Trump and “The Food Police”

Presidential candidate, Donald Trump, has released a set of “specific regulations to be eliminated” and in that list was talk of the FDA. More specifically, the FDA “Food Police.”

“The FDA Food Police, which dictate how the federal government expects farmers to produce fruits and vegetables and even dictates the nutritional content of dog food. The rules govern the soil farmers use, farm and food production hygiene, food packaging, food temperatures, and even what animals may roam which fields and when. It also greatly increased inspections of food “facilities,” and levies new taxes to pay for this inspection overkill.”

After much scrutiny from the public, the content was removed without an explanation and then reposted soon after with no mention of the FDA.

A major focus of Trump’s policies is improving upon the rules and regulations that are useful to the economy and reducing, or completely getting rid of, the ones that impact the economy (because they cost a lot of money). And, here, Trump is saying that too much money is spent on the regulation and inspection of the food industry, and that money could be spent on something more important.

Previously, Obama approved an overhaul to the United Statesfood safety system by “expanding the FDA’s ability to recall tainted foods, increase inspections, demand accountability from food companies, and over see farming.” And that was the biggest movement in food safety in over 70 years.

The thing to keep in mind about this issue is that we currently don’t have to question whether or not the food that we eat is safe or not because there is an effective system in place. If Trump wins the election, the system will be changed and then we might have to start worrying.

Don't Make Such A Fuss!

The campaign for a safe and healthy MA created an ad for what they believe will happen if question 4, that being the legalization of marijuana, is accepted and goes into effect. In this short video a young girl and her mother are driving and they pass dozens of marijuana dispensaries on every street corner. They arrive to their destination and the young girl wants to eat the “candy” that she sees- that being marijuana edibles.

So many people are so upset about question four and agree with this ad. They believe that legalizing marijuana is dangerous and will lead to thousands of dispensaries in our neighborhoods, they are worried about their children getting their hands on edibles and the dangers of car crashes while under the influence.

These people should not be worrying because legalizing marijuana is not going to lead to the end of the world like they think. If we look at places like Colorado we can see that so much good has come from legalizing it, including the millions in revenue that they are gaining to help improve their community.  If Massachusetts can open up dispensaries, then will be gaining this revue as well to help out our state.

Another reason not to worry is because marijuana sales will be very carefully regulated, unlike cigarettes which can be bought just about anywhere, marijuana will only be available to buy at licensed dispensaries and only to individuals 21 and over, so yes some of the edibles might look like candy but it will be impossible for your children to get their hands on it by just seeing it in a window and wanting it.

Why are you so worried about the dangers of increasing car crashes?  If we look at Colorado then we can see that accidents fell when marijuana was legalized. Another reason not to worry is because there will be laws regarding driving under the influence, just like with alcohol. Yes, people still drive drunk and there is no way to stop that from happening and I’m not saying that nobody will ever drive while under the influence of marijuana, but the effects are so different than that of alcohol. there is no evidence that marijuana has had any effect on the rate of fatal car crashes. The blood tests that medical examiners’ offices use aren’t able to accurately determine whether or not traces of THC were enough to impair a driver’s ability to drive.

So people of Massachusetts, stop making such a fuss because this is not the end of the world. 

College is expensive!

If we look at today and the economy, we see that colleges are a lot of money. The prices of college put most student’s family in debt because they just simply do not have the money to pay for education. Which brings another question; we pay for public and private colleges but why do we not pay for public high school?

Even the cost of a private college is extremely ten times the expense of a community or state school. I think it is ridiculous on how much money we spend for college to just earn a degree.

“In February 1970, Harvard University broke the bad news to students in their parents: Tuition was going up” (Schoen). The cost of school in the fall in “1971 by 200-to 2,600” (Schoen). 

“It used to be that once in an undergraduate career tuition would increase,” acting dean John T. Dunlop told the crimsons, the student newspaper. “But from now on, unless inflation is halted, there’s no choice in the matter but to continue raising tuition.” Basically saying that rising the price of college continues until someone stops this.

As we can see in 2016 this fall Harvard University without room and board the cost had risen “17times the 1971-1972 cost, which sets back 42,278” (Schoen).

By every year the cost for college continues to rise. We build more schools which means we need more workers and need a salary to pay them. Not even with just school but building a facility for sports and hiring coaches.

If you look at this link, it shows a graph and how much the percentage increase from way back to today’s cost of colleges. http://public.tableau.com/shared/8WKM8MQSY?:display_count=yes

As you can see, the college expense is extremely a lot of money and families cannot afford the price of college even with financial aid. Families struggle to pay for their child’s education because the cost is so high.

To Announce Or Not To Announce, It’s a Problem

October 28, 11 days before the election day, FBI Director James Comey sent a letter to Republican congressmen announcing that he’s now investigating into Hillary Clinton’s emails. 

Picture from ThinkProgress

It is an unusually sensitive timing to make such an announcement arousing lots of criticisms. Mark Sumner from Daily Kos suggested that what James Comey did was not helping himself build the image of apolitical image but harming this nation by his reckless move in his article: Why FBI Director James Comey Did The Wrong Thing…Again 

However, Newsweek justifies Comey’s announcement that under the oath, he had no choice but to notify the Committee of what he knew. In addition, if he announces it before or after the election, people would be skeptical about his decision. Regardless of his intention, I think James Comey has interfered with the presidential election. He must have known that it would impact the campaign to certain degree.

What’s more, if James Comey did this on purpose, he successfully fooled voters who haven’t made up their minds to vote for Hillary Clinton. Right before the election, he reminds voters of the email-gate and with no further details people would just left to speculate. Not to mention how elated Trump would be to see this happen to Hillary Clinton.

But I think Clinton’s campaign did the right thing (or maybe because they do not have a choice) which is asking for the release of  more information and and responding positively instead of with extreme harshness toward James Comey. John Podesta said: “It is extraordinary that we would see something like this just 11 days out from a presidential election. The Director owes it to the American people to immediately provide the full details of what he is now examining. We are confident this will not produce any conclusions different from the one the FBI reached in July.” 

But we all know it is impossible for the head of the FBI to “provide the full details,” before the election day or sooner. After all, the investigation takes time to finish and it has been on the headlines for three days with no further details at all. But two things are for sure, that is, the election day is right at the corner and there's no more space for such bombshell to both candidates.

We Can't Forget the EpiPen Issue

Hearing repeatedly about price increases for life-saving medications or procedures can be exhausting – the emotional taxation of realizing that people are at higher risk of death due to capitalism may feel like quite the burden to undertake. And yet, conversation about the cost of EpiPens cannot and should not cease until accessibility to the medication is improved. News about the hiked prices for EpiPens has slowed to a trickle, but the problem still remains, and has bigger impact than we first realized.

Today an article was released which highlighted the overall cost of the gradual increase to the U.S. Department of Defense. In the last year, the Pentagon spent $57 million – over six times the amount it spent in 2008. The raised cost is also impacting other health programs provided by the government, such as Medicare and Medicaid. It’s true that other prescription drug prices have increased as well over the years (such as Sovaldi, a cure for hepatitis C, and Daraprim, an AIDS and cancer treatment), but since 2009 the average price for the EpiPen has increased to the point where families are resorting to filling syringes with epinephrine, rather than buying the expensive allergy response injectors. Amie Vialet De Montbel, a mother from Troy, Virginia, is one of many parents who has had to switch to this practice in the case of her twelve-year-old son. EpiPens, for those without severe allergies or who haven’t had any reason to look up what they are, aren’t a luxury that suburban soccer moms use as accessories for their kids who get a rash if they inhale pollen. These auto-injectors are life-saving emergency response medications for people with life-threatening allergies.

Many people who will go into anaphylactic shock if they come into contact with their allergens are now unable to purchase EpiPens, and unaware of safer alternatives. Anaphylactic shock can be as severe as swelling of the tongue and breathing tubes, dizziness, and immediate drop in blood pressure, and can result in something as serious as death if not treated quickly. Mylan, the manufacturing company of EpiPens, has released an “EpiPen Savings Card” to assist with the copay of the drug, not everyone is covered under the company’s terms and eligibility requirements. Additionally, the offer on the card only covers a maximum of $300 per two-pack.

All of this information has been parroted to the public over and over again for the past month, largely because of the outrage sparked by the price’s increase, and out of desperation for change. And yet, news about the EpiPen has become sparsely discussed in most public media. In order to help promote change, people have been spreading information about an alternative to the EpiPen, Adrenaclick, which is more affordable than the EpiPen and provides the same function. We have reached a point however where more drastic change must be heavily advocated for – people can’t let the topic leave the spotlight until EpiPens are made affordable again.

The deplorable rhetoric of Donald Trump

On September 9, during the LGBT for Hillary Gala, presidential nominee Hillary Clinton used some choice words to describe rival presidential nominee Donald Trump and his support base.

“You know, just to be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.   

While Clinton has since apologized for calling half of Trump’s supporters “deplorable,” she still, rightfully so, defends her central argument that Trump’s actions during his campaign have been “deplorable.”

Clinton’s remarks, although generalized, are frighteningly on point.

Many Trump fans are racist, sexist and homophobic. They’re the product of Trump’s dangerously bombastic presentation.

Take this video shot at the RNC, for example. In it, a number of Trump supporters try to cover up a protester's sign that read “No Racism, No Hate.” They tried to drape it over with the American Flag. 

How this type of behavior can be categorized as anything other than bigoted is quite hard to justify. By covering up a sign that promotes racial equality, the Trump supporters can easily be accused of being Anti-American.

It could be argued that Trump’s campaign thrives on playing up people’s fears and that his rhetoric is built on segmenting and stereotyping. By calling a large swath of illegal Mexicans “criminals, drug dealers and rapists,” he’s potentially helping perpetuate preconceived notions, the same is true with his former proposed temporary ban of Muslims entering this country.  

As a result, Trump, has, perhaps unintentionally, become the go-to-candidate for a number of controversial individuals. Take for example former Klu Klux Klan leader David Duke’s endorsement of Trump.  

---

I HATE POLITICS

What are politics? Politics have been around since before man could speak. There has always been at least two sides or point of views to everything. As long as there is a reason to argue there will be politics. The worst political crisis our society has ever seen in my opinion was the day we created the two party system. We are a house decided yet we think we are civil enough to make decisions as a whole. I find it ironic that when we use our democracy to vote on whom we want its only benefiting half of the population. I hate Politics for 2 main reasons, some of which I know people can relate.

The first reason I hate politic is because it creates unnecessary conflicts between groups. Some people love the debate aspect about politics. I however don’t care for it at all. Tension rises faster than the superman roller coaster and when you ride an emotional roller-coaster one wrong word, or wrong statement of belief, can make a civil gathering turn into an all our shouting contest. Not to say that this happens every time but why must people always want to prove that someone else is wrong in the attempt to make themselves feel like they’ve won. I personally don’t bother telling people my political beliefs because why should they care I don’t care about theres. I’m not going to go out of my way to change the way they think because everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Secondly when referring to the most current elections we have maybe two of the worst candidates in history. How in the world did we end up with these two choices, is there really no way Obama can run for his 3rd term? Politics in general has become one of the worst jokes I’ve ever heard between the mediators making headlines at debates to the constant interruptions between all the candidates. It makes me embarrassed to be American, and I love my country. My little sister is 10 years old and she has more manners than anyone who ran for president this year. The absurdity that I hear and see from my future president on both sides is pitiful, am I’m honestly scared for this country.

Gerrymandering Ain't Funny

Not This Guy

This

This morning I woke up to a lovely new problem on fivethirtyeight.com, Rig The Election … With Math! 

It’s great being reminded of one of the many quirks of U.S. democracy that sends me on paranoia-fueled, Internet research spirals.

Gerrymandering is the process of redistricting a state in order to give a particular political party an advantage. 

By changing which district constituents live in, the outcomes of future votes are influenced.

Redistricting is decided at a state (not federal) level and, as per usual, not all states have the same rules. 

Most, however, leave it to the state legislature to redraw the lines with different flavors of commissions (advisory, backup, politician) thrown into the mix. Only six states use independent commissions that limit – some almost to the point of exclusion - the involvement of elected officials.

While current computer algorithms can give a very useful, detailed picture of what voter populations look like, gerrymandering isn’t a new concept.

As a resident of Massachusetts, I cringe a little over the fact the term is named for Elbridge Gerry, who was a governor of the same state over 200 years ago. 

Despite other, say, more noble accomplishments as a founding father, Gerry supported a district map in 1812 that included some irregularly shaped districts favoring his party. 

The Boston Gazette observed in a cartoon the map looked like a salamander and an editor called the trick a ‘gerry-mander.’   

A majority party in state government may obtain power not only by redistricting to give their candidate an advantage, but also – primarily – by disadvantaging minority party candidates. In the process seats becomes less competitive and a regular citizen’s vote can be devalued. 

When reminiscing over Obama’s battle with a Republican congress, it is a little too easy to point fingers at the salamanders of today and blame them as a potential cause of gridlock in Washington. The practice is used by both Democrats (see Illinois) and Republicans (see Pennsylvania). 

Some suggest, though, that constituents themselves are more partisan and, therefore, so is the popular vote. 

The real problem with gerrymandering is that taking a district to either extreme ‘leapfrogs’ the voice of voters. While rule by majority may be imperfect, it should be represented as accurately possible as the chosen form of U.S. government. 

Citizens should strive to hold their state decision-makers accountable in the redistricting process. 

Trump's loud mouth: The real horrors of spreading misinformation

Editor's note: Updated the second to last paragraph to say didn't not don't  

Just over a month ago, presidential nominee Donald Trump, during one of his rallies, informed his audience of a “powerful” explosion that had just occurred in New York City.

He said the explosion was caused by a bomb.   

“Just before I got off the plane, a bomb went off in New York and nobody knows exactly what’s going on.”

Although his comments weren’t outright obscene or offensive, they were a little dangerous.So much misinformation is shared during the early hours of an events like this. We saw it when users from the popular website Reddit falsely claimed to have found the two Boston bombers.    

His comments came even before the press in New York City confirmed an explosion had actually occurred, let alone if it was a bomb.

Trump should know better than to just outright claim the explosion was caused by a bomb. He should have known better than to just to share that information without disclosing his sources.

He has a substantial following and a powerful platform, his rally attendance rate had often been “ten times the size of Clinton’s.” He has a responsibility to share accurate information.

It’s not his responsibility to haphazardly break news, especially on something as sensitive as a potential bomb attack. He should leave the reporting to the journalists who are actively reporting on the scene of the event, like the New York Times for example.

At the time, we didn’t know about the explosions. According to the Times we still didn't know don’t who caused the explosion, his/her motive, or why the individual planted the explosives where they did. It’s irresponsible to jump to conclusions without knowing almost any of the facts.

Trump’s should recognize the impact his words have on his support base and the potential misinformation he spreads when he runs his mouth without knowing most of the facts.