The Constantly Offended Award Goes To.......

I'm assuming you have watched or heard about the recent election because it's been the biggest, most shocking news of this year. The battle between parties has put this nation in a second civil war with all the fighting and ridiculing. Trump's victory over Clinton puts the Hillary supporters in a drunken stupor; yet at the same time, they're waking up to a whole new reality. 

                                          
In continuance of the 'safe space' blog, there is a new level of infancy. People feel so distraught about Trump becoming president they need ways to cope with this tragedy, *faint sigh*. Multiple social media articles or pictures clearly show the sad state people are in. Snapchat has multiple stories on the post-election gloom of Americans all over. One specific article was titled, "How American women are caring for themselves after the election", followed with a, "need a hug?" This whole thing was filled with mushy crap like avoiding news and social media altogether, or keeping busy to ignore it. But we all know that this isn't going away, you can't wish it to be gone, and you can't keep being a sad S.O.B. Trump sure as hell isn't going to be soft about it.

Another thing people are getting is a safe space in college. "They encouraged students to take advantage of walk-in urgent care mental health services in the Student Health and Wellness Center or to call the campus advice nurse. Walk-in support and “healing spaces” were available..." We keep creating a generation of softies who don't want to hear what doesn't sound good to them. The thing about our nation is that we need to have a trophy. Not first place or second or third, but something that we all can have that doesn't make anyone else unhappy. Kind of like the participation medals you get in elementary school so you don't hurt the other team's feeling. Now we're out of that stage and onto bigger things, but adults and teens get their feelings hurt more than a 13 year old girl on her period. 

                                                      
Generation snowflake is definitely appropriate to describe us. I think we need someone like Trump to boldly say things about our country to give us some spine and something to stand on. Coming from a very bold family, I'm not easily offended by most things; I can take a hit. But it's different when you come from a family that discusses feelings or isn't so 'hard headed'. Eventually, you are supposed to grow up and college is usually the place where this happens. You cultivate your own thoughts and beliefs and act on them. Instead, what our generation wants is a place where their ideas don't get corrected or criticized. It kind of hurts our image when maybe in the future we were looked upon as those people who needed some comforting words after the election didn't go our way.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/education/article113811743.html#storylink=cpy

"Would You Like to Reconsider?"

                                   
America seems to be crushed by the oppression of the 2016 election. Everywhere we look we are slowly tearing apart at the seams. What used to be a great nation, proud of their democracy, now sends people cowering in the shadows of the undesirable future. The question we need to consider, is how we as a united country are going to fix the brokenness. What also seems to be twisting everyone's panties is the uncomfortable, gloomy fog over the other countries and their new opinion on American democracy.

The unnerving part of this election is that other countries no longer view America as a "model" for a good political system. Instead, they are glad that they are not like us at this current moment in our momentous, history making. The article clearly states that the election on November 8th is more than just who will be sworn in to office; they are going to watch to see who will have the best system of governance in the world. What a great way to kick off the election, but putting the pressure on what could be a turning point for America and her people. Of course as America stands, we want a government that collides with our original beliefs and statements, of, for, and by the people. But in order to do that we'll need to do more than just 'up our game.' 

Our political system is essentially on trial, and we're losing to a totalitarian corporatism which advertises much higher growth and better leaders. The citizens and leaders of America need to involve themselves in the betterment of our nation. We have to be better at "making the expectations of democracy clear here in The United States of America." Our nation has certain ideals that set it apart from other countries and their government. "This constitutional republic, a representative democracy, is only made possible because of certain ideals, and beyond those ideas certain political commitments, and behind those commitments a very clear worldview." That worldview is what defines us as humans, our dignity, our rights; and we are losing our hold on that worldview.

                                    

What part of America needs is a little bit of our old ways mixed in now, but will those ideals work out? People are choosing to elect the "lesser of two evils" and those two candidates are considered a crook or a clown. Not many can take them seriously with all the media portraying them in ridiculing ways. We take more out of what the candidates look like, how they dress, their gender, skin color, etc and base our ideas on that instead of actually listening and applying what they propose to America. Whatever is happening to democracy globally should be our main focus.

Concerning our nation, what is happening now is on a need to know basis. More people everywhere are aware of our government now that is seems to be the laughingstock of the world. They take it as a joke and don't realize the severity of America's problems and the situations that are weighing us down. Democracy is something we should be proud of and if we want to protect it we need to grab it by the horns. If we don't, shouldn't we reconsider everything we ever stood for?

Ignoring the Debt Problem

The 2016 debates revealed the problem that has been avoided by the government and its future president; the debt problem. The questions asked by the representatives do not give the candidates a chance to say what they plan to do with America's problems. They do not inform the people nor give the information needed to show what they are like. Two writers give their take on this, "Insults, invective and pandering have been poor substitutes for serious debate about the direction in which this country is going - or should be going." This debt issue is missing from the debate and topics thrown back and forth between sides; it's missing the use of moral vocabulary about the problem. Specifically in this third debate, Trump and Hillary were asked about the national debt and economic proposals. Yet neither of them spoke specifically about it nor "took responsibility" to say what would happen if the proposals went through.

The national debt has grown to 75 percent in 2016. With increasing numbers, it is essential that citizens are aware and the candidates tell us their plan to fix it. As a business man, Trump seems to the more of the right fit in this case. He has dealt with money for his career and should know the right way to endure this problem. Hillary want to raise taxes so we can get all these things, but right now we can't afford these luxuries. 

Neither of the candidates showed a great deal of concern toward the debt problem. Confronting the situation head on will bring more ways we can deal with this and shine light on the problem we face. The buildup of debt has caused us to decay. Part of this problem has come from the promised pensions to retired people and government employees who will basically, "Bankrupt the state or the national or the local government." Other things such as social security or Medicare are added to the debt because they are channeled through the states to individual people. We claim to be paying for those, but reality states that we are 'borrowing against the future.' Letting our debt grow only burdens us while constricting the budget and ending all other essential spending. 

The argument that Albert Mohler makes is that we are missing the word 'theft' in our debt case. It seems to be that our present generation is stealing from future generations, because they are the ones going to have to clean up the mess. By spending what we do not have, we are stealing from our future descendants. Proverbs 22:7 says, "The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower becomes the lender's slave." We aren't exactly 'slaves' to money but it is what runs our country, and it is essential to our lives. It doesn't have to be our idol by which we worship and consumes our desires. In the words of Nick Miller, "We kill each other for paper. And I gotta tell you man, that's sad." Our money is going down the toilet.

Can We Be Adults Here?

                                               

Our generation seems to grow more sensitive each time a touchy subject is brought to the surface. We are living in a time where our 'common ground' only encourages anger and dispute. Where has the spine of our nation gone when we need it the most?

The First Amendment guarantees America's freedom of speech. It is our constitutional right that nobody is allowed to take away. But it seems like we are being more restricted then ever by not having total speech 'freedom' such as in high schools, colleges, and certain public areas. Back when it was first created, freedom of speech had been under threats and sometimes compromised. Now our generation (the millennials) do not care as much for free speech as it had been yearned for in the past.  

Colleges and universities are stopping speakers from coming on campuses because of demanding students wanting only 'safe speakers'. The kind that do not bring any message that they would consider to be intolerant to students. This uprising has been increasing in recent months, and there is now 'an outbreak of liberal concern'. Because of arguments coming back to rebound on itself, older American liberals recognize the seeds of intolerance sown because of them. The ideology of inclusiveness and diversity is prevailing among campuses, yet in that note, inclusiveness and diversity is what's being shut down. 

Speakers on campus must speak only about what is deemed okay by the students. The LGBT issue is one of the most controversial issues everywhere. For college campuses, the speaker must agree with the revolution of LGBT pride or else they will not be allowed there. This problem only brings forth a weakness among college students when in reality, college is supposed to make them grow up. It is not safe for education because  education requires the sharpening of the mind. Arguments, debates, and confrontation of different topics are what creates a stronger minded person ready for the real world. If someone gets offended or gets their feelings hurt, colleges now have a 'safe space' with blankets and puppies so that person can calm down. If college pamphlets had a section to dedicate their 'safe space' to, then you should think twice about what the message is. College equips you for life, and if you can't handle a little disagreement without being butt hurt, you shouldn't be in college. The real world doesn't have safe spaces, you have to get over yourself and actually live in a reality other than your imagination. 

When faced with the topic of free speech, most people would say that they of course like to exercise their rights. But what happens after someone disagrees with them on a topic? The issue created makes it okay for them to speak, but the people against them definitely do not have the right of free speech. This makes free speech a liability, not equal for everyone, just the person who thinks everyone else is wrong. 

We need to be the people that change this problem and use our right as Americans for free speech. How can we turn against free speech when the people protesting it are using their free speech? If they don't want speech, then they shouldn't be allowed to go through with what they want. With no free speech, we as Americans no longer hold power in our country as a democracy, and that is what America stands for.

Make an Argument, Get a Government

Joseph Ellis' book American Creation is about our triumphs and overcoming our failures as a new nation rising up. Chapter three in his book is titled "The Argument." This is the rising and founding of our government which is still with us today. Ellis writes to portray the importance of all the hardships we went through that impacted the way we discern our government and the people who reside within.

Our independence had just been fought, and won for. It was a victory over the British Empire and the creation of an American Empire. Our expansion was indeed a manifest destiny that sparked a revolution in the eyes of America and her people. But the unification of the states did not last much longer than the war. As soon as it ended, states started going their separate ways. George Washington stated that we needed a strong central government to manage the states wandering around the continent. It was difficult to give that idea when the government they just escaped was like the one portrayed in Washington's mind. 

"The gap between these two political camps was an unbridgeable chasm separated by a fundamental difference of opinion over the true meaning of the American Revolution."

The new effort was to create a form of government that embraced the American dream and a firm ground for all the changes to come. 

                                          

One major person in the ratification of our government system was James Madison. He exposed the failings of a weak central government and fought to find a new one. Alongside him were Washington, Alexander Hamilton, George Mason, and Patrick Henry. The fear of Washington and Madison was that the America they worked so hard for was on the edge of anarchy, the fear that the nation would not fulfill its promises. Many situations went downhill after trying to create a solution. Madison, attempting to mend the Articles of Confederation, invested in developments to fix them. But they were somewhat complicated and failed to work out. The one that succeeded involved one man, George Washington. He was the one with most experience and that began his progression of becoming the future President. 

 Madison and Washington both agreed that "the full promise of the American Revolution could be secured only by a stable and wholly consolidated nation-state." The first development was concerning navigation rights of the Mississippi River. John Jay suggested that they give up American rights in able to use the Mississippi River. But this initiative was only temporary and partial interests, and would not benefit for a long period of time. 
The second development was the state of union among rebel farmers in America. Also known as, "Shay's Rebellion", some twelve hundred rebels fought to earn their own land back after they came back from the war. This did not last long nor was it very effective in the struggle for their rights.  
The third development was the failure of the Annapolis Convention. There was only five states that showed up to the convention, but its initial failure emboldened him to try a business proposal from Alexander Hamilton.  
The last development was the manipulation by Madison to get Washington out of retirement and back to doing what he was great at. What they both realized what was best for the constitution was complete change of the Articles of Confederation. 

"The Articles of Confederation did not need to be revised, they needed to be completely replaced with a fully empowered national government that possessed a clear mandate to coerce the states in both foreign and domestic policy."

Between March and May of 1787, Madison endorsed a two-pronged campaign in order to prepare himself for the debates in Philadelphia. He was a strong orator and a 'frustrating' opponent because he always had better swaying opinions and relevant information. Edmund Randolph wrote to Madison saying that they would not tolerate the enhancement of the Articles. A radical reform would not appeal to the public opinion and almost surely lose. But Madison was proud; "if not extravagant, absolutely unattainable and unworthy of being attempted." His outline of a answer was made clear to him. There should be bicameral legislature representing instead of the single-house legislature representing the states. This new created federal government was going to be what they hoped for in fighting their battle for independence, a government made for the will of the people.

Strong-headed Madison arrived in Philadelphia on May 5, 1787, determined to face the challenge and a clear vision of the proper shape a truly national government needed to assume. He knew that he was fully armed to fight the political conflicts of the debate. The interests of the people determine the overall thoughts of the government. There is a gap between "will of the people" and the abiding interest of the public. Madison was fighting for a republic. They work best in small geographic areas, where the elected representative remained close to the interests of the citizens who elected them. Larger republics increase the number of competing factors, this made space an asset rather than a liability.

The debate as a whole was another "standing miracle", equivalent to the victory for our independence. It was the typical, "He said, she said" of government arguments. The people deliberating calmly on what form of government would be the best according to their happiness. But having a form of government meant that there would still be some people against it; therefore, there were Anti federalists. They believed they were protecting ordinary Americans from a takeover of the American Revolution. The main goal of the Federalist was to contest that claim by stating that the Constitution was a rescue rather than a betrayal. All the time, debates raged and some Americans were upset with our government, and both Hamilton and Madison were forced to frame their argument on behalf of the constitution. 

The constitution became the central government with only enumerated powers essential for preservation of the union. Madison had found the beauty of ambiguity or also shifting sovereign-ties. The argument eventually won out, it triumphed defied logic because the argument itself is the answer. This is how we do or create things all the time, inside or outside the government. We argue to make the best out of something; "thereby, making the Constitution, like history itself, an argument without end."