Blog Stage 8

Blog Stage 8 - Response to a Classmate’s Blog

By Alyson Valdez

In, “Gun Violence? What do I care about it,” Ms. Nguyen voices her opinion over gun violence. She includes a story that represents her co-worker’s experience to being afraid in public when believing they saw a gun sticking out of someone’s bag. She provides some statistics over school and mass shootings, stating that there are on average 1.5 shootings per day. She believes the solution to the gun violence in America is to not just place restrictions, but ban guns altogether. 

I personally do not have an in depth/super established opinion over this topic; however, I do agree with Ms. Ngyuen over the fact that gun violence is a problem. In fact, just yesterday I was having a similar conversation with a friend because there had been a warning on the ACC Round Rock Campus of someone spotting a gun, and a shelter had to be put into place. I said to my friend that I found it strange that anyone could have possession of a gun in public, and that I would feel less safe being around someone with a gun, regardless of if it would be used for protection. Even the idea of having a gun in the car or at home sort of freaks me out. They are so dangerous and can so easily hurt or kill someone, especially in a hectic situation where actions are impulsive and rash. 

She defends that having stricter gun laws wouldn’t even help, because Mexico has some of the strictest gun laws and still encounters gun problems. I honestly agree with her on this as well, because it seems way too easy to acquire guns, and even outside of the law as well. I remember another friend speaking to me about how he went to a gun show and purchased a gun the same day, with no background check or identification? 

All in all, I think Ms. Ngyuen does a fine job explaining why America should ban guns altogether. I’m down for it, because I don’t really believe that the ability to purchase or own a gun is an “American right!” 

Blog Stage 7

Stop Banning and Start Helping

By Alyson Valdez

Back in the 1950s cigarettes were the thing; it seems that history is repeating itself with a modified version of these nicotine providers: electronic cigarettes. With the increasing amount of e-cig users, teenagers are a prime target in this health crisis. As more and more people are negatively affected, the government is attempting to take action in ridding of these effects by banning flavored e-cigarettes. 

In “Banning E-Cigarettes Could Do More Harm Than Good,” The New York Times Editorial Board expresses their understanding of the ban, considering we have a miniscule amount of information over the risks/benefits of the products. However, they believe removing the cigarettes is not an effective solution for a few reasons. For example, this ban would force the estimated 11 million adults who currently use vaping products to switch to regular cigarettes, which are more dangerous than the e-cigs themselves, or to the black market for vaping products. Think about it, it doesn’t matter if something is illegal if someone wants it badly enough. With that being said, if there were an increase in black market use, the health crisis might just be amplified rather than saved, as black market products result in more lung-injury outbreaks. At least with these products being legal, they can be more safely regulated and sold - the black market is a dangerous place; furthermore, it seems a bit hypocritical to ban e-cigarettes when traditional cigarettes are said to be more harmful. 

Further into the editorial, The New York Times Editorial Board provides a few solutions to this health crisis. For instance, smoking rates could be lowered by treating e-cigs like cigarettes and applying the same rules and laws to both (such as age restrictions, age verification for online purchases, etc). Additionally, if packaging and labeling of these products were more restricted, then they won’t appeal to the younger generations as much. For example, in Britain there are no colorful labels or child-friendly media campaigns. Another way to aid this health crisis is investment in public health; nicotine addiction risks should be well advertised to the public, and pinpointing the causes of these health outbreaks. Also, research should be another priority for an effective solution, as we simply don’t have much information at all. 

It makes sense why the government is choosing the banning route to help fix our current nicotine crisis. However, I agree completely with the NYTE Board when they say that banning these products will create a bigger health crisis. Get with the program @ the United States - strengthen our public health system before running away from the country’s nicotine addiction! 

Blog Stage 6

Blog Stage Six - Response to a Classmate’s Blog

By Alyson Valdez

In “We Should Legalize Weed,” Mr. Speed voices his opinion over the legalization of Marijuana. He mentions that weed is already legalized in two states - California and Colorado. Although that is correct, there are still a number of states that are also marijuana friendly: Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Alaska, Michigan, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Maine. However, I do still agree with his point.

He states that the main reason marijuana is not yet legalized in all states is due to the fear of Mexican immigrants and their actions, such as “distributing ‘killer weed’ to school children,’ as well as the ill effects of weed. He points out that these are false facts - which I agree upon - and additionally references the fact that alcohol has caused more deaths than marjiuana. Although I agree with Mr. Speed over his statement, I disagree that fear of Mexican immigrants are the main reason; there are many reasons marijuana has not yet been legalized in all states. For example, lawmakers worry about adolescent access and are unsure of the extent of harm, Congress doesn’t prioritize this law on its docket, tax rates would be affected, republican’s frown upon the idea, etc. 

Furthermore, in his last paragraph, Mr. Speed reinstates his view on legalizing marjiuana, stating that the fears people have are illogical, and legalizing weed would be less harmful than substances that are currently legalized. Overall, Mr. Speed makes a decent point with his post - although I would have loved some information over the benefits of legalizing marijuana (such as medical benefits, less violence and crime, decrease in criminal penalties and over filled jails, government profiting, and much more).

Blog Stage Five

How Gerrymandering Limits Our Voice

By Alyson Valdez

Have you ever asked yourself how significant your vote in politics really is? How much influence do we actually have when it comes to who becomes our leaders? There is one aspect affecting our current voting patterns, and that is gerrymandering - the manipulation of boundaries in favor of one party or another. Because of gerrymandering, we are limited to the delegates in our district (whom include and exclude certain voters) ultimately resulting in a bias and restricted vote.

Ideally, district populations should be approximately the same size so every vote matters, communities should stay together ensuring every voice is heard; and since populations shift and change, district lines should be redrawn every census. Although the lines are, in fact, recreated every census, they are not drawn to benefit the voter’s, rather the politicians who are drawing the lines. If we contrast North Dakota and Colorado, district lines vary drastically - this is because North Dakota is small enough to be defined as one district, whereas Colorado is large enough to split into 7 districts. This method makes sense if a state is large enough; however, the problem arises when politicians exclude certain voters by creating illogical districts, in order to improve their chances of winning. By doing so, the voters have no choice who represents their district, meaning politicians basically choose their voters instead of the citizens choosing their representatives. 

Furthermore, there are four techniques to gerrymandering: cracking, packing, kidnapping, and hijacking. If one party is more popular than the other among voters, a simple solution is to crack the district by ensuring there are more voters for a single party in each area. If the opposition is wider-spread on the map, politicians will pack similar voters into one district. Additionally, if a politician is competing for a popular incumbent’s seat, drawing the district line to exclude them (kidnapping/hijacking) is one way to increase their chances of winning. Politicians can even exclude, for example, minoirites from their district if they are not willing to work for their votes. Because of these methods, incumbents are 95% likely to be re-elected into the House and 80% in the Senate. Although gerrymandering works for the politicians, it is unfair manipulation, and it leaves the citizens with a weaker voice. 

The idea that politicians have the power, let alone the right, to organize voters to benefit their campaign seriously limits our voting voices, and our influence. Not everyone is being heard, and those who are might be limited to choices not in their favor. With that being said, it’s the responsibility of the government to exile gerrymandering and implement the short-lining method when dividing boundaries - this means using the shortest possible lines to evenly divide the districts. Furthermore, politicians should not have the right to manipulate their voters, otherwise, who is really choosing the people who lead us?

Blog Stage Four

“Kick Trump Out”

By Alyson Valdez

“Citizens Must Remove Trump From Office,” by Wim Laven, is an article emphasizing the idea that we as citizens must take responsibility for the people in our office. Laven illustrates the negative effects elicited by Donald Trump by explaining what type of person he is, as well as the actions he has taken while in office. Laven’s main argument is that U.S citizens need to take action and exile these toxic influences before it is too late. 

Laven begins his defense with the reference of the currently popular hashtag “OutNow,” which ultimately stands for, “We refuse to accept a facist America!” He adds that protests are scheduled in support of this idea, stating that it is necessary for us to stand up when the system of checks and balances fail. Laven then expands on the abuse that continues to occur in the White House; for example, Trump paying people to keep his secrets, misdirecting military fights, altering weather maps, and convincing foriegn leaders to spread rumors about his opponents. “It is numbingly fraudulent and as corrupt as any banana republic ever was, the First American Kleptocracy” (Laven). 

Not only does Laven list some of Trump’s offenses, he also emphasizes how they put us in danger. He uses the entrapment of children at our Southern border and the slaughtered Kurdish children at the Turkish-Syrian border as two examples, and explains how Trump’s actions seem to reflect the support of Putin (and himself) rather than the country he is leading. Wim Laven further states that Trump and his foriegn allies have rigged the system, leading to the prevention of votes from the public as well as the Supreme Court! Laven pulls together his argument by saying, “The implications of such corruption exaggerating the demise of climate protections and demoratic institutions are a horror I do not want to imagine.” 

All in all, Wim Laven presents a decently strong argument as he advocates for citizens to stand up. His use of evidence illustrates the toxic behavior of our leader, as well as the effects that it has on the citizens of America. Furthermore, Laven reaches a significant audience (specifically those of the newer generations) by emphasizing the responsibility of citizens to take action and the genocides that will occur if we don’t. 

Blog Stage 3

Can MDMA Improve Our Learning?
By Alyson Valdez

In “Psychedelics as a Path to Social learning,” Alison Gopnik discusses how the use of psychedelics could help treat illnesses, such as PTSD and anxiety. She successfully supports her argument by showing the results of MDMA studies on mice, emphasizing how the drug influences early openness to experience and abilities to learn from social information. 

Gopnik also includes information about “plasticity” (the ability for the brain to learn from new experiences) and how there are “sensitive periods” of plasticity for certain things, like language and the visual system. Alison continues to defend the beneficial use of MDMA by portraying the differences between young mice and adult mice, emphasizing how younger mice with higher plasticity moved towards colors that were associated with social experiences, while adult mice stayed stagnant. However, after dosing the adult mice with MDMA, their ability to learn over the weeks continually increased. Gopnik effectively defends the benefits of MDMA by comparing the mice’s ability to learn before and after the drug. 

Additionally, Alison emphasizes how MDMA allows people to feel especially close to those around them due to its ability to enhance serotonin and oxytocin, two chemicals involved in happiness, social closeness, and trust. 

The main question is, should the national government take actions towards legalizing MDMA for medicinal purposes? The FDA has already approved further studies on the benefits of this psychedelic; Gopnik seems to think it would be beneficial for openness, learning, and therapy - and I’m right there with her. 

Blog Stage Two

Marijuina Legalization

Do you ever ask yourself why the government isn’t making as much money as they could be? Me neither; however, there is one solution in my mind, and that is the legalization of marijuana. In the article “In Study: Legal marijuana could generate more than $132 billion in federal tax revenue and 1 million jobs,” Katie Zezima explains how the U.S as a whole could profit up to AT LEAST $132 billion through sales tax and payroll deductions. She uses Colorado, Washington, and Oregon’s $1.3 billion in tax receipts as an example of how much legalized marijuana increases profit. Furthermore, legalizing cannabis would create an additional 782,000 job opportunities (which would increase up to 1.1 billion by 2025), including workers for the marijuiana supply chain, farmers, sellers and transporters! Although it doesn’t seem likely for the entire U.S to participate in legalizing Mary Jane, this article (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/2018/01/10/study-legal-marijuana-could-generate-more-than-132-billion-in-federal-tax-revenue-and-1-million-jobs/) does a decent job explaining why we should.