Viewing my Peers: Driver's Licenses

In this commentary I’m reviewing today is classmate Azure's  Right To Drive?  . From reading apart the first sentence, the audience is for the people of Oregon but also can inform with other states that have related issues. Such as Texas can relate. What I came to understanding is that Azure writes in oppose for immigrants to have licenses.

From the point of view of the immigrants they noted that from the article that it was a racial issue. Although Azure makes a true point that,  “[B]ut that’s not entirely fair since we have nothing to compare it to.”

Here are some more quotes to view on the illegal immigrants side:

“[I]llegal immigration isn’t a victim-less crime.”

“[T]hese people are here working hard and paying sales and property taxes”

“[T]hese people are trying to make a life for themselves...”

I think that having a driver licenses for illegal immigrants is the same thing as having a State I.D.. Even though it’s not a constitutional right to have a driver’s license it’s still a document with important information about the individual. Also, without a driver license it’s easy to assume that they don’t have life insurance. If they get into a car accident the victim would have to pay for the damages.

Simple solution: If an illegal immigrant needs a driver's license, they should have correct documentation of showing that they came over illegally. Not necessarily a resident, but came to the United States legally. Because if they came legally and they have a driver’s license from their own country that should be valid enough to renew their license to the country that they are visiting or living in.

So I agree with Azure on their point for illegal immigrants to not have drivers license. Although this may be most likely the minority answer since there are other states that do give illegal immigrants driver's license. 

 There was no source of the article but if you are wondering the issue of the topic is discussed by Robert Shaffer, of fox news, Illegal immigrants sue Oregon over ballot measure denying licenses.

Should there be a filter for freedom of speech?

Michael McGough, LA Times writer of The younger you are, the less you support free speech, discusses about Pew Research Center shared news about millennial opinion. The main question to think about when reading is, “-if government should be able to prevent people from making offensive statements about minorities." McGough really supports Pew, as he uses them as a point of reference and also a global survey.  I think that there are different views to unfold the answer with, generation differences, having an opinion about the 1st Amendment, and education level.

McGough only shares us the percentages of who does supported, so I’m not surprised that an existing of 27% Generation X or 24% of Baby boomers that support to control. I think that the other side of the percentage in those generations would want to keep the freedom of speech exactly how it is. Maybe it’s a form of feeling that those who want to have an offensive statements blocked is that our younger generation is being too soft or too sensitive.

Think about it, in our Republic Presidential candidates, who voice has stood out to be obtuse? Media hungry? (seriously just google Donald trump is...)

It’s very hard to choose words correctly if you don’t know your audience, anything or everything could be offensive to someone. Some people just need a filter, some people need to just not let words phase on them. Why spoon-feed words that only the younger generation would like to hear?

Let’s talk about the survey, McGough states that he created which revealed  “21% of college students said they agreed with the statement that the 1st Amendment was “outdated” and that 35% (wrongly) said that “hate speech is NOT protected under the 1st Amendment.”

Now since it’s narrowed to a subject hate speech I think this makes it easier to understand what makes people feel offensive about. His article made me think about whenever I should agree about the question from the beginning. 

First, do I personally think the amendment is outdated? Yes, as to I do agree in a form of that people shouldn’t abuse freedom of speech with opinionated racial words that are offensive. I think that if people want to be part of the world they should provide facts. So in conclusion I do agree that the government should prevent people create offensive statements.

Viewing my Peers

Today I’m reviewing an article by Iris Osornio, Why Should Hillary Clinton Win, I choose this article to read because I’d like to understand my peers point of view about the campaign for 2015. From first glance, I tried to give the benefit of a doubt. The intricate article wasn’t difficult to comprehend what Osornio wanted to write about, which was Hillary being a woman President would be a symbolic accomplishment to the U.S.. 

The first sentence is straight forward, “With the 2016 Presidential Elections coming up Hillary Clinton has decided to run for president and so has Donald Trump,” although I do wonder why Trump was mention when he isn’t mentioned that much in this editorial. Clinton has more competition with her other Democratic candidates that are male than just Trump.

Although, the rest of the article does fall short unfortunately, the poor use of excess of facts don’t need to be included, which doesn't help to convince me why I should vote Hillary. This doesn’t support as evidence on why Hillary Clinton should be president, “ Many other countries in their time of existing have had many woman for rulers whether its as a queen or a prime minister Norway , Britain, Lithuania ect. have all been rules by females.”

It is very clear that she is supportive of Clinton, because she doesn’t acknowledge the other Republican candidate, Carly Fiorina, who is also a women. “Are we really against women leading our country?”

In all honestly, for the rest of the article, I don’t need to comment on, sounds like an informative essay, and the editor did not provide a source of an article to support evidence. 

There could have been more potential to the article if there was a provided source and more facts that relate to Hillary’s campaign on her opinions now. Instead of comments that are implied for Hillary but could be easily replaced with someone else's name. I wonder if the Editor watched the Democratic Debate. I, myself, wrote an article about it that involved Hillary. 

At least the positive outcome is that my peers are trying to understand politics, so you can't deny that this could be part of a small step.

The hidden meaning of gun ownership.

Jonathan Zimmerman, LA Times writer of Like Prohibition, the fight over guns is about something else, writes an interesting article of symbolic meaning to bare arms. Please a read into it, if this topic interests you.

He first introduces the reader about how Prohibition isn’t just about alcohol by using Joseph Gusfield’s book, Symbolic Crusade, as helpful reference. This supported his main statement to inform us Just to inform us what direction he is going. The reason I thought it was helpful to add was because like Prohibition, there is also an amendment about guns.

When Zimmerman talks about gun controversy he uses evidence multiply of examples about guns on campus, “Oct. 1 shooting at Umpqua Community College….” But the evidence that stood out for me was about Texas, who has passed a law in June 2015 that all licenses gun owners can bring guns in and on campus grounds for the future of August 2016.

“So whatever the June law is about, it surely isn't about keeping Texas' students, faculty and staff "safe" from gun attacks”- Zimmerman

I agree when Zimmerman’s tone is giving a vibe of the reasoning of guns is not for safety reasons. Its true Texas campuses haven’t had a gun problem in their campuses in a huge expand of time, why should they allow guns to be available on campus grounds? Why bring the problem to the campus?

“[T]he concealed-weapons law allows its advocates to reclaim a kind of rough-hewn individualism that they think America has lost.” - Zimmerman

I think it’s harder to tell a gun owner that they can’t have a gun on hand because this law isn’t unconstitutional. The second Amendment states that we have the right to bare arms. So what Zimmerman is getting at is that Americans want to have a gun because it makes them feel more in power, more in control on their environment. But this causes issues and makes people feel discomfort. Not surprise that those that are concern about are people who don’t own guns, i.e.: Daniel S. Hamermesh, a resigned professor who left “out of self-protection.”

I wish for the best turn out for the future students in Texas Campuses, I hope that they don’t need to a reason to buy a gun is because the next guy has one.


      

Did Hillary really triumph at the debate?

On October 13, 2015, the presidential debate took place for the Democrats. Doyle MacManus, LA Times writer of Democratic debate a talking-point triumph for Hillary Clinton, expresses his thoughts on the winner that the press has all agree on. Although, MacManus made it clear in the title on whom he was wanting to write about, please read the article to see if it sways your thought about the winner of the debate. 

It's clear that Clinton, “embraced a role as partisan warrior, as if she were already — or again — the Democrats' presumptive nominee.” She was more polish and quick responsive because of her experience of being on the debate floor. Although, should I blame the questionnaires of giving her questions like “What enemies are you’re proud of?” Or should I just be irritated on her responses.

Majority of MacManus's article is evidence, providing a long list of debated questions with Clinton’s responses. When I read the questions that MacManus choose, there was really not enough questions on her own plans, as in about ISIS, Putin, and or Benghazi. From the highlights of the answers that Clinton provided being a women with experience and progressive. Sure there was a question about her opinion about Bernie Sander’s idea for banks, but it wasn’t appealing to me about her short response. Where is this triumph that the press is talking about?

In fact, MacManus does provide his own commentary about Bernie Sanders, another well-known Democratic Runner. My first assumption was that he was using Bernie’s points to compare to Clintons, but it was just Bernie’s commentary that I saw a poor use of evidence.

I think that whoever saw the debate could bias about who was truly the winner depending on what side they are on. All over you see the press point that Hillary Clinton was the winner but there are some online public opinion polls that state otherwise. So my opinion didn’t change on who I thought who won the debate, and this is coming from someone who is not even a Democrat supporter.

“Was the audience applauding Sanders, Clinton or both? It's hard to say.” – Doyle MacMancus.