Gerrymandering and the Individual

     A few weeks ago we talked about gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is when the border of a political district is redrawn to give certain peoples a political advantage. It is only legal in the U.S. when it guarantees political representation of a minority. Both Republicans and Democrats are in favor of gerrymandering but for different reasons. Democrats favor them because they give minorities their own voting district. Republicans favor them because they put all the people of a minority in a certain district, so then they do not influence their surrounding districts. This way if the majority is Republican they can beat them with their higher number of congressional districts. This later example is a good example of using political geography to your advantage. All this talk of gerrymandering made me wonder if it was right and whether or not I support it.

     If one looks at the U.S.’s Electoral College one can tell that it favors minorities. We had an entire debate on the Electoral College in class and whether it was a good system or not. Whether you agree with the use of the Electoral College or not, at the end of the day the Electoral College does favor minorities. The minorities in this case being little states versus big states. Little Wyoming’s amount of votes and Texas’s amount of votes are not proportional to their respective populations. The Senate also favors minorities with two senators to every one state. It would seem our founding fathers set our government up to favor minorities, at least in this fashion.

      All this talk our minorities makes me think once again of Les Misérables where Victor Hugo uses these miserable peoples’ lives to emphasize the importance of the individual in society and to combat Marx. The U.S. does think the individual is important. We take pride in men who strike out on their own and make it big by themselves. The “rags to riches” idea is so engrained in Americans and I believe this idea is very individualistic and want to give chances to minorities. I believe that Americans’ fear of communism also shows our individualistic culture. These ideas do not always coincide with my Catholic faith which focuses on a community rooted in Christ. But I digress.

     Gerrymandering favors minorities. Minorities are important because the individual in society is important. Does this mean gerrymandering should continue? The strategy for Republicans and their use of gerrymandering certainly does not support the individual. Throwing them all in one district so that they do not influence the other districts does not support the individual. I think gerrymandering is one of those things that looks good on paper but in reality does not do what it is intended to do. In reality this is not the best way to represent minorities. Instead we should keep minorities in districts with the majority. Representatives will then have to appeal to both them and the majority. I believe this is the only fair way to represent them. If they join together within their communities, the voice of the individual within society will still be heard and representatives will have to listen to them.

The Chains of Supranationalism

     Last week we talked about, and even had a debate about, supranationalism. This is the idea of countries giving up some of their sovereignty to come together for a better cause or economic power. The UN, the EU, NATO, NAFTA, and the Arab league would all be examples of Supranationalistic Organizations. I, for the most part, am not a big proponent of supranationalism. I want the U.S. to keep a fierce control of its sovereignty and it should not give up any of it's rights for a so-called "greater cause". I guess I am kind of old school that way. Supranationalism to me is just a bigger government to limit my freedoms.I think its always good to have a healthy fear of the government. If the government has too much control, gradually, I am not going to have any rights for myself, like for instance: how much money I can make or how many children I am allowed to have. Like any good American I like my freedom. Supranationalism just brings this to a new level where entire other countries will tell you what to do with your money. If you love governmental control I can see how one would be for Supranationalism because to me it is a form of higher governmental control. I for one love my own freedom and do not want my own country along with an entire group of other countries telling me what to do.
      I believe that it was in Washington's Farewell Address that he said we should not interfere in other countries' businesses. I agree with him for the most part. A few weeks ago in my Middle Eastern Geography class, we skyped with students my age from Egypt. My teacher encouraged them to say what they did not like about America. One of the things they complained about was how the United States always interferes in other nations that is should have nothing to do with, especially Israel. In many ways I agree with them. Why can't we just worry about our own problems and stop getting involved in other places around the World? We have plenty of our own internal issues to worry about. I guess one argument to this would be that the U.S. is a model for democracy and economic growth and we should share our ideas with other nations and help out those striving for democracy who are trying to gain their freedom. This is a good argument but we can spread these ideas without having to get involved there ourselves. Also, our model of freedom is not going to work in every country and we often cause more problems by being there. I believe that in most of the cases where we have gotten involved with other nations we have caused more harm than good. We as a nation should learn from this. The only time we should get involved with another country is when that country threatens our own freedom.
     The only time I think supranationalism can be a good thing is in foreign aid to other countries. If people are starving to death and we have more than them, I believe it is our duty as a Christian nation to help them out. But even this has to be done carefully. People often complain that the U.S. exploits Africa by giving different countries food and those countries give them valuable resources in turn. This giving has to be unconditional with nothing expected in return.
     The argument that supranationalism is good for trade is also valid. If a country can gain economically through supranationalism, a country should go for it. The U.S. simply must seek ways to do it that do not give up any of its sovereignty. Otherwise, countries will use trading power to gain control of us. I do not believe Mexico and Canada have very much control over the U.S. at the moment but I can see how a country could gain control over another using trading.
      Except in a few cases, I believe that avoiding suprantionalism is the best way for the U.S. to keep its sovereignty, keep its own people's sovereignty and avoid conflict in other nations.

A Campfire or a Roller Coaster?

      The other day in class my professor began a discussion on the idea that my generation can no longer enjoy nature in its pure wild form. In other words national and state parks no longer can just be untamed wilderness with a few trail and campsites in between, they need action. My generation needs roller coasters and high action adventures, white water rafting, and zip lines; walking through the woods or toasting a few s'mores under the stars just isn't going to cut it anymore. As you can well guess this prompted any number of different responses from my peers. As usual I have a loud opinion on the subject.
      I would like to start by simply stating that I agree fully that people of my generation within my culture have fully embraced an "ADD" culture. We can no longer sit in the quiet and enjoy life. Things soon become boring and we must be in a constant state of activity. Before class everyone is texting away on their phones; even into class when the lecture becomes too boring people return to their phones. People cannot walk to and from class without being "plugged in." The T.V. is always on in our homes, day and day out. Let us compare both movies and books of our day to those 40 years ago. One can see this constant need for action and for something to be happening, compared to a slow start and the building up effect. One recent exception to this would be the movie The Hobbit. The movie had a very slow start which I thought was very "Tolkienesque" but I could not help but wonder how my peers would react to it. Yet I am not going to pretend for a second that I am impervious to this trend. For religious reasons, I have started a media fast. I allow myself a limited amount of media a week including T.V., movies, recreational internet time, and music. However, 50+ days into the fast I still dread taking a 15 minute car ride because of the prospect of sitting alone in the quiet with nothing but my thoughts for company because I am not allowed to turn on the radio.

 

 

     So, now that I have established the "ADD" culture that I now live in, let's apply it to nature. I fell in love with nature at a young age. I was in Boy Scouts from the first grade to the end of high school. I have slain six deer to my name and I have a lake-full of largemouth bass in my backyard. When I came to college I decided to major in Environmental Studies because of my love for nature. There's nothing I enjoy more than sitting around a warm campfire under the stars. All I need for recreation is miles and miles of untamed wilderness. I believe my peers should conform to this as well. Don't get me wrong, I'm all about high adventure. If someone wants to whitewater raft through the Grand Canyon or zip line through Hawaii, I'm okay with that.Yet there's something about being out in the wild that makes me feel more human and my peers should experience the same. It is good to escape to the quiet of a forest or canyon not always for the high adventure but for the solitude. As a Christian I see the beauty in God's creation and the time He took into making things "good." As a man there is something about sleeping in a tent and cooking over an open fire that "puts hair on your chest" and makes you feel better in your identity as a man. I'm not Theodore Roosevelt or John Muir but I think the U.S. should put forth every effort to maintain these precious resources as places of refuge from our busy and chaotic world. The National Park areas and other lands like them should be preserved simply for their scenic beauty. The addition of things to make the parks more exciting would only deter from their purpose. I believe the ADD culture only makes the need for these places greater as people need places away from their cell phones and laptops and seek the peace they offer. On a recent camping trip I went on with the Catholic Student Union, we were really encouraged to turn off our cell phones. To me this was a relief and I could then enjoy the trip more fully. So, America, the next time you get a free weekend, throw a cooler and a tent in the back seat and drive until you cannot see the city lights. We've still got miles and miles and untamed wilderness to enjoy and there's nothing boring about it.