hallRIGHTSfall2109

Elayne Susana Matos 

Professor Hall   

English 

 

      The world as we see it so simple and full of agendas to fulfill. Everyday things we are accustomed to like Asking another how you’re doing or acknowledging that someone is there, that comes so natural to us. Now might that be the case for everyone? The way we function and react since babies have impacted our social lives. A large majority of us don’t react and understand like the rest. These people are viewed differently and are misjudged. Which made me stop being selfish and actually want to understand the different perspectives of life. Instead of ignoring the facts I decided to learn about different disabilities one by one. Which brought me to my question “What is autism? How does a person with autism process information?” Let’s find out!

 

      Before we get into the specifics, as you should know autism is considered a disability and people with disabilities often get discriminated because they are not understood and are misjudged. “HR Hub“ a website where it’s insured employees are not being discriminated against by displaying news specifically on employees suing their jobs for violations and etc also showing ADA compliance guide. On this website cases from employers are displayed legitimely with details. A person with a mental disability at Chuck E Cheese in wisconsin was fired due to their disability of mental retardation. This is an example of disability discrimination. The EEOC which is an agency responsible for enforcing federal laws of applicants or employees such as harassment or discrimination brought Chuck E cheese to court, making EEOC plaintiffs and chuck E cheese the defendants. While the defendants argued “ it is highly unlikely that he experienced any significant distress as a result of his termination”(Jury Awards Record $13 Million in Disability Discrimination Case). Basically that because of this person’s mental state being fired didn’t significantly affect them. Opposing, the plaintiff’s argued that just because of a person’s mental state that does not mean they cannot acknowledge discriminations they do consider these feelings even if it’s not done in a traditional way. As a result the jury’s decision was a sum of 13 million dollars in punitive damages, 10,000 in back pay and 70,000 in compensatory. The jury also wanted this to be a message for employers to give equal opportunities to those with mental disabilities.

  

      When reading this case I felt disgusted by this employer’s actions. Having a mental disability does not mean you are vulnerable. The plaintiff’s brought a statement from the Chuck E Cheese manager stating “ Chuck E Cheese don’t hire those type of people” (Jury Awards Record $13 Million in Disability Discrimination Case). As the manager called it ‘those type of people’ are just people who view the word different than we do and that is okay, we shouldn’t fear that. The comments made about how the ex employer wouldn’t acknowledge the distress was very ignorant from their side. The jury did a great job with their decision and sending a message to employers across america.

 

      Social interactions for people with autism is a constant everyday battle. They are blind and/or immune into understanding that someone is sad. That sadness and happiness are two different things. They struggle with asking questions that come naturally to us like “how are you feeling today?”. The national autism society is the UK’s leading charity for autistic people. They are often getting involved in autistic cases which is why this is such a reliable source. In their article they stated “Autistic people often have difficulty ‘reading’ other people – recognising or understanding others’ feelings and intentions”(Autism).They have a hard time acknowledging people’s feelings. In addition, “This can make it very hard for them to navigate the social world”(Autism). Navigating everyday life is difficult. they tend to appear insensitive because of this and not seek comfort by other people.

 

       A big key to humanity in my opinion is feelings and social interactions. Feelings can often affect your actions and help people describe who you are in their eyes.It is import to acknowledge this about autistic people and take them into consideration. I actually find this very interesting because I think feelings are involved with passion. Something  autistic people have is passion and dedication. They have these feelings and they aren’t even aware of them. Which is something I’ve been learning about them and most people don’t know. Unfortunately, they don’t share that instinct with us instead they replace that skill into other skills we don’t acknowledge ourselves.

 

     Aside from having trouble with social interaction people with autism have different ways of communicating. The Time is known for their partnership with the new cast CNN. They did an article called “inside the autistc minds” written by Claudia Wallis. She is the managing editor of scientific minds and a health reporter. They focused on autistic kids and gathered evidence about them which made this such a reliable source. Hannah, a kid with autism, she communicates by typing. “ a girl thought to be incapable to read or write wrote I love mom”(Claudia Wallis). In this case the specialist were worried this girl couldn’t communicate but they found out that she can just in a different way. This girl was actually full with information inside of her head. The reason is “autistic children tend to have the brain of a 13 year old.”(Claudia Wallis). Later on she was asked, “ Do you have a photographic memory?’ and ‘Hannah typed “yes”(Claudia Wallis). These people have abilities we just can see it’s all inside their minds.  

  

     Do most autistic people have a photographic memory? I would like to know. Hannah was given a worksheet with 30 math problems and got all 30 right in an instance. This shows how she remembers everything she sees. As you can see autistic kids are very  quick. They are in tune with the world already full of knowledge with everything they see and they analyze it since a young age. Which is pretty amazing how rapid their brains grow.Now that we are getting deep into the brains of autistic children. Autistic kids brains start growing rapidly since the start. “ they experience rapid expansion since the age of 2” (Claudia Wallis). Since the age of 2 they start to analyze and process information. Which a regular person does not do. 

 

      People with autism always have an interest that is what they think about and relate every scenario to. Atypical a show on netflix produced by robia rashid a talented writer of hit shows was interested in kids growing into independence who are in the spectrum. When writing this show she did a lot of research and met with a lot of people asking what they thought about her main character who was on the spectrum. This is why this is a credible source .In the netflix show Atypical the main character is autistic and he is very interested in penguins and antártica. When he confronts situations in his everyday life he compares it to a penguin it relaxes him and helps him better understand the situation and what he should do. When he decided he was ready to start dating he compared himself to the penguin male and how they find a partner. He saw how penguins get attention from the female penguins and assert their dominance and so he did the same he changed his appearance. He even made desserts for the person he was trying to make his partner. He wasn’t doing it because of how he felt he did it because it was what penguins did when they are ready to mate.As you can see penguins take a big part in his life and is very important to him. I see this as a comfort zone for him.

 

      In this show, you get to see how and why he makes his every move. This autistic kid being the main character helped understand what might be going on inside an autistic person’s mind. When it comes to the interest we just don’t see that he likes penguins we see that he relates and helps him to cooperate with his everyday life. It shows how he is always thinking about it and it calms him down. This inside look helped understand what can be going on inside an autistic mind and of course how information might be processed in their head.

 

      After reading all these articles learning all these new things I still want to read more and if I’m lucky watch one more netflix show like the one I introduced. Did I answer my question for the most part yes but my question has an on going answer that keeps building on every month year or day as we speak. It is a question I have to keep my eyes on. The autistic mind could feel like a maze to people very hard to understand this is why I chose this question. There are still other things I did not get to discuss that I will research on my own. What is the process of helping people with autism with social interaction? And so does it help them in the real world?

 

“Autism – What Is It?” Autism Support – Leading UK Charity – National Autistic Society, www.autism.org.uk/about/what-is/asd.aspx.

 

“Jury Awards Record $13 Million in Disability Discrimination Case.” Www.hrhub.com, www.hrhub.com/doc/jury-awards-record-13-million-in-disability-d-0001.

 

Wallis, Claudia. “Inside the Autistic Mind.” Time, Time Inc., 7 May 2006, content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1191843,00.html.

 

Ramos, Dino-Ray. “’Atypical’ EP And Cast Discuss Authentic Representation Of Autism And The Casey-Izzie Romance – ATX.” Deadline, 10 June 2019, deadline.com/2019/06/atypical-mary-rohlich-brigette-lundy-paine-fivel-stewart-jenna-boyd-amy-okuda-robia-rashid-netflix-1202629867/.

 

Aisse Tounkara

11/08/2019

Professor Hall 

                                      When Is This Going To Stop

     Everytime you turn on your TV you see something on the news with involving police officer who shot and killed a African American because they felt threatened by their presence, or they felt like they were a threat to someone else. Over the years Policing has evolved but the same ideas remain. Police still treat black communities different from the white communities when it comes to a lot of different aspects. Preconceived notions of African Americans lead to their brutality. 

     In this first article “ Policing in black and white neighborhoods” written by the American Psychological Association it talks a lot about implicit bias and how that leads to preconceived notions. Implicit bias is when we have attitudes towards certain groups of  people or associate stereotypes with them without conscious knowledge. A lot of Police Officers have implicit bias. Police officers are told to police differently in these low income neighborhoods compared to the other neighborhoods.  It states what Police Officers see when they encounter an African American person and vice versa. It’s crazy that this is the norm because this leads to terrible encounters which always ends up deadly. Over the past years we have seen a vast majority of African Americans unarmed men mostly and women lose their lives in the hands of police. When the time comes for justice to be served the excuse is always “ They felt threatened” and this article says that an officer is more likely to shoot an unarmed black person first rather a white man who is armed. This has to due with the fact that a black person will always be seen as a threat.    

      These preconceived notions never end well. It states “ These serious judgements often manifest themselves into even worse scenarios”. What this is saying is that it’s never going to be a positive interaction. When the researcher  Kirsten Weir at the American Psychological Association asked Hillary Clinton “If Police were implicitly biased against black people” she herself knew that this was true and a problem. Her response was like the people in high power response  trying to beat around the question. I learned the effects that implicit bias in the police and the extent that it leads too. 

      In this second article “ Implicit Bias replaces the r word This is how we explain cops killing black men” it says a lot about the police officers implicit bias. I learned what implicit bias is and that we all have an implicit bias of some kind. Stephon Clarkson was an African American man who was shot 20 times by police officers. According to the article written by Marcos Breton “Implicit bias was possibly behind Clark getting shot repeatedly in the back. When they pulled the trigger 20 times they never knew if he had a criminal record or not, whether he was a bad person or not. They instantly saw race and thought oh this guy must be a bad man and shot him. They were taught that every approach with an African American man is going to turn out bad. They react by pulling the trigger. They felt harmed by his presence and this article does a good job explaining the steps it would take to confront the implicit bias. 

     The Government officials know that implicit bias is a problem so the fact that they care enough to do something about it says a lot. This article says that a lot of Police Officers have implicit bias and they don’t even know that they do. They are taking necessary trainings to decrease the number of police killings in African Americans when it comes to this implicit bias idea. That’s what I learned a lot about in this research. While reading and analyzing the source I learned that systematic racism and implicit bias goes hand and hand. According to this article it states  police departments are eager for solutions that will reduce racial disparities. “Police chiefs know what the stakes are,” he says. Policymakers, too, are keen to take action. In October, for instance, the New Jersey attorney general issued a directive requiring mandatory classes in racial bias for police officers in the state. Psychologists, meanwhile, have the skills to understand discrimination and point to evidence-based solutions. “This is an area that’s worth a lot of investment in research, and important for psychologists to think about,” Glaser says. This shows that the necessary actions are being done to decrease the number of killings because they know that implicit bias exists. The mayor is requiring that mandatory implicit bias training classes be taken.

     In the blog “Race and the Police” written by the National Police Foundation it talks about other factors besides implicit bias that’s also a problem when it comes to Police Brutality. This source is a source that many people use when it comes to their research. Clarence Edwards a former police officer who worked with the police force for many years states “Race continues to influence how people of African American descendants are treated by law enforcement.” They are treated very unfairly by members of law enforcement. So a police officer is more likely to pull the trigger on an African American compared to a Non African American for the same crime”. This is because race will over power everything and implicit bias towards one would cloud that judgement. 

     I learned from this source that race was another major issue when it came to Police Brutality. The whole idea behind preconceived notions and police is racism. If a police officer sees race before the law than the outcome of that is not going to be great. This source is a very reliable source and thorough research was done because it provided me with a lot of facts and research that the police foundation has done.

     Structural racism is also another factor of Police Brutality. This article does a good job explaining that. When a study was concluded by a group of researchers at the Boston University School of Public Health, they found that a lot of interesting stuff. According to the text “How Structural Racism is Linked to Higher Rates of Police Violence” a research was ran and data based was looked at from the Mapping Police Database. “They found that structural racism does positively correlate”. Research has been done in other states based on this information and it turns out to be true. A connection can be made between the two.

   Overall, in this research I learned what implicit bias is, and what are the different kinds of causes of action that leads towards police brutality when dealing with African Americans. What I found interesting is that police officers police different in certain neighborhoods, and how implicit bias training will make a change for the better. The questions that I have when it comes to this research is if the implicit bias of police officers towards African Americans is going to change, or if it’s still going to remain the same. A society is evolving it would only be right for change to start happening. 

 

Bretón, Marcos. “’Implicit Bias’ Replaces the ‘R’ Word. This Is How We Explain Cops Killing Black Men.” Sacbee, The Sacramento Bee, 8 Apr. 2018, www.sacbee.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/marcos-breton/article208230624.html

.Baker, Al. “Confronting Implicit Bias in the New York Police Department.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 15 July 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/07/15/nyregion/bias-training-police.html.

Weir Kirsten “Policing in Black and White Neighborhoods” American Psychological Association, 10 December 2016                                                                        cover-policing

Edwards Clarence “Race and the Police” National Police Foundation race-and-the-police

 

My Research Question: How do we Introduce a Third Party to American Politics?
American politics is dominated by a two-party system which is beginning to lose popularity, maybe it’s about time we introduce a third party? Republicans and the Democrats have always had a long-lasting feud and sometimes rarely being bipartisan on policies. Americans need a third party to get behind when they disagree with both parties and have comfort in running to one that would have a significant voice in the government.

 

Source 1: The Federal Election Commission: Qualifying as a Political Party
To qualify as a political party, it all comes down to how the state governs ballot access. According to the Federal Election Commission, it all differs from federal and state representation as you have to gain political party status after meeting state criteria. “While the laws differ from state to state, they generally all require a nonmajor party to demonstrate sufficient voter support—such as by filing a petition for party recognition signed by a representative number of voters—in order to qualify for ballot access in the general election.” Claiming you’re a political party without a sufficient amount of supporters is inaccurate and improper. The Federal Election Commission is an independent government agency whose purpose is to enforce campaign finance law in United States federal elections. The FEC was created during 1975 by Congress and it has jurisdiction over the United States. The current commissioner for the FEC is Ellen L. Weintraub whose affiliation is with the Democratic Party. However, the chair for the FEC is pretty divided as some seated members are Independent or even Republican.

The FEC is pretty important and cannot be affiliated with any party within the government and its main mission to primarily investigate finance abuse by setting limits. You’re required to register your political party with the FEC, “when they raise or spend money over certain thresholds in connection with a federal election.” The FEC tells me what’s required for an organization to even claim political party status within a state and the criteria they specifically have to meet. This sets standards and boundaries so gaining status wouldn’t be abused or thrown away. If a committee can demonstrate they’re capable of gaining national status, the FEC will decide if they gained enough activity to even gain status. If a state wants to only participate in state and/or local elections, they’re not legally bound to register with the FEC, however, state laws will still determine if they meet the criteria to even show up on the ballot as a choice. Not showing up on a ballot will prevent any recognition or voters, a third party would get.

 

Source 2: Wikipedia’s list of Third Parties
Third parties already exist within the United States, but they’re so poorly represented and can’t even rack up electoral votes. Wikipedia can provide information on every third party that’s currently active, inactive, or even state-only parties that only stick with state and/or elections, like the “Rent is Too Damn High Party” which is based in New York City and wouldn’t qualify for federal elections. Wikipedia provides up-to-date information on specific topics and maintains a neutral standpoint as its purpose is to provide facts, not biassed opinions. Biographies, descriptions, questions answered, etc. Wikipedia is owned by Wikimedia Foundation, which was founded by Jimmy Wales, an internet entrepreneur, and Larry Sanger, an online community organizer and philosophy professor, in 2001. Jimmy Wales is pretty left-leaning as he signed an open letter to American voters, along with eleven business leaders, to not vote for Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election. Larry Sanger’s party affiliation is unknown, however, Wikipedia is also run by volunteer contributors that assist in correcting information on pages.

Some may refute Wikipedia as a valid source and say some information is made up, but not just anyone can change the information on a page, it has to be verified. Wikipedia’s mission is to spread knowledge and help people with educating. The list provided by Wikipedia to show the number of third parties in the United States and what they are do not include independents as they’re just centrists with either left or right-leaning. The source also provides the presidential votes they acquired in the 2016 election along with any state legislators that won an election. The only parties that have a significant amount of registrations, which are people who registered their support for their respective parties, are the Libertarian, Green, and Constitution Party. The Libertarian Party exceeds 500,000 registered voters, the Green party has around 250,000 registered voters, and the Constitution Party has nearly 100,000 registered voters, these three parties are the only third parties that have the highest amount of registered voters.

 

Source 3: Poll conducted by Reinhart of Gallup News
We need a third major political party and Americans want one. The two major parties currently dominating American politics consist of the Republicans and the Democrats. Gallup News, a pretty fair unbiased news organization, provided a poll displaying the support for a major third political party amongst Americans. “A majority of Americans, 57%, say there is a need for a third, major political party, while 38% of Americans believe the current two-party system does an adequate job of representing the people. These views have been consistent since 2013.” The percentage has been significantly higher than 50% for the past years the poll has been conducted throughout. Gallup began conducting this poll around 2003 which was reversed and the public supported the idea that the two-party system is sufficient enough for American politics. RJ Reinhart, the person who wrote the article and conducted the poll, is an analyst, writer, and editor for Gallup and Gallup’s Higher Education and Government Divisions. Reinhart is in opposition with Trump, in regards to his tweets/retweets of key critics of Trump. Reinhart is biased with his politics, which lean left, however, this doesn’t affect the integrity of the poll.

A want for a third party isn’t determined by your political party affiliation, but what you seek in a third party. “Independents are, not surprisingly, the political partisan group most supportive of a third party. Seventy-two percent of political independents support a third major political party. Independents have consistently been the most supportive of a third party.” The poll conducted by Gallup occurs every 3 years and ever since the poll in 2012, support for a major third political party maintained a fluctuation of 50-60%. A third major political party would allow for more room of debate and representatives from each local election engaging in the republic.

 

Source 4: Interview conducted by NBC Correspondent Simone Boyce
An interview conducted by NBC news that interviews a Libertarian candidate running for governor in the state of New York provides reasoning as to why third parties ultimately cannot win. NBC news maintains a predominant liberal standpoint, especially with one of their anchors, Rachel Maddow. The interviewer who interviewed Larry Sharpe, the Libertarian candidate, is Simone Boyce, who’s left-leaning according to her tweets which oppose Trump but show support for Democratic presidential candidates, like Andrew Yang. However, her bias is hard to unveil as she maintains composure and doesn’t leak out her bias so easily. Boyce conducts the interview pretty professionally and even provides context outside the interview as to why third parties fail. Sharpe even explains his acknowledgment of possibly failing or not winning the governorship, but is not willing to give up so easily and is optimistic about it. A candidate that visits towns other big candidates for the two major parties wouldn’t visit, going live on social media plenty of times, and interacting with the public is a good way to gain recognition and support.

Sharpe stands for legalizing marijuana and wants to maintain rights to gun owners, which appeases both left and right wings. Not to get confused as an Independent, but a Libertarian exercises ultimate freedom to their rights and refuses to have a government tell them what they do. However, not complete anarchy, unless you’re far there in the political compass, but don’t want a limit of their rights. Sharpe acknowledges that if people see you’re neither Democrat or Republican, you shouldn’t even be looked at. Sharpe calls politics a rich man game, and he is not wrong, you only lead in polls if your political establishment backs you or if you’re wealthy. The biggest barrier he claims is the system itself as it’s mainly a two-party government. Money could be the biggest problem but refuted by Donald Green, who’s a political science professor at Columbia University, claims it’s the actual government system that gives no benefits to parties in second or third place. The interviewer sums it up by introducing Duverger’s Law which if you award one office, you have two parties vying for that aforementioned office, this shows me that keeping a party stable and being involved in the government is very competitive and risky business when wanting to be apart of it.

 

What I Learned:
Third parties are poorly represented and lack the capability of gaining significant strides in local to federal elections, however, such stride can be made. Being more exposed to third parties and what criteria they need to meet to even show on a ballot requires so much patience, effort, and funding. Living in a two-party system, where Republicans and Democrats are what dominant the government, proves difficult for a third party. I align with the Constitution party and believe we do need a third major political party as I don’t agree with the GOP as I feel abandoned, and I don’t align with the Democratic party in any way. I still want to know why third parties are so poorly represented and why Republicans, Democrats dominate the political system for over a century while there have been third party strides in the past.

 

Bibliography

1. Federal Election Commission: Qualifying as a Political Party
   https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/registering-political-party/qualifying-political-party/
2. Wikipedia’s List of American Third Parties
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States
3. RJ Reinhart of Gallup News Third-Party Popularity Poll
   https://news.gallup.com/poll/244094/majority-say-third-party-needed.aspx
4. Simone Boyce’s Interview of NYS Libertarian Candidate for Governor
   https://www.nbcnews.com/video/why-can-t-third-party-candidates-win-1348512835713

 

Hi everyone! Unit Two is due on Thursday, before Prof. Coughlin’s class!  Look to the handout from today’s class for guidelines on what I’ll be grading you on.

Don’t forget your bibliography! And bring a printed copy to class, so we can review citation.

Good luck!

So everyday when you wake up you turn on the news and you might always hear something about American military activity overseas. You’re probably wondering why are their troops or  American presence around the globe. But the real question what should be the limitations of American involvement abroad?

American intervention has happened since the end of the late 1800s when the U.S fought Spain in the Spanish – American war when the U.S won control over Guam , Puerto Rico and the Philippines. Then fought another war against filipino rebels. Which mark the so called beginning of American imperialism and then ultimately the increase of American intervention around the world. Lane Kenworthy and author on ” U.S Military Intervention Abroad” made a brief summary on the history the explanation of why the U.S military is spread around the world .  First he explains about the fact that America is playing the role of being the world police and also the fact that the United States is the world’s leading superpower. believing that ” this principle  should be absolute”.  But the primary goals for the U.S were the national security interest and for self defense. But the peak of intervention was right after the end of world war 2 and at the start of the cold war. But of course this would have big effects on lives and on the economy as Lane listed the amount of deaths  all of the wars the U.S fought throughout the 20th century and the percentage of its  GDP of each war.  He even said that if this continues then this will most likely spill out more to the public and it might raise public concern. I can agree because of the sole purpose of the U.S acting as a world police and making sure that it will achieve its goal of that protecting and establishing peace around the world. But also we should consider of what we conflicts or even affairs we should stay away from. Or in other words limit our involvement in foreign or military affairs.

This source could have the ability to grab a lot of people’s attention because everyday citizens always wonder what are the reasons why we get involved in everything . People can agree that the limitation should be in placed . Since we get involved in everything in the world citizens would most likely have different opinions and views about military involvement around the world especially when comes to backing groups who are a fighting the other opponent. People need to pay attention of what’s really going on based on this source it really grabs peoples attention as they well aware of the situations that are happening around the world and paying close attention to what actions the military are taking . It’s clear to me that this source provides a brief overview from an expert of military intervention.  The readers will understand and get a bit of a deeper understanding of American intervention its background and what are the causes and effects.

Now let’s discuss about a particular interview. Kinzer is a reporter for the Boston Globe speaking with an expert Gross on American intervention . So he did at the beginning discuss about the past history and the beginning of American involvement and also the stretching of the  American military . In this interview he’s basically talking about what were  the causes and effects of American military involvement and how it is still showing the amount of power that can be deployed into many parts of the world. A good example are the amount of American Military bases in each continent as most of these bases were established after the end of World War 2. Even after World War 2 he says that many people viewed the United States as being an empire as it does have territories and some self Governing islands . He also explained that we got involved in both world wars and the aftermath ” shaped the world that we live in today”. But now in modern times we get involved and leave countries and tragic status. Which lead many people to question about our actions overseas and the decisions we make.

I think the audience should really take this with a grain of salt but one particular part is when he mentioned about why we entered World War 2 well the obvious part was the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor then we declare war against them. Back then the public supported the war effort a lot knowing that freedom and democracy was at stake and that we needed to fight . Like he  said before we entered the war for a good cause which is to restore the peace and defend freedom and democracy. But then after World War 2 the cold war happened with a series of proxy wars. At that point people started to have changing and different opinions as throughout the cold war the United States kept backing countries who are fighting against communism  by providing weapons and money. This source is clear for the readers as all of these facts are coming from an expert who just basically summarized the past causes and effects of American intervention or what some people might call it American imperialism which can make sense since the U.S has overseas territories , but either ways most people don’t agree with considering the United States as an empire. As this information is clear on what people want to know about American involvement and American superiority in other parts of the world .

I learned that there should be restrictions on what purposes  that would make us get involved in local conflicts that would only seem like that’s threatening national security , but if there’s no conflict then we shouldn’t get involved since it is not our problem . Some people can agree that we get involved too much or we get involved into every global conflict . We would only intervene of the U.S is being threatened then there is where we should commence action. As the goal is to contain the problem from spreading to other problems of the world.

Now the U.S  has becoming increasingly involved throughout the recent decade. Even after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989 the U.S has kept doing its job of acting as the world police force of stopping humanitarian crisis like the crisis in Bosnia and kosovo as the U.S and  Nato worked together to take down the Serbian President who was committing ethnic cleansing which is basically a war crime . As this is the sole mission to prevent any tragedy from happening again  . Most importantly stop the accursen of military dictators who are disturbing the peace around the world. But is U.S intervention actually keeping and maintaining peace ? There has been some mishaps and a few hiccups here and there when it comes to civilians being caught in the crossfire from American fire . I think when it comes to America being involved they always have to keep in mind of the safety of civilians . But people do sometimes criticize the U.S for aiding countries who are also fighting to maintain peace but civilian are getting caught in the crossfire.

But mainly when I meant about the U.S maintain peace the real question is are they actually restoring peace and maintaining it. Throughout recent years the U.S main goal is overthrowing  dictators . But it doesn’t seem like their not maintaining the stabilization that is really needed to prevent future tragedies from happening . The main reason why we get involved is that the United States cares about the security and stabilization of the world . That’s also maily the reason why the United States is part of NATO a military alliance thats its main goal is to prevent future major global conflicts since the end of the second world war . But usually the United States is the nation that leads most of the worlds military operations to combat dictatorships. Another reason why we intervene is eliminate the risk of military regimes from gaining power as the United States believes that they can’t be threat to national security if we don’t take any action against them. But the United States doesn’t always  decide if we should intervene . One example is when  NATO alliance decided to overthrow the libyan dictator gaddafi which the operation proves the capability of the NATO alliance. A quote from the ” The slippery Slope of U.S intervention ” in an interview with former president Obama said that” Our participation in the coalition that overthrew Qaddafi in Libya was the right thing to do”.

The end of American intervention has been a newer recent topic thats being talked about and still being mentioned as recent when President trump pulled back troops from Syria. People even go far as saying that we shouldn’t even get involved in the first place . When we intervene in Iraq the goal was to bring stability and order , but it seems like we’re far  from reaching the goal. According to a New York times article since troops are coming home the war is far from over .  Even looking back on the money we spend and all the contributions we made but there is still no signs of peace coming to the regions. Also that its time to focus on other foreign or domestic issues. But still the real questions is what are gonna be U.S future plans for the middle east ? Or will there ever be stability?

Overall we really have no idea of when theres or if there’s gonna be any progress or changes in American foreign policy. From people calling America an empire for once for gaining territory after fighting a war with Spain.  I learned that the U.S military gets involved whenever there is a conflict that would concern national security , but ever since World War 2 the United States has been consistently involved in foreign affairs and being part of alliances like NATO and the United Nations to hopefully avoid tragedies . But now with the conflicts in the middle east , backing Ukraine against Russia , trade wars with china there should limitations placed that will make more cautious of our actions . But overall there should be limitations of involvement basically what we should or should not get involved in. But how will U.S involvement be in the future and what will might be the causes and effects for the United States and the rest of the world ?

 

      The world as we see it so simple and full of agendas to fulfill. Everyday things we are accustomed to like Asking another how you’re doing or acknowledging someone is there , it comes so natural to us like a machine. Most of our life is like a machine stamping labels on a cereal box repeatedly at a factory. Now is that the case for everyone? The way we function and react since babies is a way of life. How is that a way of life? Well because a large majority of us don’t have that luxury to react and understand like the rest. They are viewed differently and are misjudged. Which made me stop being selfish and actually want to understand where they are coming from and the different perspectives life has to offer instead of judging and labeling. Learning about different disabilities one by one.Which brings me to my question “What is autism? How does a person with autism process information?” Let’s find out!

 

  Before we get into the specifics, as you should know autism is considered a disability and people with disabilities often get discriminated because they are not understood and misjudged. “HR Hub“ a website were its insured employees are not being discriminated against. On this website answers are answered by professional and cases from past employers are displayed legitimely. A person with a mental disability at Chuck E Cheese in wisconsin was fired due to their disability of retardation. This is an example of disability discrimination. When brought to court Chuck E cheese had a large some to give back to this ex employee. “the jury returned its verdict on to damages awarding $10,000 in back pay, $70,000 compensatory and $13 million in punitive damages”. These are the charges that had to be paid back. In this case the fired employee was the plaintiff issuing the lawsuit while the the company Chuck E Cheese was the defendant. The judge request this large amount to be paid so employers would learn from this case and not discriminate against people with disabilities again. As you can see just by getting a job people with disabilities are being discriminated imagine in everyday life.

  

  When reading this case i felt disgusted by this employers actions. Having a mental disability does not mean you are vulnerable. I mean how do you think this person got the job if they were vulnerable. This was a big key to address for my question because it shows what people with autism encounter on a everyday basis. What we do everyday is a struggle for them already and being discriminated makes it even harder. 

 

    Social interactions for people with autism is a constant everyday battle. The are blind and/or immune into understanding that someone is sad. That sadness and happiness are two different things. They struggle with asking questions that come naturally to us like “how are you feeling today? ”The national autism society is the UK’s leading charity for autistic people.They are often getting involved in autistic cases which is why this is such a reliable source. In their article they stated “Autistic people often have difficulty ‘reading’ other people – recognising or understanding others’ feelings and intentions” Which is how I got my statement above. In addition, “This can make it very hard for them to navigate the social world”. Navigating everyday life is difficult they appear to be insensitive because of this and not seek comfort by other people.

 

       A big key to humanity in my opinion is feelings and social interactions. This often affects your actions and help people describe who you are in their eyes. I actually find this very interesting because I think feelings are involved with passion. This is something autistic people have is passion and dedication. They have these feelings and they aren’t even aware of them. Which is something I’ve been learning about them and most people don’t know.

 

         Aside from having trouble with social interaction people with autism have different ways of communicating. The times article is known for their partnership with the new cast CNN. They were doing an article called “inside the autistc minds”. They focused on autist kids and gathered evidence which made this such a reliable source. Hannah a kid with autism she communicates by typing. “ a girl though to be incapable to read of write wrote i love mom” In this case the specialist were worried this girl couldn’t communicate but what they found out was that she can just in a different way. This girl was stocked up on information. Later on she was asked, “ Do you have a photographic memory? Hannah typed yes”. These people have abilities we just can see it’s all inside their minds. How they think and process information like hannah she has a photographic memory. Do most autistic people have a photographic memory? I would like to know. Hannah was given a worksheet with 30 math problems and got all 30 right in an instance. This shows how she remembers everything she sees.The reason for this is that “ autistic children tend to have the brain of a 13 year old.” This shows how quick they are in tune with the world already full of knowledge with everything they see they analyze it.

 

         Now that we are getting deep into the brains of autistic children. Autistic kids brains start growing rapidly since the start. “ they experience rapid expansion since the age of 2” Since the age of 2 they start to analyze and process information. People with autism have high levels of anxiety. “High levels of anxiety seen is as many as 80% of people with autism.” their brains growing so rapidly processing and analyzing can be a reason for this anxiety. “ local areas tend to be over connected” Their brains function differently than ours. This means that when they are thinking their brain doesn’t really work together since it’s over powered.

 

      People with autism always have an interest that is what they think about and relate every scenario to.Atypical a show on netflix produced by the bestfriend of someone with autism. This person was very close and spent an abundance amount of time with this person with Autism. This is why this is a credible source even though it is not primary but it seems like it is,   In the netflix show Atypical the main character is autistic and he is very interested in penguins and antártica. When he confronts situations in his everyday life he compares it to a penguin it relaxes him and helps him better understand the situation and what he should do. When he decided he was ready to start dating he compared himself to the penguin male and how they find a partner. He saw how penguins get attention from the female penguins and assert their dominance and so he did the same he changed his appearance. He even made desserts for the person he was trying to make his partner. He wasn’t doing it because of how he felt he did it because it was what penguins did when they are ready to mate.As you can see penguins take a big part in his life and is very important to him. I see this as a comfort zone for him.

 

      In this show, you get to see how and why he makes his every move. This autistic kid being the main character helped understand what might be going on inside an autistic person’s mind. When it comes to the interest we just don’t see that he likes penguins we see that he relates and helps him to cooperate with his everyday life. It shows how he is always thinking about it and it calms him down. 

 

  After reading all these articles learning all these new things I still want to read more and if I’m lucky more netflix shows like the one I introduced. Did I answer my question for the most part yes but my question has an on going answer that keeps building on every month year or day as we speak. It is a question I have to keep my eyes on. I learned a lot special about the brain part with the electrons it was very interesting but difficult to understand.

 

Aisse Tounkara

11/08/2019

Professor Hall 

                                     When Is This Going To Stop

     Everytime you turn on your TV you see something on the news with a police officer who shot and killed a African American because they felt threatened by their presence, or they felt like they were a threat to someone else. 

     In this first article “ Policing in black and white neighborhoods” it talks a lot about implicit bias and how that leads to preconceived notions. It states what Police Officers see when they encounter an African American person and vice versa. It’s crazy that this is the norm because this leads to terrible encounters which always ends up deadly. Over the past years we have seen a vast majority of African Americans unarmed men mostly and women lose their lives in the hands of police. When the time comes for justice to be served the excuse is always “ They felt threatened” and this article says that an officer is more likely to shoot an unarmed black person first rather a white man who is armed. This has to due with the fact that a black person will always be seen as a threat.    

      These preconceived notions never end well. It states “ These serious judgements often manifest themselves into even worse scenarios”. What this is saying is that it’s never going to be a positive interaction. When a researcher  Kirsten Weir at the American Psychological Association asked Hillary Clinton “If Police were implicitly biased against black people” she herself knew that this was true and a problem. Her response was like everyone else’s trying to beat around the question. I learned the effects that implicit bias in the police and the extent that it leads too. 

      In this second article “ Confronting Implicit Bias in the New York Police Department”  from the New York Times it talks about what can be done to change peoples biased towards African Americans especially men. It states “ an unarmed black man holding a cellphone, Stephon Clark, is fatally shot in his grandmother’s backyard in Sacramento and residents ask whether the officers only saw race while pulling the trigger 20 times”. The answer was yes. Stephon Clark may have been killed because of officers implicit bias. They felt harmed by his presence and this article does a good job explaining the steps it would take to confront the implicit bias. “The effort to train officers to tackle implicit bias is one Mayor Bill de Blasio has pushed for since his 2016 State of the City address.

     They know that implicit bias is a problem so the fact that they care enough to do something about it says a lot. This article says that a lot of Police Officers have implicit bias and they don’t even know that they do. They are taking necessary trainings to decrease the number of police killings in African Americans when it comes to this implicit bias idea. That’s what I learned a lot about in this research. While reading and analyzing the source I learned that systematic racism and implicit bias goes hand and hand. 

     In the third article This source “Race and the Police” talks about other factors besides implicit bias that’s also a problem when it comes to Police Brutality. It states “Race continues to influence how people of African American descendants are treated by law enforcement.” They are treated very unfairly by members of law enforcement. So a police officer is more likely to pull the trigger on an African American compared to a Non African American for the same crime. 

     I learned from this source that race was another major issue when it came to Police Brutality. The whole idea behind preconceived notions and police is racism. If a police officer sees race before the law than the outcome of that is not going to be great. This source is a very reliable source and thorough research was done because it provided me with a lot of facts and research that the police foundation has done.

   Overall, in this research that I concluded I learned what implicit bias is, and what are the different kinds of causes of action that leads towards police brutality when dealing with African Americans. What I found interesting is that police officers police different in certain neighborhoods, and how implicit bias training will make a change for the better.

   The number of killings in the hands of law enforcement will change.

 

   

 

                            

 

---

What is the future of DACA and how will the Supreme Courts decision affect  the United States and DACA recipients?

DACA( Deferred Action for childhood Arrivals) helps people from the age of 15 to 31 get a work permit and a social security to be able to get an education and work here in the United States legally and also be protected from deportation. As of right now DACA is not accepting any new applications and people whose DACA are about to expire can renew but since the Supreme Court is going to make a decision on what will happen in the future on November 12,2019 if you haven’t renewed it, if the Supreme Court decides to not keep daca than you’ll not be able to renew it when it’s time to. What is the future of DACA and how will the supreme courts decision affect the United States and DACA recipients?

Pros and cons of having DACA

According to Grace Donnelly of fortune.com She says that trump is telling people not to worry about DACA and that they will try to figure out the problem. In the article she also mentions that Republicans and proponents weight out the pros and cons of having DACA. In the article it says “ the program allows Dreamers to obtain drivers licenses, enroll in college, pay income taxes and serve in the military”. What they are saying is that having DACA is good because it would benefit the United States in many ways. For example paying income taxes benefits both the DACA recipient and the United States. Going to college would also benefit a lot since the recipient would be paying the government. It’s also not the child’s fault that they were brought here without their consent and not be able to do specific things like everyone else.

It also mentions why it would be bad to keep it, they say that DACA is not giving recipients permanent status only temporary protection that has to be renewed every two years and in the long run it’s not a path to citizenship. A con of having DACA is “it does not provide lawful status or a path to citizenship”. It’s not worth keeping DACA if they know that they will never be able to become a citizen. The republicans want to find another way to path to citizenship instead of just temporary status. This source is worth listening to because if the Supreme Court decides not to keep DACA people should know why it’s important to have it and why it shouldn’t be taken off.

DACA deal in exchange for Funding Wall

In the New York Times written by Annie Karni who is a white House correspondent and Sheryl Gay Stolberg who is a congressional correspondent they talk about a deal that Trump proposed regarding DACA and the Wall. It states “ in the deal he outlined on Saturday, Mr trump offered to restore T.P.S protection for 300,000 people and said he would allow 700,000 Dreamers to keep their protections for three more years in exchange for 5.7 million for a border barrier”. Trump is basically saying that the only way he would keep DACA is if 5.7 million dollars were put to use for the wall he really wants around Mexico. Trump is saying that he’ll do something good for DACA and extend it But he has to get money for the wall and it doesn’t make sense because the wall and DACA are not related in any way and Trump is using it as an excuse to get his wall which is pathetic.

This Article is for anyone who reads the New York Times but mostly people who are DACA recipients or anyone who has in interest on DACA. This source is good to listen to because it’s good to be informed about the “proposals “ Trump wants to make regarding DACA and what he is willing to do to protect it. What I learned about my Question from this source is that The only way we’ll get a good deal on DACA is if Trump gets something worth it in return.

Economic Impact on the US

On a nbcnews article written by Elizabeth Chmurak she talks about the economic impact the United States would have if we lost DACA workers. In the article is states” we expect in the next 10 years if we allow the DACA recipients to remain in the United States, that would add an extra $350 billion to the economy compared to them to excluding them from being able to work legally”. Keeping the program would benefit its economy so much so if they decide to take it away the U.S would be losing a load of money and that’s not what they want. With Dreamers being able to work they would be paying a lot of tax money and the Federal government would be gaining from it.

Reading this article helped understand the reason why not only it’s good for dreamers to have daca but for the whole United States economy. It’s beneficial to all not just to one specific group of people. This source helped me with my question because I know now that they have to do something for DACA because it just would not help the government in any way if they don’t do anything.

Health problems on Dreamers kids

A Stanford research by Milenko Martinovich who is the deputy Director of social science communications at Stanford university wrote about how ending the program could effect the children of daca recipients. It states “ in comparing groups of children whos mothers were either eligible or ineligible for daca protection, we focused on adjustment and anxiety disorders because they involve usually intense reactions to a life stressor and for a child, worrying that any day your parent could be targeted for deportation a source of severe stress” what he is saying is that if kids are afraid that their mothers can be taken away from them at any moment and that’s all they’re thinking about can really trigger them and they will feel constantly stressed. The people who may read this source can be people who care about family separation, DACA recipients who have children. The audience could also be people who go to Stanford and read the school papers.

In conclusion what I’ve learned about my research is that In the future if the Supreme Court decides to not keep DACA or if they do keep it there is a lot of supporting evidence for both. After doing all my research my opinion on why DACA should still stand grew even stronger. Reading all the reasons why it would be best to keep it made me feel so much stronger about the topic.

How do we Introduce a Third Party to American Politics?

American politics is dominated by a two-party system which is beginning to lose popularity, maybe it’s about time we introduce a third party? Republicans and the Democrats have always had a long-lasting feud and sometimes rarely being bipartisan on policies. Americans need a third party to get behind when they disagree with both parties and have comfort in running to one that would have a significant voice in the government.

To qualify as a political party, it all comes down to how the state governs ballot access. According to the Federal Election Commission, it all differs from federal and state representation as you have to gain political party status after meeting state criteria. “While the laws differ from state to state, they generally all require a nonmajor party to demonstrate sufficient voter support—such as by filing a petition for party recognition signed by a representative number of voters—in order to qualify for ballot access in the general election.” Claiming you’re a political party without a sufficient amount of supporters is inaccurate and improper. The Federal Election Commission is an independent government agency whose purpose is to enforce campaign finance law in United States federal elections. The FEC was created during 1975 by Congress and it has jurisdiction over the United States. The current commissioner for the FEC is Ellen L. Weintraub whose affiliation is with the Democratic Party. However, the chair for the FEC is pretty divided as some seated members are Independent or even Republican.

The FEC is pretty important and cannot be affiliated with any party within the government and its main mission to primarily investigate finance abuse by setting limits. You’re required to register your political party with the FEC, “when they raise or spend money over certain thresholds in connection with a federal election.” The FEC tells me what’s required for an organization to even claim political party status within a state and the criteria they specifically have to meet. This sets standards and boundaries so gaining status wouldn’t be abused or thrown away. If a committee can demonstrate they’re capable of gaining national status, the FEC will decide if they gained enough activity to even gain status. If a state wants to only participate in state and/or local elections, they’re not legally bound to register with the FEC, however, state laws will still determine if they meet the criteria to even show up on the ballot as a choice.

Third parties already exist within the United States, but they’re so poorly represented and can’t even rack up electoral votes anymore. Wikipedia can provide information on every third party that’s currently active, inactive, or even state-only parties that only stick with state and/or elections, like the “Rent is Too Damn High Party” which is based in New York City and wouldn’t qualify for federal elections. Wikipedia provides up-to-date information on specific topics and maintains a neutral standpoint as its purpose is to provide facts, not biassed opinions. Biographies, descriptions, questions answered, etc. Wikipedia is owned by Wikimedia Foundation, which was founded by Jimmy Wales, an internet entrepreneur, and Larry Sanger, an online community organizer and philosophy professor, in 2001. Jimmy Wales is pretty left-leaning as he signed an open letter to American voters, along with eleven business leaders, to not vote for Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election. Larry Sanger’s party affiliation is unknown, however, Wikipedia is also run by volunteer contributors that assist in correcting information on pages.

Some may refute Wikipedia as a valid source and say some information is made up, but not just anyone can change the information on a page, it has to be verified. Wikipedia’s mission is to spread knowledge and help people with educating. The list provided by Wikipedia to show the number of third parties in the United States and what they are do not include independents as they’re just centrists with either left or right-leaning. The source also provides the presidential votes they acquired in the 2016 election along with any state legislators that won an election. The only parties that have a significant amount of registrations, which are people who registered their support for their respective parties, are the Libertarian, Green, and Constitution Party. The Libertarian Party exceeds 500,000 registered voters, the Green party has around 250,000 registered voters, and the Constitution Party has nearly 100,000 registered voters, these three parties are the only third parties that have the highest amount of registered voters.

The need for a third party to be introduced as a major political party is heavily needed in modern American politics and the voice for one isn’t quiet whatsoever. The two major parties currently dominating American politics consist of the Republicans and the Democrats. Gallup News, a pretty fair unbiased news organization, provided a poll displaying the support for a major third political party amongst Americans. “A majority of Americans, 57%, say there is a need for a third, major political party, while 38% of Americans believe the current two-party system does an adequate job of representing the people. These views have been consistent since 2013.” The percentage has been significantly higher than 50% for the past years the poll has been conducted throughout. Gallup began conducting this poll around 2003 which was reversed and the public supported the idea that the two-party system is sufficient enough for American politics. RJ Reinhart, the person who wrote the article and conducted the poll, is an analyst, writer, and editor for Gallup and Gallup’s Higher Education and Government Divisions. Reinhart is in opposition with Trump, in regards to his tweets/retweets of key critics of Trump. Reinhart is biased with his politics, which lean left, however, this doesn’t affect the integrity of the poll.

A want for a third party isn’t determined by your political party affiliation, but what you seek in a third party. “Independents are, not surprisingly, the political partisan group most supportive of a third party. Seventy-two percent of political independents support a third major political party. Independents have consistently been most supportive of a third party.” The poll conducted by Gallup occurs every 3 years and ever since the poll in 2012, support for a major third political party maintained a fluctuation of 50-60%. A third major political party would allow for more room of debate and representatives from each local election engaging in the republic.

An interview conducted by NBC news that interviews a Libertarian candidate running for governor in the state of New York provides reasoning as to why third parties ultimately cannot win. NBC news maintains a predominant liberal standpoint, especially with one of their anchors, Rachel Maddow. The interviewer who interviewed Larry Sharpe, the Libertarian candidate, is Simone Boyce, who’s left-leaning according to her tweets which oppose Trump but show support for Democratic presidential candidates, like Andrew Yang. However, her bias is hard to unveil as she maintains composure and doesn’t leak out her bias so easily. Boyce conducts the interview pretty professionally and even provides context outside the interview as to why third parties fail. Sharpe even explains his acknowledgment of possibly failing or not winning the governorship, but is not willing to give up so easily and is optimistic about it. A candidate that visits towns other big candidates for the two major parties wouldn’t visit, going live on social media plenty of times, and interacting with the public is a good way to gain recognition and support.

Sharpe stands for legalizing marijuana and wants to maintain rights to gun owners, which appeases both left and right wings. Not to get confused as an Independent, but a Libertarian exercises ultimate freedom to their rights and refuses to have a government tell them what they do. However, not complete anarchy, unless you’re far there in the political compass, but don’t want a limit of their rights. Sharpe acknowledges that if people see you’re neither Democrat or Republican, you shouldn’t even be looked at. Sharpe calls politics a rich man game, and he is not wrong, you only lead in polls if your political establishment backs you or if you’re wealthy. The biggest barrier he claims is the system itself as it’s mainly a two-party government. Money could be the biggest problem but refuted by Donald Green, who’s a political science professor at Columbia University, claims it’s the actual government system that gives no benefits to parties in second or third place. The interviewer sums it up by introducing Duverger’s Law which if you award one office, you have two parties vying for that aforementioned office.

Third parties are poorly represented and lack the capability of gaining significant strides in local to federal elections, however, such stride can be made. Being more exposed to third parties and what criteria they need to meet to even show on a ballot requires so much patience, effort, and funding. Living in a two-party system, where Republicans and Democrats are what dominant the government, proves difficult for a third party. I align with the Constitution party and believe we do need a third major political party as I don’t agree with the GOP as I feel abandoned, and I don’t align with the Democratic party in any way. I still want to know why third parties are so poorly represented and why Republicans, Democrats dominate the political system for over a century while there have been third party strides in the past.