Two planes, what's the plan?

November 23, 2015, two U.S. Army pilots stationed in South Korea were killed in a helicopter crash while performing a routine training mission. November 24, 2015, four U.S. Army crew members stationed at Fort Hood, Texas were killed in a helicopter crash while performing a routine training mission. Six lives lost during these routine training missions within two days, both with unknown causes and left under investigation. If these missions are routine then what happened with both helicopters that cost the lives of six trained people? How does our government plan on preventing further losses from situations like these?
It begins with appointed military commanders and leaders who pave the way for soldiers to follow. These leaders hold a direct impact towards preventing injuries and casualties. Therefore, it is of the upmost importance for the government to appoint their best and most highly trained men and women. During routine missions, leaders are put into positions where they are managing risk as well as being in charge of preventing accidental hazards. Furthermore, to avert these mishaps, the government should ensure leaders are instilled with good tactical procedures in these places that increase safety risks. Although, it should be noted that knowing tactical procedures and execution of these procedures are two separate things. Commanders and leaders should be experienced in the field in order to train soldiers sufficiently. When dealing with military conflicts or even during routine missions, simply knowing what you should do is ineffective if you are unable act them out.
If the government and our Commander in Chief don't appoint leaders with experience and the right knowledge then there goes one major source in protecting those who serve for us.

Responding to Election Day Tuesday

As believed by my fellow classmate, Vicktoria Nino, if Election Day were not held on a Tuesday or if votes could be submitted online, then voter turnout would be substantially higher. As stated in her blog post, in 2006 one in four people did not vote due to conflicting work/school schedules. She makes the argument of how our society in the U.S. doesn't like the hassle and time it takes to vote, and that it should be considered having Election Day fall on the weekend to accommodate voters schedules. While Ms. Nino made a decent argument, I personally hold different ideas regarding the day of voting and the idea of online voting.
On the topic of Election Day being on a Tuesday, while it is a random day now, back in 1845 it was not. Tuesday was chosen as the official day because back in the good 'ol days farmers traveled by horse and buggy and often needed a full day to travel the county seat, a day to cast their vote, and a day to travel home. Tuesday did not interfere with the Biblical Sabbath (Sunday) or market days (typically Wednesday) and thus leaving us years later with the same date. I believe if my classmate understood the reasoning behind this date, she could have made a stronger argument regarding her disagreement with it. I feel that Congress should claim another day to be election day because this is not 1845, we do not live the same way as we did back then and yet we are still complying with extremely outdated ideas from the 20th century on how to run today's 21st century America.
Regarding the idea of online voting, I do not agree with this method for voters. Yes, online voting would be much more convenient for people, but is convenience really the type of thing we want when it comes to voting for leaders and lawmakers of this country? If it takes little to no effort to vote then any mindless person can participate without any idea of who or what their voting for, which can cause big affects to the rest of the people around them. I believe that if the issue is of importance to you then you will find a way to make it happen. Meaning that if a voter honestly cares about who represents them and wants to put forth their vote, then they will do so no matter the inconvenience.
With that, I enjoyed the topic my classmate chose to express her thoughts on but I feel that her arguments could have been stronger if maybe she explored the ideas some more.

Veteran and government affairs. Not a love story.

As many of us know, the Department of Veterans Affairs has been around for plenty of decades with nice intentions of providing veterans with various benefits. Yet the operation of the VA does the exact opposite for thousands of retirees per year. A great deal of patients suffer from drawbacks within the VA system including conflicts such as: extremely long wait lists, understaffed VA hospitals, cancelled appointments with no reschedule,  and lost follow-ups. These men and women who once put their life on the line for our country should not have to feel like their making that same choice when visiting a VA hospital. 

Throughout their years of experience one might believe that the department would learn from their mistakes, but unfortunately they have not. For this reason, I wonder why the government doesn't put forth more effort and funds to take care of our veterans.

As thought by some veterans, misappropriated funds are a large cause of the issues within the VA. Many veterans believe that funding spent on individuals and families who abuse government assistance take away from those in the VA who are in dire need of assistance. Although a separate department of the government handles civilian assistance, it becomes enraging for veterans to see these other individuals being taken care of with government money when they can't even get an appointment with a decent physician at a VA hospital. With that in mind, it is not uncommon for veterans to succumb to extreme lengths to receive attention from the VA that they are needed. For example, a veteran who got the run around with the VA for two months finally had enough and felt compelled to make a scene by essentially throwing a tantrum to be heard. The disruption in the clinic was severe enough that security and officers had to surround the veteran for him to settle down. Nonetheless, the extreme outcry was acknowledged and the veteran was made an appointment right away. Most of these patients now know that when it comes to the VA and their postponements, the longer the wait without action could possibly mean waiting forever.

Lastly, what should be understood about the government's importance in funding for these men and women is the casualties. Casualties within these wait lists, understaffed VA hospitals and clinics, cancelled appointments that won't be rescheduled, and lost follow-ups. Because of all these factors, thousands of deaths and suicides that could have very well been prevented happened because these veterans relied on their government to help them, and were essentially given the short end of the stick. 

A Reaching Slam to Obama

On October 12th, 2015, a RedState blog contributor, Jay Caruso published an article addressing a statement from President Obama regarding gun control. Obama's statement was that it is easier to buy a gun than a book, which was not received well by Conservative writer Caruso. Meanwhile, as stated in the blog post, others say his statement was misunderstood and that Obama was referring to the lack of bookstores in low income areas. Caruso refers to this statement as ridiculous and continues by adding,"This is like saying it is easier for me to get a nuke than it is to get a Burger from In-N-Out since there is a total lack of those restaurants in this region." Caruso argues that the President made an asinine claim because no matter where you are in the United States, if you are making a legal gun purchase then you will undergo a federal background check. He follows his own statement by saying, "Charles Manson could walk out of prison tomorrow, walk into a Barnes and Noble and grab any book he wanted, pay for it and walk out." Caruso's final argument against Obama's statement is that even if a person were to purchase a gun off the street market they would still need nearly $200. Meaning that even people in low income areas can find and purchase a book somewhere (online, Good Will, Salvation Army, etc.) if they are able to find and purchase an illegal gun.
While this blog post makes good claims and arguments, is it really necessary or is this just a reach for a Republican to bash Obama? The author had steady credibility by inserting links to actual reported quotes, screenshots of what other people had to say about the statement, and by addressing arguments from different angles and concluding them with facts and solutions. Yet I still cannot find myself to agree with the author of this article because the intent seems to be more of a bash towards the President. Not to say that I'm a huge supporter in all Obama does or that I feel what he said was the right example, but I don't feel like it needs significant attention. I feel the intended audience could be  for fellow Republicans who are interested in a new reason to loathe President Obama.

The Pentagon and the blind eye in bacha bazi

On September 28th, 2015, USA Today's editorial board posted an article addressing the Pentagon's decision to have military forces stationed in Afghanistan turn a blind eye to the cultural practice bacha bazi, or "boy play." This practice allows Afghan men to sexually molest young boys and when  two U.S soldiers became aware of a local Afghan police commander who had worked alongside them was a part of this practice, they took matters into their own hands. Officially, U.S. troops were told to either look the other way or follow the order of reporting abuse to the Afghan authorities with the knowledge that there will be no consequence for the offender, and no justice for the boy. With that in mind, the two Green Berets confronted the commander who admitted to his crime and even laughed it off saying it was just a boy. Following the statement, the two soldiers then continuously body slammed him to the ground and left him at the gate to their camp where he picked himself up and ran away. U.S. commanders responded to the event by disciplining the men. One is no longer apart of the service and the Army is putting effort in trying to get the other to retire. Although, these punishments were more to save face from locals. As stated by Rep. Duncan Hunter, the situation "caused many locals to view our ALP as worse than the Taliban. If the locals resumed supporting the Taliban, attacks against U.S. forces would have increased dramatically."
The article argues that the two American soldiers made clear what U.S. policy has not, and that is that there is zero tolerance for molesting boys by Afghans working with U.S. forces. When the author put in the statement about how even the Taliban banned the ancient practice of bacha bazi, it strengthened the argument by adding an uneasy feeling to readers that even the bad guys know it is not right. The intended audience could be for those in the U.S. forces, family members with brothers or sons, or American readers in general. What assists to the author's credibility is the use of linking the story in the article and linking quotes of those involved.
All in all, I agree with the argument presented by the author because rape of anyone should never be apart of someone's culture, and that is where the American government should draw the line of what we stand tolerant of. As stated, "Americans can't be complicit in this kind of abuse, and it's up to the Pentagon to find a way to make that so."

Donald Trump laughs off racial remarks and sparks controversy...Again.

Today, September 18, 2015, the BBC posted an article addressing Donald Trump's criticism from political rivals over not correcting one of his supporters at a New Hampshire rally after stating, "We have a problem in this country, it's called Muslims. We know our current president is one, you know he's not even an American." Following the remarks made by Mr. Trump's supporter towards President Barack Obama, democratic candidate, Hilary Clinton commented on the "hateful rhetoric" as being "disturbing and wrong." While New Jersey governor, Chris Christie stated that leaders have an "obligation" to correct such statements. Mr. Trump's campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski told US media that "all he heard was a question about training camps."Although, in 2011, Mr. Trump was a primary sceptic of President Obama being a born citizen of the United States, and challenged him to expose his birth certificate as proof he was birthed in America. The president did and the certificate revealed that he was born in Hawaii.
This story and video within the article are worth viewing because it has put forth a racist remark not only directed to President Obama but towards Muslims in America, too. The Trump supporter publicly belittled a group of people by referring to them as "it's." By watching the video, readers can find awestricken and cringing faces, dropped mouths, and disapproving nods expressing that others in the rally felt his statement took the question a little too far. What does this say to the fact that Mr. Trump didn't bother to correct his supporter? I would take it as he agreed with his supporter in saying that a problem within our country is Muslims. If elected president, how will his racial bias effect US communication with other countries? Readers should look into this article not only to be more aware, but to gain more insight into who is leading the Republican polls.

Hi everyone!!