There are two things you don't talk about on a date, religion and politics. Why? Because generally these topics divide our nation like no other. Not only do politics divide, but they cause massive rifts in the population. The election for the highest office in the United States is the pinnacle of this conflict. The 2016 presidential election has been quite entertaining as always. A constant stream of back and forth banter between both party's candidates has inevitably split the nation.
This election cycle is remarkably different than most. In prior elections such as 2012 presidential election, most candidates toed the party line. The most popular candidates from both parties were the normal ideologies that were generally the same. While the country was divided between reelecting President Obama or electing Mitt Romney, both candidates could not be considered extreme ideologically. In other words, the disunity in regards to the election was quite typical. 2016 has brought a very different election.
Apart from the abnormality of the sheer number of Republican candidates, the election has been dominated by two extreme candidates: Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. The pure fact is that these two candidates are political opposites that are much more ideological than their fellow candidates. These two have dominated much of the media attention. Donald Trump has been very outspoken, and therefore has gained a large percentage of the media, while Bernie Sanders has gained a large following for his anti establishment campaign. If we as media consumers and voters simply looked at the media's coverage of the election, our view would be greatly skewed.
Donald Trump was a well known figure prior to the election. He had previously mulled over running for president during the 2012 election. He is a well known figure due to his vast wealth and TV shows such as Celebrity Apprentice. Gallup Polls found that he was 91% familiar to the United States population. Currently, Donald Trump leads the GOP field, having won three states in a row; New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada (BBC).
His angry comments and willingness to say anything and everything regardless of the consequences has made him extremely popular among many Republicans. However his stances on Syrian immigrants and the Mexican border have gained him enemies across both parties. However his wins are deceiving. A huge percentage of the population, not just registered Democrats, dislike Donald Trump. According to Gallup polls, "At this point (two-week average through Jan. 27), 33% of Americans view Trump favorably and 60% unfavorably." With his stunning success in the primaries, these numbers are not clearly represented in regards to the results.
Bernie Sanders is on the other extreme end of the political spectrum. As a Vermont Senator, he was relatively little known across the country. He has quickly become very popular among young voters who enjoy his anti-establishment image. He has already won the Iowa primary, as well as the New Hampshire election. He is currently in a neck and neck battle with Hillary Clinton.
Many voters across the country do not take to Bernie Sanders and his admittedly socialist views. His proposals to raise taxes on the highest tax bracket has raised alarm. He has also made headlines for proposing free or reduced college. In addition he also supports raising the minimum wage across the United States. According to Gallup Polls, "As voting begins in the 2016 presidential primary, suddenly Bernie Sanders, once castigated as a long-shot bid for the Democratic nomination, has the edge over Hillary Clinton in net favorability among". In the most recent poll conducted by Gallup, Bernie Sanders is polling 53% among democrats.
These two candidates represent a huge amount of controversy and media coverage. Their extreme views and words in the case of Donald Trump distort the truth that most of the country favors other more ideologically moderate candidates such as Hillary Clinton or Marco Rubio. As always the middle ground seems to hide the actual opinions of the nation as a whole.
http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/188936/trump-negative-image.aspx?g_source=ELECTION_2016&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-35647126
Friday, February 26, 2016
Thursday, February 11, 2016
Female service
The military generally garners considerable controversy in many of the moves it makes. We see a nationwide disagreement in the way the United States military operates and where it goes. In a social sense, we see the problems and conflicts of society become a true mess for the military. Issues such as openly serving homosexuals have divided the military and come to national attention. One current issue in the military is female service.
Women have been in the military officially since the Women's Armed Services Integration Act in 1948. Since the act was passed by congress, women have quickly climbed the military ladder. In 1976, women were allowed to enter the armed services academies, and in 1991, women were allowed to enter combat zones, though they were under strict orders not to be engaged in combat.
Today, approximately 14.5 percent of all active duty service members are women. The growing number of women in the military led the United States government to allow women full access to all military positions in all branches in 2013.
Two obvious sides have emerged in the fight for female inclusion. On one side there are the supporters who see this move as one that makes the military a more inclusive entity that is strengthened through equality. The other side is extremely against the move, citing the performance standards and the importance of maintaining the strength of the military in combat.
In recent years, supporters of full female integration have cited the prevalence of females that inadvertently ended up in combat during the Iraq and Afghan conflicts. Women such as SGT. Leigh Hester who killed multiple enemy combatants after her convoy was attacked were proof that women could operate in combat environments.
Furthermore supporters see women as having an integral role in combat roles. This argument is extremely valid as female service members are invaluable in gaining intelligence from muslim women, a job which only they can perform. This is an extremely important role as the current method of warfare in the middle east involves winning the hearts and minds of the civilian populations. They see the slow integration as the purposeful dragging of feet by military officials, particularly the Marines.
The military has done multiple studies that females work better together, and are better at solving problems and thinking critically. Another prevailing thought its that women give an importance balance and help keep the integrity of good recruits of volunteers.
The opposition is fairly set on the argument of performance. Most of the criticism lies in the fact that most women cannot meet the standards that are set for males in combat roles. The fitness levels needed are non negotiable, and any change in these to allow women would erode the capabilities of the combat units.
Unit cohesion has also played a large role in the backlash against females in combat. In trials run by the United States, mixed gender units did not perform as well as segregated units. The trust and teamwork simply was not present. The military is a very traditional setting, and for many males, female combat soldiers are unwelcome and distrusted.
Overall, especially the Marines, there is a slow and begrudging response to the integration as Army Secretary feels it is a rushed plan, "full integration will likely take several years, both to adjust the culture and to grow individual skills".
The military as a whole is divided on the issue of female service. With the politics and policies of gender on the front page of our news, the integration has become embroiled in politics. Despite the looming April 1st deadline, the integration will not be complete in time. Until further planning and research is completed, the argument against female combat service due to physical performance will justifiably questioned.
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2016/02/10/women-combat-jobs-congress-generals-pentagon-leaders/79876228/
http://www.history.org/history/teaching/enewsletter/volume7/images/nov/women_military_timeline.pdf
Women have been in the military officially since the Women's Armed Services Integration Act in 1948. Since the act was passed by congress, women have quickly climbed the military ladder. In 1976, women were allowed to enter the armed services academies, and in 1991, women were allowed to enter combat zones, though they were under strict orders not to be engaged in combat.
Today, approximately 14.5 percent of all active duty service members are women. The growing number of women in the military led the United States government to allow women full access to all military positions in all branches in 2013.
Currently, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter has set the deadline of full integration for women in all roles including special operations. According to military.com, "In less than two months, about 220,000 jobs never before open to women will be potential new landing spots". However the decision has met considerable backlash from both sides.
Two obvious sides have emerged in the fight for female inclusion. On one side there are the supporters who see this move as one that makes the military a more inclusive entity that is strengthened through equality. The other side is extremely against the move, citing the performance standards and the importance of maintaining the strength of the military in combat.
In recent years, supporters of full female integration have cited the prevalence of females that inadvertently ended up in combat during the Iraq and Afghan conflicts. Women such as SGT. Leigh Hester who killed multiple enemy combatants after her convoy was attacked were proof that women could operate in combat environments.
Furthermore supporters see women as having an integral role in combat roles. This argument is extremely valid as female service members are invaluable in gaining intelligence from muslim women, a job which only they can perform. This is an extremely important role as the current method of warfare in the middle east involves winning the hearts and minds of the civilian populations. They see the slow integration as the purposeful dragging of feet by military officials, particularly the Marines.
The military has done multiple studies that females work better together, and are better at solving problems and thinking critically. Another prevailing thought its that women give an importance balance and help keep the integrity of good recruits of volunteers.
The opposition is fairly set on the argument of performance. Most of the criticism lies in the fact that most women cannot meet the standards that are set for males in combat roles. The fitness levels needed are non negotiable, and any change in these to allow women would erode the capabilities of the combat units.
Unit cohesion has also played a large role in the backlash against females in combat. In trials run by the United States, mixed gender units did not perform as well as segregated units. The trust and teamwork simply was not present. The military is a very traditional setting, and for many males, female combat soldiers are unwelcome and distrusted.
Overall, especially the Marines, there is a slow and begrudging response to the integration as Army Secretary feels it is a rushed plan, "full integration will likely take several years, both to adjust the culture and to grow individual skills".
The military as a whole is divided on the issue of female service. With the politics and policies of gender on the front page of our news, the integration has become embroiled in politics. Despite the looming April 1st deadline, the integration will not be complete in time. Until further planning and research is completed, the argument against female combat service due to physical performance will justifiably questioned.
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2016/02/10/women-combat-jobs-congress-generals-pentagon-leaders/79876228/
http://www.history.org/history/teaching/enewsletter/volume7/images/nov/women_military_timeline.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)