US Government Is Not Perfect, But Ideal Practically

A big sound of commentary around the world is saying the United States is dominated by a rich and powerful elite. It is truth. In my opinion, any conclusion in single theory without value of operation is not practical meaningful. Any government has to face the needs of the people, the challenges of the regime, and the paradox of the world. The US government is doing a good job in this circumstance.

When the impacts on US government policy are compared equally, of the economic elites or groups representing business interests to average citizens and mass-based interest groups, the results commonly come to unequal with the population, which seems a fake democracy but a false proposition. Look back in the history, the US government would not exist and last over 200 years without a few elite. It is always the elite that opens their mind beyond the reality, to construct the society to fit each change and need, to set the rules to regulate behaviors of individuals and groups, and to help everyone to survive and fulfill their lives, with the means of democracy, the voice of civil.

People grow strong enough then to challenge the government, a loop that is never changed. The balance between the power of control and the revolt of be-controlled survive the real society. While the controller goes to adjust and hold the balance, the society is still; while the controller goes to lose, the be-controlled becomes the next controller, the society is subverted. if it were going to happen, who will be the next controller, or if it is still the United States? There is a few successful examples in the world, people overthrew the government, established their own righteousness or government to manage their countries, only with the great help of their elite as well. This is not a prejudice.

In a common cognition, wealthy elite represents fine education, outstanding capacity, and being ambitious to power and influence in society. On the contrary, being poor implies lost the opportunities of good education, limited ability, or low motivation of desire to take care of others. As a reflection, the outcomes turn to present a dynamic proportional relationship with the wealth that people have. While the poor are making their lives and fighting for their right, the wealthy are passionate with making the country and maintaining the regulations, more rationally. The situation decides what individuals are pursuing. The country is consisted of all of them in different positions.

Unfortunately, researchers seek the evidences conclude only from the data and clues that have already been resulted, politicians apply the means and strategies that are only considered useful with the power they have, economic elite approach the possibilities that only benefit their businesses and impacts to extend their field and connection, while the other people make voice for only what is found displaying and influencing their lives. However, the dynamic balance is that a democratic society will show, the US government is a good model for democracy country no matter it is changing a bit all the time.

Free College Education Is Still Idealism In the United States

Free high education tuition, is somehow idealism before for people who live outside Europe. The idea of the article by Chau Vu (April 5, 2019) sounds like a spring rainstorm that thunder and lighting come over, rain approaches together and is staying for a while, in the brain. Fortunately, it seems turned to be a real trend, has started in some small areas, that Americans may expect. Following the brainstorm, how will it be going, is it really blooming over the United States like happening in other countries such as in Europe? What do the American people need to know, and what do they really do for free high education?

According to valuecolleges.com, there are over 40 countries around the world offering free post-secondary education so far, and 10 countries of them offer free or almost free of cost for international students, according to scoopwhoop.com. As people have learned, those European countries do so for all students equally, regardless of family income level. However, the first program in New York offers free tuition at public colleges only to families making up to $125,000 annually. That is not the model, as most people think, for other states to follow.

Despite whatever the policies are, the "free tuition" has to be a relative term base on the fact that all the free tuition cost are absorbed by the taxpayers. In European countries, people pay higher taxes than that in the United States, which allows those countries to offer more social services than the United States. While tax as a percent of GDP is about 27.1% in the United States, it is about 37.5% in Germany, for instance, according to the preliminary 2017 data, Mish Talk.

Another substantive difference is the college enrollment percentages, it is much lower in Europe than in the United States. Which means a lower percentage of college students in the European countries population take advantage of free tuition policy; obviously, it works well then and could be a successful model. If the United States was going to follow the footsteps of European countries in this way, to finance a free college education to every student, like Germany, by increasing tax, the additional tax can be calculated as 10.4% of the income for each family, if it is assumed the college enrollment rates are about the same level in the two countries.

It is true that eliminating financial stress will help students with low income to get degrees if free tuition is the means for encouraging people to seek high education. On the contrary, the universities will be overcrowded, hardly maintain the quality of teaching, and provide adequate studying support for each student under the current campus circumstance and enrollment policy. The adjustment approach might have to be lower enrollment, that any family or student would not like. As a result, the number of college students will be decreased, as well as the number of graduators with a degree. This will completely deviate from the original intention of free education. At the same time, the taxpayers are unfairly forced to pay off the tax gap, no matter how many kids they have or if they have any kids go to college.

To sum up, it is still not appropriate to introduce free college education over the current United States. The program in New York is a chance to test how it works, how people react, and should it be continued. At the same time, we should take an eye on the countries who are already doing that, such as Germany, whose people are interestingly divided into two groups about free education after the last few German universities went tuition-free, one group advocate reimposing tuition, while another group prefers to keep it. Let us wait.

Marijuana Should Not Be Legalized - Drug Education Is No Solution

The marijuana legislation increased the facts of overusing in youth to adulthood since Colorado became the first state with legal recreational cannabis.

A 19-year-old college student, the son of a friend, drove onto the sidewalk then crashed into another vehicle after having used marijuana in downtown Austin, TX in February 2019. According to Paul A. Eisenstein (NBC News, Oct.18, 2018), the highway crash was increased about 6 percent in the states that had legalized recreational use of marijuana in 2018. In an early substance use in jobs research,  Melvin L.Holcom indicate that drug use changes job characteristics and leads to accident potential at work (Journal of Safety Research, 1993).

However, there are already nine states and the District of Columbia that have legalized recreational marijuana use in the United States. It seems that another nine states are poised to full legalization in 2019, and some are watching and seem ready to do so via ballot initiatives in 2020, including Texas, according to Tom Angell (Forbes, Dec 26, 2018).

It is an unquestionable fact that all drugs change the way the brain works. Marijuana is absolutely dangerous for the long-term effects on the body and the brain (American Addiction Center, 2019). When people use marijuana, even the public may have gotten the impression of its harmlessness, even it is still difficult to accurately measure the impacts, THC effects begin almost immediately that can affect decision making, concentration, and memory for days to weeks after use. This is a drug-impacted disease destroying the people from inside of the bodies.

The question is why marijuana is still increasingly legislated over the country for recreational use. Is it certain that the ballots always show the so-right results are definitely good for the people? If it’s not, who should be responsible for solving the issue? Although the ballot system is an acceptable way to pursuit solutions for disagreements, offering a dangerous option to the children, the youth, and actual everyone to show equality, liberty, and democracy, then achieving the prevention in society relies on Drug Education is not an effective once and for all solution.

The government should take responsibility to solve the drug issue as a whole, no discrimination on different drugs, to protect the people away not only from outside of the bodies but also from inside. Marijuana should not be legalized. Citizens with or without self-control ability should be equally protected.

A Striking Populism Title

The headline story on HuffPost today is a picture of President Trump holding his arms with his eyes closed on his scornful-looking face. The uppercase title is Trump dismisses white nationalism as "small group", and the subtitle below is Donald Trump: ‘I Don’t Really’ See A Rise In White Nationalism (Andy Campbell, 2019).

The intention of the author is very clear in the content. He is trying to alarm the people who are still unaware, with the dialogue; to provoke confrontation against the white nationalism, with the belief to the public opinion. The reporter in the video is also trying to take advantage of the shooting incident in New Zealand today, guiding the president to admit the white nationalism is rising a threat. However, Trump is so experienced that avoids direct answers to the questions, leaves the questions unresponsive.

Looking back in American history, the rise of populism is often related to the political crisis that has not been resolved in society. In the meantime, populist politics happens in the conflict between the public and the elite, which is an appeal that can not be reached easily under the existing political structure. Whereas, this is exact American politics, has the parties fight against each other, to restrict each other on policies and behaviors, then make compromise and cooperation.

According to Media Bias/Fact Check, HuffPost is rated Left-Biased due to story selection that favors the left and factually High due to proper sourcing of information. In logical, it is understandable for its view and reports differ from the populist politics representative president Trump, the right.

However, in my opinion, a small number of crazy nationalists killed other people is definitely a horrible serious incident. In the general trend of political realignment, to promote the amendment to the current American gun control policy is more efficient, rather than to just blame the president for his populist politics.

In summary, Trump is believed as an out-and-out populist politician. The populist in the United States is believed rebelling against elite politics. The hate in between parties is growing, and covering the mid-term election in the United States as many people are concerned, a new civil war is looming.

To extradite Meng Wanzhou or not, a big deal

A piece of fresh news that came up today was about Huawei’s financial executive Meng Wanzhou can be extradited to the U.S., for charges related to alleged violations of U.S. sanctions law. The fraud allegations are about a company called Skycom, which has business in Iran, was a "hidden" subsidiary of Huawei.

I was truly shocked when I glanced at the news on The Washington Post. My first reaction was the language expression in the news was too positional and calm, just like there is nothing to do with the United States, that is not true. The truth is the arrest of Huawei chief financial officer Meng Wanzhou has ignited a firestorm of interest around the world. The U.S. authorities try to file almost two dozen charges on bank fraud, obstruction of justice, and theft of technology to against Huawei, the world's second largest smartphone maker in China. U.S. government has been paying great attention to the case and trying to pressure Canada to extradite Ms. Meng. It is such a big deal for the United States.

After I reviewed the same case on the BBC, I found a big difference in reporting the action of Canada. The news on The Washington Post points out that Canada’s Justice Department believes there is “sufficient evidence” to formally proceed. So Canada decides to move the case forward, in order to pave the way for a legal battle that could pit Canada against China, and complicate the relationship between Canada, China, and the United States, with an extradition hearing for Meng Wanzhou. I totally don't believe that. As a comparison, the BBC's news looks more objective. It said that Canada will allow the case to move forward, but the court must make a final decision, and it is the United States that wants Meng Wanzhou to stand trial on charges. The fact is an extradition hearing is not a trial, nor does it render a verdict of guilt or innocence.

More interestingly, it reports that "Donald Trump has twice suggested he would intervene in the US Justice Department's case against Ms. Meng if it would serve national security interests or help achieve a trade deal with China" on the BBC News. While The Washington Post news is also targeting China that the Chinese government claims Meng’s arrest was political, and giving an example of "a Canadian convicted of drug smuggling was sentenced to death in a hasty, one-day trial " as part of retaliation, which is even not mentioned by the BBC news. I am just out of curiosity, what penalty will be sentenced for drug smuggling in the United States? Should the United States condemn judicial independence in other countries?

I can't tell how I expect for the case. But I know it is such a big deal that is about money, power, and international intrigue which will definitely have an impact in all the countries that related.

Sources:
Canada to proceed with extradition case against Huawei’s Meng Wanzhou
Emily Rauhala, The Washington Post, March 1, 2019
Meng Wanzhou: Huawei chief executive can be extradited, Canada says
BBC News, March 1, 2019

The Long-promised Wall

According to Peter Baker, “Trump Plans National Emergency to Build Border Wall as Congress Passes Spending Bill”, The New York Time, Feb. 14, 2019, President Trump continued to threaten the second shutdown as early as this Friday, for building his wall along the southwestern border of the nation. The announcement came out just before voting. As he wished, the attrition war was ended with the two houses passed the spending bill one after another, as well as Mr. Trump agreed to sign a non-financial spending package.

The tradeoffs that came out today has stopped the two-month division of the government; even though, it was condemned by Democrats and some Republicans immediately, testing the bounds of the authority of the president might lead to a constitutional clash. The dramatic political contest has ultimately come to an end.

Why is Mr. Trump so persistent in building the wall? Is it only to honor his promises in the last campaign really for national security? Is it eventually for the ballot of the next election, or something else? The whole world has been paying attention to him, who came with a steady stream of controversy, looked wouldn't follow the political rules, and has gotten mixed reviews all the time. As well as me. I would put an eye on his move and watch what is happening.

Greeting!

Hello everyone!