Author Archives: Oh How douya

The Benefits of Congressional Term Limits

Many forget that it was the Greeks and the Romans who established much of the way our country works today. Whether you are aware or not, the best of those societies have continued their legacy in our governments. The concept of ‘not allowing any one person to hold a position of control or power for an indefinite period of time’ or  (Term Limits) for the common good has especially endured and survived the test of time. In other words, if term limits worked for the Greeks they will work for us!

The Benefits of Congressional Term Limits

Less Corruption

It’s disheartening knowing that there is remarkable potential for corruption in our government. Politicians should want to serve simply for the benefit of the people. Many public servants begin as motivated individuals who serve for the people, but along the way, their goal focuses towards “getting re-elected” rather than acting on what they had actually promised.

For years politicians have developed an international reputation for being corrupt and uninterested in their own obligations. This stigma that all politicians “belong in a swamp” due to their extreme caliber of corruption is to some degree true— and the deficiency of term limits could the main reason behind it. The relationship between corruption in a single politician directly correlates to the length of time they have served. If you look at any career politician’s timeline you would be able to tell for yourself that corruption is more likely to occur the longer an official stays in office. Term limits would limit the time allowed for a politician to be influenced by the power that comes with their elected seat. While most of this country’s leaders are not corrupt, those that are, have succumbed to the influence of their power due to the extended period of time of their position.

Fewer Career Politicians

The initial purpose of electing officials was to represent the interests of the people. This is why serving as an elected official should be looked at as a public service rather than as an opportunity for a profession. Have you heard the phrase “of the people, by the people, for the people”? The goal as a senator is not to make your position into your ‘permanent job.’ As one of the longest-serving senators in United States history, Strom Thurmond is the prime example of an ‘outdated politician.’ When Thurmond first ran for Senate he was pro-segregation and was an open advocate until the early 1970s. Not to mention that through all of this, Thurmond’s daughter was partially African-American. I could easily drivel on about how racist Thurmond really was, and I could even mention the fact that he gave the longest filibuster in American history in an attempt to prevent the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957. I can’t be the only one who sees something wrong with allowing this man to hold a seat in office for nearly 50 years. In a world where societal principles are constantly changing, it’s completely immoral to allow someone who justifies prejudiced beliefs to serve for so long.

An excerpt from Thurmond’s infamous Swimming Pool Speech.  Remember that this man was in office until 2003.

“There’s not enough troops in the Army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigger race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches.”

Less Corporate Influence

Corporations are constructed to exchange a good or service to people willing to pay a set amount; supporting these structures is what preserves our country’s reputation as having one of the most powerful economies in the world. In America’s free market system, corporations have the power to accumulate the necessary support to fund their personal interests. While it is just as legal as it is unethical, large corporations should not be able to influence the outcome of an election. With term limitations, corporate persuasion will still inevitably happen, but not to the extreme degree as it does with career politicians in office. Corporations will always look for ways to buy influence, but this is not the result of term limits. They often form “Political Action Committees” (PACs and Super PACs) and fund their own candidates from the start. Term limits are not the solution to corporate influence but are rather a step towards a healthier governmental system.

Productivity & A Higher Congressional Approval Rating

Career politicians often lose touch with their original plans for change and instead shift their attention to getting re-elected in the upcoming election. The common argument of the left consists of, “If they turn out to be an unproductive senator we can just vote for a new one,” and while I somewhat agree with the idea behind this argument, the left is forgetting to consider the fact that congressional re-election rates are substantially high. According to the Washington Post, Congress’s approval rating has reached historic lows at least 12 times since 2010. What happened to “voting for a new one?” It’s clear to see that regardless of whether a politician is productive or not, 9 times out of 10 they will still be re-elected. Term limits would establish a more frequent flow of politicians into office, allowing for more options for voters as well a guaranteed higher productivity rate. When all goes well, we may even have a shot at an approval rating that’s higher than 13 percent!

Advertisements

Coolest Monkey In the Jungle

If you haven’t already heard about the controversy regarding H&M, let me fill you in.

H&M is a Swedish garment company that is popular for their cheap clothing and trendy styles. They have recently come under fire for using an African American child to model a hoodie that says ‘Coolest Monkey In The Jungle.’ Many are accusing the company of racial discontent for their negligence of the repugnant relationship between the word “Monkey” and the African American community. While the advertising for the sweatshirt was nonetheless inflammatory for some, the product itself was in no shape or form racist.

Before I begin I must clarify the following: I am not defending H&M, nor do I advocate the idea that H&M is a wholesome company, but I believe it is unfair to accuse the company of portraying racist beliefs when the accusations themselves are racist. Imagine that the product was modeled on a White child. Nobody would have said anything, given that there is no history of “monkey” being used as a racial slur for Whites. With a White boy as a model, does this mean that H&M is now calling all white people monkeys? No, because a sweatshirt with the word “monkey” on it is not racist. So, what’s the difference between a White model an African American model? There is none, nor should be any, because all races should be treated equally. People fail to realize that we will never achieve true equality if we continue to identify people by their color. If you truly see a problem with an African American boy wearing the sweatshirt, but no problem with a White boy wearing the sweatshirt, then it is you who is associating the racial slur, “Monkey,” with the model of color, thus perpetuating its racial context.

This whole situation should have been a wake-up call to ‘social justice warriors’ when the mother of the model, Terry Mango, recognized the controversial advertisement as an ‘unnecessary issue.’ “That’s my son… I’ve been to all [his] photo shoots and this was no[t] an exception, everyone is entitled to their opinion about this.” She added, “This is one of [the] hundreds of outfits my son has modeled… stop crying wolf all the time, unnecessary issue.” At this point, SJW arent fighting for anybody; They will continue to give their two cents on the matter until the next major news story develops– and nobody needs that, especially not the child’s mother. Until then, the most we can do is just armor up and ride it out.

What surprises me the most is how many people are actually outraged by a sweatshirt, yet fail to acknowledge the far more substantial problems regarding the company. H&M is one of the largest international clothing manufacturers, as they retain dozens of supplier factories in 35 different countries around the world. There’s no question that a company of this caliber requires a massive amount of (child)labor to manufacture enough product to distribute internationally. On the outskirts of Rangoon, girls as young as 14 worked in H&M’s supplying factories. Their typical shifts lasted 15 hours, for whole weeks at a stretch. The situation in Myanmar’s H&M factories was uncovered in 2016 by Swedish investigative journalists Moa Kärnstrand and Tobias Andersson Åkerblom. The two spent years studying working conditions in garment factories like those of H&M. Within the same year, their discoveries were released in a book entitled “Modeslavar,” which translates to “Fashion Slaves.”

“There is one girl we write about in the book, she was 14 when she started and as with the other girls, she worked 12 hours a day at some points. She told us that she was not allowed to leave the factory for lunch so her mum had to sneak lunch in through the factory fence,” Åkerblom says.

In addition to the employment of under-aged girls, many of H&M’s factories lack standard safety features including those as basic as fire escapes. H&M was the first major company to follow the 2013 Accord on Fire and Building Safety after the disastrous collapse of a Rana Plaza factory that killed 1,129. However, in February of 2016, a factory in Bangladesh that manufactured material for H&M caught on fire early in the morning, injuring four and taking firefighters four hours to contain. Local news reports showed workers jumping from windows as the flames raged above them. Had the fire set ablaze a few hours later, the building would have been filled with nearly 6,000 workers. Since then, H&M has issued a statement, “The Accord is working towards a transformation of a whole industry, in a low-income country, to Western safety standards.” Progress, however, is significantly reluctant. Washington-based Workers Rights Consortium director Scott Nova says, “…And while there has been some progress in some of those factories, the reality is that the majority of H&M’s factories in Bangladesh still aren’t safe more than a year after the safety renovations were supposed to be completed.”

It’s sickening to think that Americans are more concerned over a garment of clothing than they are with the fundamental human rights of the working class. I am unsure if people are just unaware of what is happening across the globe, or if they just choose to ignore it because it’s not “trending.” Unlike the facts against H&M’s fair treatment of factory workers, it’s easy to show hostility towards the sweatshirt incident because it is an issue being discussed by everyone virtually everywhere thanks to social media. It’s ridiculous how people are so quick to take offense to a matter that relates to ‘blacks’ being mistreated by ‘whites,’ especially when there are (FACTUAL)ongoing problems far worse than (OPINIONATED)accusations. Hopefully, I’ve shed some light on an actual human rights issue for you, but if you still choose to denounce H&M over a sweatshirt, may I please suggest that you imagine yourself -or your children- in the shoes of one of their factory employees.

You Can’t Change History, So Please Stop Trying.

The left has found yet another crucial piece of American history to pick apart and criticize— Columbus Day. Progressives see Columbus’ discovery of the West as nothing more than a genocidal conquest. They see Columbus, the very man who discovered our beloved country, as a sociopathic murderer who took land from the innocent. Completely disregarding that if it weren’t for him we would all still be in the United Kingdom sipping on overpriced tea, leftists still choose to boycott the iconic date. Whether you choose to celebrate the holiday or not, that’s on you. It’s your right as an American to celebrate what you please, just keep in mind that history is history. It’s not a debate. It’s not a discussion. It happened— whether you agree with it or not. What bothers me the most about controversial topics like Columbus Day are those who choose to ignore it and those who even try to get rid of it. This year especially, there were countless incidents reported about how Columbus Statues were vandalized and destroyed. When I see news reports like this, I think to myself, “What do you get out of this?” Other than a warrant for your arrest, nothing.

News flash: You can’t just change history by destroying evidence of it. That’s not how it works. If I broke into the National Archives and somehow managed to rip up the constitution, would that make America a lawless jungle? No, because like I said, that’s not how anything works. So what does removing a statue do? Nothing. If you think a Robert E Lee statue is racist, why would you remove it? Removing a monument from your surroundings doesn’t change the fact that something as big as the civil war happened— And just because you don’t agree with one side(the side that LOST may I add) doesn’t mean you get ultimate power to decide between what is commemorated and what is forgotten about. If liberals could successfully change America’s past by simply closing their eyes and covering their ears, anybody who’s ever learned to read would know that whatever happened is definitely just going to happen again. History repeats itself. If we deleted every piece of American history that wasn’t completely made up of sunshine and rainbows we wouldn’t be living in America at all—we’d be living in a fairytale liberal wasteland. In fact, the only place that comes to mind is in George Orwell’s 1984. For those who haven’t read it, the entire novel revolves around this dystopian society that’s ruled by one dictatorial party. The protagonist works in a building called the “Ministry of Truth” where his literal job is to rewrite old news articles to fit the current views of the ruling party. Even though 1984 was written in the late 40s, I still fear that we inch closer and closer to a society like this everyday— where the truth is concealed for the sake of the majority. Instead of directly rewriting history, it is being changed by the liberal agenda through subtle selective omission: removal of statues, changing the names of public schools, DISREGARD FOR NATIONAL HOLIDAYS, etc. The people who believe that they are being tolerant and progressive by purposely excluding certain aspects of history from their lives are the same people who are unknowingly deteriorating the very foundation that our country was built on. Whatever you try to hide will come back and find you, whether it’s tomorrow or 40 years from now. History always repeats itself.

“The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.” —George Orwell