who should be allowed to vote?

Who should vote in the United States? Well….frankly, not many. As it stands today, everyone can vote, unless you are incarcerated, which you then forefitted your rights when you committed a crime under the laws of the United States. In 1920, women were granted the rights to vote during women’s suffrage act and shortly after in 1965 African Americans could vote as well. The 15^th amendment is an act that prohibits states from imposing any voting qualifications or prerequisites to vote, or standard, practice or procedure. In simple terms no one is denied a vote, regardless of color, gender, sexuality, etc.

Personally, I think voting should be regulated. The vote should be restricted to only those who pay taxes and a standardized test that shows a minimum capability of knowledge about the candidates running, which is a huge majority of the people in the United States anyways. Many would argue that all men are created equal, which is literally the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. I believe everyone is BORN equal, however not everyone earns equality. Everyone SHOULD be treated with respect and dignity but not everyone deserve equally as much as someone who works their tail off versus the person who commits crimes or exempts themselves from paying taxes. There should be no voting rights for those who freeride. Simple as that. If a person is dependent on welfare (this is excluding those who truly cannot work) and I am a working citizen, why is my vote just as important as someone who is jobless and I pay my taxes to fund their mundane lifestyle? I vote because I refuse to let this country become a socialistic pit hole. Your banking on the pure merit of people’s judgement. What happens when uneducated people vote? We let the rot and stupidity spread? Or what about the superficial aspects? Just because someone is young, better looking, a different race or excellent speech skills does not make that person a fit president! What does the candidate favor? What policies does he advocate? What is his background like? His upbringing? How many people in this country truly know what is going on? Or rather how many people actually voted for a candidate solely based on great campaign advertisement? Is there a correlation between voters economic class and which party they follow? Absolutely.  So does that mean they just need a good face to put there? Your vote should be based on how you live, and how the president’s policies will affect you and your finances. You don’t vote based on what’s emotionally appealing or pleasant sounding and this notion of sympathy towards excluding people from voting is also just your emotional appeal. I think there should be a simple citizens qualification test to demonstrate a basic knowledge of skills of the candidates that are running, and that of their manifestos of their hopeful terms. It shouldn’t be complicated and none of your rights would be sacrificed, only time. This in turn would hopefully weed out the ill-informed and truly focus on a politically based campaign. Some might be concerned that this may discourage many from voting at all, but if you truly cared about your vote and your future finances why wouldn’t you? Voting is more than just a personal expression, it is your engagement in this countries political processes. If one cannot be so bothered as to get off the couch and make an effort for their democracy, do they really deserve a say in my life as well? Hell no. Voting is a privilege that should be earned, not granted.

With this being said, there is nothing morally wrong with being ignorant about politics. Seriously. You don’t HAVE to vote. No one is going to penalize you for abstaining. In fact I congratulate those who don’t vote because they felt uninformed. I am a victim of miss information as well. I did not vote locally or about any new and upcoming policies because I did not educate or read up on them. I will not vote on something I don’t know about. Wearing an “I Voted” sticker does not make you a good citizen of this country but rather participant in a grand tradition of democracy. That’s why people vote. They have an intrinsic motive to vote even though it takes time and gas. The want for a better democracy is the individualistic incentive. If this holds true, your voting because you care about your lifestyle and economic status, not the washable shirt with a sticker on it. Voting does not make you an American. In no way shape or form does voting hold a self-worth. Therefore, don’t vote, just to vote. Voting is an investment in your future. Educate yourself and responsibly vote.

supernationalism....U.S. or not?

Supernationalism is a method of decision making in multi-national political communities, where power is transferred and delegated to an authority by governments of member states. It’s often referred to and to describe the basis of how the UN runs. It’s a large political entity in hopes to monitor and protect for the greater good of the people’s rights and freedoms. The majority of votes implements decisions and are enforced by those individuals representing a country to ensure that everyone is equal. These foundations of human rights in which the UN dissects and defines the boundaries of democracy and how government intertwines with those human rights.

In class we were asked to read and discuss the universal declaration of human rights. We were asked to talk amongst ourselves and decided which of the 30 articles were vague versus righteous without question and also whether the U.S. has broken any of these.  Naturally there was much debate. I found that literally every single person had a different opinion. What I have gathered from just mere observation was that your opinion is that of a biased reasoning concluded from experience and education. For example article 4 stated “no one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms” Many argued, quite passionately, that slavery is still relevant today. I personally thought, no way really? Or at least my ignorance has kept me oblivious. I do not consider seasonal workers from neighboring countries such as Mexico, picking strawberries and such in southern California to be slavery. Not even in the least bit. Especially because, living in L.A. for 11 years I have personally become quite acquainted with these seasonal workers. Many of these workers come for several months to make as much money as possible and then go back home to support their struggling families. I believe it’s an opportunity that they feel fortunate to have. Do I think they are under paid? ABSOLUTELY! We are completely exploiting these people, however is that slavery? Many students said as long as they are being paid, it’s not slavery. The definition of slavery is the inability to have control of your own body, due to the power withheld by a superior. I don’t know if I necessarily agree with that, especially because I don’t know the conditions of what these workers are in. another student brought something to our attention that blew my mind. It blew my mind because I had no idea that this was occurring right under my nose and the shear openness, yet NO ONE has done anything about it! The story is occurring in Immokalee, FL. A group of over 1000 worker of tomato picking were kept, beaten, chained, shot if caught trying to escape and locked in a U-Haul truck for sleeping purposes. Is this for real?!?!?! This is in direct violation of article 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 17, etc. (the list doesn’t stop there) so why hasn’t this gone national? Why are we hiding this? What disgusted me even more are the companies that are buying these products; Publix and sweet bay grocery store. Why hasn’t the UN done anything about this? Has the UN even heard about it? Or does it not even matter because it’s only a small group of 1000 workers compared to a national issue? I feel as though the U.S. is the big brother. No one wants to stand up to the big brother, and we just keep on bullying other countries with money and weapons. Why keep America accountable for all the nasty shit we have done to people? What about the discrimination against homosexuals? Now that’s a whole other issue. Maybe the issue of homosexuality and gay marriage isn’t as pertinent as current slavery but it still deserves recognition just the same. Most of the UN is on board with gay marriage; except for countries who naturally suck (this is obviously the Middle East).  Article 16 states that “men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution”. S0o0o……where in there did it ever mention discrimination of gender or sexual orientation? It didn’t right? A human=human. Why is this such a hard concept for many to grasp. Just let human be. Do not imposed your ideological, oppressive, higher archy opinions when you have no right to judge someone other than yourself. So again why isn’t the U.S. on the gay train? I don’t know. All of these questions I wonder if the U.S. is really in conjunction with these simple ideologies of freedom or we mask ourselves behind power and lie. The U.S. exploits others and puts pressures on countries to behave and conduct themselves in a certain way, yet we have done the exploiting ourselves. I am not an anti-American, but I just wonder why we constantly oppress a country to ensure failure, yet go in all “happy go lucky” to help these countries in need. I think we need to stop looking at the specs in the eyes of other countries and focus on the plank that is inserted in our own.

Mackinders heartland theory

Power is defined as the ability to do something or act in a particular way in which you exert an authority, force or strength over a person, group or situation that you are in favor of. 

There is a man by the name of Halford Mackinder, who was an english geographer. Mackinder is considered to be the founding father of geopolitical strategy. Mackinder had many influences on the way the world viewed politics and military domination, for example Adolf Hitlers notion of Nazi control.

The heartland theory is: "Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules the World-Island controls the world." Mackinder saw the struggle between landmass and sea-based powers. He saw that the world had become a "closed" system, with no new lands left for the Europeans powers to discover, to conquer, and to fight over without affecting events elsewhere. Sea and land-based powers would then struggle for dominance of the world, and the victor would be in a position to set up a world empire.

Mackinder enforced the notion of "Man and not nature initiates, but nature in large measure controls". 

Mackinder's paper suggested that the control of Eastern Europe was vital to control of the world. The world-islands consisted of Europe, Asia and Africa. The offshore islands, including the British Isles and the Islands of Japan. The outlying islands, including the continents of North America, South America and Australia. 

Mackinder argued that the farther away you are from the heartland, the less influence you have. He also believed that Russia was the prime land, which was central to this theory. He believed that Russia had the advantage of landmass and natural resources. What Mackinder did not take into account was that Russia is easily attacked due to its massive size, making entry points possible from every direction, as well as limited year round ports because of the frozen coasts and having a weak central government for the most of the 20th century. Mackinders limited theory also did not take into account the development of technology. 

Thus he surrounded all of this power within Europe. The control of this land mass by any one state/country would enable it to organze an overwhelming amount of humans and material resources at hand, to detriment the rest of the world. The “heartland” of this landmass, or the center, would be impenetrable and inaccessible from attacks both land and sea. Victory would be inevitable if this type of monopoly would occur.

So is Mackinders theory relevant today? Have we seen anything close to this? Many would argue that during the Napoleonic wars had nearly been successful in its struggle against its successor, Russia. Mackinder warned that the game was changing, due to advanced technology. Sea mobility was now being matched by land mobility, with railroads and motor vehicles. Mackinder predicted that as both land and sea equaled in power, that there would be more bloodshed. So is this relevant today?