political Mind

The year of 2016 marks the election of the 45th president of the United States and so far it also ranks amongst the most unforgettable years; for never before have the primary elections caused such chaotic reaction within the public. Yes, one has to acknowledge the fact that thanks to Donald Trump the race for the presidency gained more nation-wide attention than seen in previous years, but at the same time one has to acknowledge the fact that thanks to his trend of speaking before thinking people have lost some consciousness in the way they speak about certain political aspects of the United States (U.S.) Government.
In the past months the American public has heard just about everything. They have heard about the immigration crisis and Donald Trump's absurd hope to make Mexico pay for the "wall", they have heard of the Ted Cruz's insane resolution to undo the same-sex marriage ruling, they have heard of Bernie Sander's distant goal of making college free for all, and they have heard Hillary Clinton's claim of not being a liar when at the moment her name is under scrutiny for the e-mail investigation she is undergoing. The public has heard different turns and twists on the issues concerning immigration, foreign affairs, health care, education, gun control, fiscal policy, taxes and diplomatic affairs; what they have not heard enough of is the nation's fractured criminal justice system.
So why is it that the criminal justice system has not received enough attention from the candidates? Underestimation, from both parties. Although a war may be raging within the broken community of Ferguson, although registered police officers may be terrorizing innocent American people, and although surveillance cameras in jail cells have recorded the deaths of innocent American people, the candidates still assume that the Syrian war is of more importance.
The truth of the matter is that the American Government has forgotten to address problems such as the growing number of deaths to police brutality, current law enforcement inefficiency to capture real criminals, and antiquated incarceration philosophies that have high rates of relapse. As an effect, this has produced a growing public, who when unheard simply restores to using words to make a statement. Such is the case with the Black Lives Matter Movement which was initiated in 2012 after the death of Trayvon Martin.
Do people understand that for the past months the slogan "Black Lives Matter" has unconsciously altered the way they think politically? Much like the controversial comments made by Donald Trump this phrase highlights how little the public bothers to think about what they support both politically and socially.
When asked wether all lives matter or black lives matter, in a democratic debate, both democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders responded by agreeing with the latter. The republican candidates never quite had a chance to speak about the issue, but a generalization can be made that if given the chance they would most likely avoid making a specific distinction. What the democratic candidates were doing is a trend that Donald Trump has used to obtain support. It is a rhetoric based on the idea that in order to gain support from the citizenry they (leaders) must feed the angry public with the words they desperately wish to hear.
With that said, what the public should be hearing is the fact that ALL lives matter. Yes. ALL lives matter. Which means that Black, White, Brown, Gray, Pink, Orange, Blue and Red lives matter. We are not a color of skin, we are a personality and a kaleidoscope of ideas. We are a culture and a heritage, by which we associate. Therefore, we should stop assigning colors to the different cultures in society and simply refer to them as vital pieces of our melting pot. In the other hand, yes, it can not be ignored: discrimination is apparent in the criminal justice system. However the best way to deal with this is by reinstating democratic ideals that emphasize unity and patriotism. Everyone in this country should realize that we serve America and the American people best when we are united. When the public chooses to unite, all in a common cause, not making distinction of color/culture, and willfully stands together against unreasonable violence THAT will be a stepping stone. People will stop siding with all that is politically incorrect and come to a consensus that this political crisis is one that can be solved with a sympathetic attitude and one that can be solved through unity. The rhetoric we need is one that screams "All Lives Matter,  including the lives of our fellow African Americans which have suffered from abusive police force."

Republican Chaos...The Trump Nightmare

The republican convention is four months away and the republican establishment is on the verge of chaos. With outstanding voter turnout, this election will most certainly be one to make it to the history books, however there is another reason for why this year will never be forgotten. Unlike any other time in history, there seems to be a divide within the republican party which has caused much dilemma. It is something I like to refer to as: The Trump Nightmare. The candidate that once seemed to be the democratic nightmare, has just recently been identified as a threat for the republican ideology as well. In a speech given last Thursday, former Texas Governor Mitt Romney spoke trash about republican front runner, Donald Trump. Among the many names he called Trump, Romney urged the republican voters not to vote for Donald Trump because he was not a true representative of the republican conservative ideal.

After Romney made such declarative speech, a tide of articles and media coverages flooded the news of the American people. While some portrayed Romney's actions as necessary others began to criticize the former governor for being divisive and too hypocritical (four years ago he accepted Donald's endorsement and contribution in the primary elections of 2012). Among those that opinionated, there was Eugene Robinson an opinion writer for The Washington Post. In the article Eugene speaks of the reality that the Grand Old Party faces, such as the chaotic situation wherein the front runner of the party is not the favorite candidate for the conservative establishment. While Eugene does make a point of highlighting key factors (such as delegate count, state winnings and campaign styles) that will contribute to a successful nomination of Donald Trump as the republican candidate for the general elections, he forgets to emphasize the importance of the voter's impact when it comes to deciding of Trump loses or keeps up a momentum. Eugene's message of uncertainty in the republican elections, shows the average non-Trump voter that their vote may make a change, however to the average white blue-collar American Eugene's article simply serves as a motive to keep rooting for Trump. The fact of the matter is that, the more denunciation Trump receives from his own party, the more backlash such actions will receive. Therefore commentators like Eugene should concentrate a little bit less on the entanglements of criticizing the party and should resort to publishing more about Donald Trump's bankruptcy history and wrong doings. When the general public is able to read about Trump University and other negligent actions made by Trump, they will see the panorama with clarity and critiques like Eugene's will not be considered as biased opinions, but rather as alarming observations that deserve of their attention.

It might sound repetitive from my part, but it is important to highlight the loss in public participation in the United States when it comes to American politics. After reading a commentary about Latino turnout in the voting stages of the Presidential election it becomes evident once again that we serve America best when we are united and united we cast our vote.
The article, written in the Opinion section of the American Statesman, talks of the slow and very low participation of the Latino community in the United States political process. The author, Gissela SantaCruz who is of Latino background, expresses her desire for the Hispanic and Latino community to wake up from their dormant status and tune into the Presidential campaign. According to her observation, a majority of Hispanics and Latinos obtain information from the prominent television network: Univision. However she also makes a point of reiterating that although efforts by big corporations are needed and appreciated, the ultimate impact is made by the voter. Her commentary is aimed to reach the Hispanics and Latinos that follow up on social and political aspects of the country, but that do not necessarily make their opinion count when it comes to participating in the polls. From the standpoint of a Hispanic person, and a student attending a higher level institution, her approach was too gentle and not concise enough to develop her point. More than just providing facts to the White or African American reader, SantaCruz would have delivered her point better by appealing in Spanish and providing examples of why the Latino vote is significant in the current 2016 Presidential Election.
People do not seek to be reminded of why they must act, but what they do need, is inspiration that will incite a need to participate within them. If they know someone's act made an impact, they will act with more confidence and push others to do the same.

Following the Democratic Debate Crisis

Considering that only eight million Americans tuned into the democratic debate last night, and that Americans are constantly asking for a powerful, educated and experienced leader to lead them out of their current socio-economic status, I think it is of primary interest for the deaf public to be informed and to be knowledgeable in the platforms that each candidate runs on.
Last night after the contentious democratic debate took place Politico, a prominent political journalist organization, published an article wherein they established the main points established by Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. In the overlook both Clinton and Sanders based their arguments on the idea that the United States is in a state of despair and need of repair. On the one hand, Bernie Sanders came in as a hopeful fighter who often used ideas of a poverty, referring to the state of the nation as that of "Grapes of Wrath", to introduce concepts of equality in the work place, equality in the notion of race, and a chance for those immigrants who live in a place they call home. Such views, along with the connected idea of courage and valor produced a positive message and made Bernie the likable character of the night. In the other hand however, Clinton came in as a critical politician who pointed out Bernie's inexperience in the field of foreign affairs and an anti-democrat who, like other Republicans, made a farce of current President Barack Obama.
In the end, it is up to the viewer's discretion to identify who the true winner was. But Bernie's constant inability to transmit a viewpoint or simply respond a question, made him a questionable candidate. After all, what is it that the public seeks in their candidates? A person who serves as great inspiration during times of hardship, or an experienced critic who speaks of experience rather than change? Whichever it may be, the public needs to watch the debates, and voice their questions before it is too late. After all, a government works best for those that participate.


~"We Serve America Best When We Are United"