A step in the right direction?

June 30th Rodrigo Duterte was elected the new president of The Philippines. Yet in under 4 months, Duterte has made numerous headlines as well as causing many controversies about his leadership style. From calling President Obama a "son of a b****" to his controversial statement "Hitler massacred 3 million Jews... there's 3 million drug addicts. I'd be happy to slaughter them," Duterte has certainly become increasingly unfavorable in the eyes of many of the world's countries.  However, that seems to be the complete opposite for the people of the Philippines. With a shocking 91% support rate, there's no doubt he has the support of his people. Even comments from a Youtube video of his inauguration show how much the people love him, with people saying "You are the hope of our nation today" "So proud of you President Duterte!" "I say this with all my heart...God bless you and keep you always." etc. With having done and said so many things that would be absurd to the normal person, it seems highly shocking that he would have such a high support rate, but to understand where the Filipino people are coming from, we have to look at the history of the Philippines.

Filipino history is filled with corruption, and an article by Time explains just how corrupt it is. Examples include former president Joseph Estrada, who was sentenced to life in prison for stealing 80 million dollars during his presidency, yet he was pardoned of his crime and is now Mayor of Manila. Former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, who had a vast majority of charges against her, yet still managed to be re-elected  to Congress while still under house arrest. Congressman Romeo Jalosjos, who served two life sentences for raping an eleven-year-old girl, yet was still able to be re-elected twice as well as be pardoned of his crime just ten years into his life sentence by former president Arroyo. This list doesn't stop here, however. There are numerous other stories similar to this within the Philippines. A sad reality, yet true, Filipinos have become so accustomed to this behavior that it has become almost expected of all political figures. "To outsiders, all that seems outrageous. To Filipino's, it's just politics as usual."

So how does Rodrigo Duterte stack up to all this? It's hard to say this early in a presidency, but there's no doubt that he has no problem with saying what's on his mind, as well is putting those words into action, which in turn has caused some controversies. Most notably his plan to abolish the drug problem that currently infests the country. Since his presidency, roughly 3,500 suspects have been killed through his war on crime, but not in the most humane ways. Execution methods are described as being "assassinated in public by masked assailants, killed by police without further investigation, or found as unidentified bodies on the streets," often with signs placed over them stating the crime they committed. Whether these killings are justifiable or just simply thrown under a large history of impunity is for the people of the Philippines to decide. Rodrigo Duterte is definitely not a perfect man, but I don't believe he is claiming to be one (not yet at least). One thing that is certain is that The Philippines is a country riddled with crime, drugs, and corruption, and Duterte has definitely realized that, taking it upon himself to fix these problems, in a very brash manner. Whether Dutertes actions are good or bad, it's no doubt a step in a better direction, but is he really the savior that Filipinos claim him to be? Only time can tell. 

Killed by words

America, the land of the free and the country where freedom reigns supreme. Well, not anymore. At least not freedom of speech. If you give people the freedom to say what they want, then their words might offend someone, which is obviously one of the major issues that currently plagues our country. I was being sarcastic if you didn't notice. People being offended is the least of this countries concerns, or at least it should be, yet recently this issue has become increasingly, well, more of an issue. Specifically on college campuses.

 In an article posted by Jennifer Schuessler, college students seem to be more and more in favor of putting a cap on free speech. A drastic flip from the previous generations who fought for free speech so diligently. These college students, millennials, immature young adults, whatever you choose to call them, have virtually forced their campuses to create a so-called safe haven where no one's feelings are at risk. Colleges are now being demanded to bring only safe speakers that run no risk of bringing up a topic that would not affirm every student, placing trigger warnings on sensitive assignments that some students might not agree with, even going so far as to make safe spaces equipped with soft upholstery and puppies, in case students are feeling overwhelmed. 

Public graffiti wall at Ohio University

Now sure, you can say that all this is making a more inviting environment and that for the sake of the students, these actions need to be enforced, but what is this really creating? This is making a generation of adults that are so scared of hearing something they don't agree with that they need to lock themselves in their rooms with a batch of puppies. essentially, they are scared of the real world and are not mentally prepared to tackle responsibilities that 100% will be thrown their way. What happened to parents teaching their children in high school how to be responsible. Telling them that they need to do this or that to prepare them for the real world. Well, now what is the point of turning your child into a responsible adult when they're entering an environment where all possible dangers have been censored. 

Another issue that colleges have been called upon to monitor are so-called microaggressions, which are described as "small, often unintentional racial or other slights." Let's take a closer look at that definition, specifically the word "unintentional". The fact that students have to be censored from saying something that was completely misunderstood and unintentional is absurd. This doesn't create a friendly environment, but rather one where people are too scared to open their mouth because of the thought of being rebuked and disciplined for their apparently offensive words. 

Even among people who are seemingly for free speech, using it to fuel a protest or something similar, quickly change their idea when they are on the receiving end of the banter. I agree that free speech is an issue, but not because people are using it as "a weapon" but rather because the people against it are too sensitive to realize there is no issue at hand. America is and should always be known for its freedom, but what these people are creating is a society that places laws simply for the sake of the people's feelings. 

"The Argument"

"The Argument"; that is what Joseph Ellis evidently portrays in his wonderfully written third chapter of his book American Creation. From the end of the War for Independence to the birth of the government that has held our country together since its creation, Smith makes no mistakes in explaining every detail in between.

The war had ended, and we had gained independence from Britain's reign, however, keeping a nation together is seemingly impossible without some form of dominion over the people. The poorly made government constructed under the Articles of Confederation did very little to successfully guide our nation. Ellis explains, "It was, in effect, designed to be weak, and lacked altogether the authority to manage a burgeoning empire." Adding to that was the fact that the delegates didn't even show up to important meetings, simply because they didn't care. In fact, that attitude was ridden throughout the whole country. People just simply didn't care about being united, but rather saw themselves as separate nations. Washington realized that what America needed was a more unifying, stronger government, however, this posed many challenges as "such a national government contradicted the most cherished political values the American Revolution claimed to stand for."

Three years pass and America is on the brink of anarchy. Luckily for Washington though, he was not alone in his revolutionary thinking. Even more boisterous in thought than Washington, James Madison had seen America's pandemic in the same light. Comically described by Ellis as "an inordinately shy man, the kind who drifted to the dark corners of a room on most social occasions," as well as being one "who stood about five foot four and weighed 130 pounds," Madison grew to be one of the loudest voices in the reforming of America and its government. A little too loud for Washington however, for, although agreeing with Madison in his thinking, he was opposed to partaking in his campaign. Yet seemingly unphased by Washington's remarks, Madison virtually forced him into his cause, which proved to be a vital point in his plan.

Although quiet and reserved, Madison's argument style was strikingly effective. "His style, in effect, was not to have one. As a result, his arguments during debates tended to arrive without rhetorical frills or partisan edges, but rather with the naked power of pure thought." Ellis further explains that he was "the kind of frustrating opponent who always had more relevant information at his fingertips and who also somehow understood the logical implications of your argument better than you did." This proved to be true as Madison left his opponents speechless with his never before heard concepts. From dividing the government into three branches to stating that a larger republic actually created equality amongst power, Madison's opponents had nothing to argue his points. Things were going perfectly and "events were flowing in a perfect pattern." However, Madison wasn't indestructible. Once recollected, the anti-federalists did not take lightly to Madison's Virginia Plan, and, in fact, countered it with a plan of their own known as the New Jersey Plan. Eventually agreeing on a solution known as "The Great Compromise", neither parties were left happy, for this solution wasn't a solution at all, but rather a statement saying that "the only workable solution was to leave the sovereignty question unclear." Washington and Madison took this to heart, "interpreting the compromise as a devastating defeat."

Although shaken, Madison did not give up. He knew that the real task was still ahead of him; ten months to be exact when the ratification debates would take place. Different from past events, these debates were "open to the public and covered by the press." Madison knew that all hope in making his great idea for a new government work landed on winning these arguments. As great as Madison was, he still wasn't the best. This proved true when, a wild card, Patrick Henry appeared, quickly becoming one of Madison's most formidable opponents. Both having distinctively different arguing styles as put by John Marshal, "Mr. Henry had without a doubt the greatest power to persuade," and "Mr. Madison had the greatest power to convince." Henry was determined to not give up, however, in the end, Madison's shear knowledge proved stronger. The final votes were in (89-79) and the debates were over. Madison had succeeded.

Ellis' writing is both simplistic and impactful. Although the constitution was largely of Madison's accord, Ellis writes in a way that invites all aspects forward, making this chapter focus on "The Argument" as it relates to how our constitution is defined; an argument that will never cease to invoke question, yet still making clear that "no man was better equipped to understand the irony of it all than James Madison."