Blog Stage 8

In an editorial posted by USA seen from a Paki, author Osama Imran ridicules the national government as well as Donald Trump by attacking the religious discrimination against Islam. He additionally incorporates personal anecdotes to highlight the problem and how it affects common citizens.

Imran begins his argument by stating that ever since 9/11 Americans have become more afraid of religions, specifically Islam. The media contributes to these fears by bombarding individuals with gruesome news and images depicting attacks which link Islam to terrorism and oppression. The author could of strengthened their argument by adding opinion polls here. These polls can reveal Americans’ fear and bias towards Muslims. Statistics could also be used to emphasize the growing percentage of individuals who fear the religion and its followers. The author then introduces personal experiences on how Islamophobia has affected them and the people they know. Imran recalls how a majority of Americans he has met often joke or become frightful when they learn that his name is Osama; he also states that many of his fellow classmates felt threatened and feared for their lives simply because they were Muslim. These anecdotes support the author's central claim because it reveals that Islamophobia hurts common individuals and infringes upon their rights. Discriminating against Islam is an issue because it undermines American core values that state that each and all citizens have the freedom to practice their own beliefs.

Furthermore, the author claims that after the election of Donald Trump for president, the problem has become much worse. The “Muslim ban” has created discrimination which “seems pointless” and prevents Muslims from entering the country. The argument could of been better supported if the author included more info, such as which countries were included in ban as well as statistics on how many people are affected by it. By placing the travel bans Trump further portrays Muslims as dangerous and should be avoided. Imran also states that anti Muslims groups have quadrupled in the last year and hate crimes have increased at an alarming rate. Once again, the use of specific statistics would solidify the argument because numbers are objective. The last point Imran makes is that the media also contributes to Islamophobia because often times if there's an “evil organization” or a “villain” in the film, it is likely that they are Arab or Islam based. I agree with this statement, but I would like to see specific examples of films where this is the case.
All in all, I agree with Imran’s opinion. Trump’s decisions are not in the best interest of the country and his policies seem to further increase discrimination against Muslims. The editorial is constructed well, and their seems to be few flaws in the reasoning. The commentary, however, could have been strengthened by citing the information through hyperlinks. America must properly educate themselves rather than relying on what Trump or the media says about Muslims and Islam. The hate and discrimination violates the First Amendment and immediate action must  be taken in order to protect every citizen’s rights.

Blog Stage 7

Gun shootings seem to dominate news stories in America, every day more people get hurt and everyday people become more afraid, yet, the U.S government seem to be ignoring this deadly issue. The government has a duty to the people make the public feel secure, but with the election of Donald Trump, they seem to be doing the exact opposite.

The vast majority of ordinary Americans, about 9 in 10, support reasonable regulations on guns. Additionally, even National Rifle Association members seem to encourage some form of control,  but lawmakers in Congress seems to blatantly disregard the facts and fail to pass any laws that aid in this desired protection. They even seem to reject even the mild, sensible laws- such as background checks, bans on ownership by domestic abusers, and bans on mentally ill individuals that would help reduce the country's staggering toll of gun violence.
The failure of gun control also undermines the core idea of democracy, the laws that are in place, or rather the laws that are not in place, are an ill representation of what the people want. Last September, Missouri legislators overrode the governor’s veto to allow people to carry concealed weapons in public without a background check, permit, or even training. By passing this law, it ignored 86% of the states' votes as well as the plea of law enforcement organizations. Previously, Missouri had loosened its gun laws in 2007, by eliminating the requirement that handgun purchasers get a permit by passing a background check. And as a result, in the following six years, the state’s gun homicide rate rose by 18 percent, almost 50 percent higher than the national average.

Furthermore, President Donald Trump signed a bill earlier in 2017 that rolled back an Obama regulation that made it harder for people with mental illnesses to purchase a gun. The rule added people receiving Social Security checks for mental illnesses and people deemed unfit to handle their own financial affairs, to the national background check database. Had the rule fully taken effect, the Obama administration predicted it would have added about 75,000 names to that database, which in turn would have given Americans more security.Trump’s main argument for uncontrolled guns is the protection of the second amendment, which is the right to bear arms. In a speech given to the NRA, Trump proclaimed that the “8-year assault on the second amendment has come to a crashing end,” but the end of this “assault” means the beginning of a new and dangerous era. Many conservatives, as well as Trump himself, believe that guns are used in self-defense but many statistics prove otherwise. Research in the journal Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, stated that 87 percent of handgun owners report that self-defense is their principal reason to own a firearm , however, research has shown that having a gun in the home,  regardless of the number, increases the risk of homicide or suicide. In 2014 alone, for every time a person used a gun to kill in a justifiable homicide (self-defense), 34 innocent lives were ended in criminal gun homicides.

All in all, gun control is an issue that if handled properly would help protect many Americans. Trump must realize that having restrictions does not mean the second amendment has to be eliminated, but rather restrictions would help make the country safer by reducing the number of individuals who are unfit to carry a firearm. Many states, such as Maine and Nevada,  are already taking action by passing universal background checks, but this is not enough. Individuals in all states must encourage their representatives to understand the need for gun control.

Blog Stage 6

In an editorial posted by Suburban Journal, author Carly McConnell ridicules Trump’s presidency by attacking his policies as well as his child-like behavior. She then urges Americans to consider the option of impeachment by revealing a plethora of examples of how Trump has failed to lead the country effectively.

McConnell begins her argument by stating that Trump is ill suited for the President position since he has no prior political experience. Instead, Trump is a TV host and businessman who won the office by “unfiltered ramblings” making his legitimacy questionable. Additionally, McConnell states that not enough action has been taken to control Trump as evident through his aimless firing of highly regarded government officials. She claims that Trump has been on a “rampage” that started with the removal of acting attorney general Sally Yates back in January, but the most controversial firing concerns FBI director James Comey in May. Yates was fired after refusing to defend Trump’s immigration order, while Comey was fired while investigating Trump’s ties with Russia. Through these examples, McConnell highlights Trump’s erratic behavior to replace anyone willing speak against him, and as a result, undermines his qualifications as the President of the United States. McConnell’s argument could have been strengthened by incorporating background information about Yates and Comey in order to show how Trump’s decision was ridiculous and illegitimate. Polls could also be used here to show the low approval rates of Trump's decision and further urge Americans to reconsider his motives.

Additionally, McConnell’s discredits Trump by emphasizing his tendency to shamelessly make decisions based on self-interest, which is unconstitutional and infringes upon the public’s rights. The travel bans Trump implemented not only threaten individual liberties, but they are also “cruel” because Saudi Arabia was left out due to Trump’s business ties in the country. McConnell also recalls the self-promotion by the Trump administration such as when Kellyanne Conway told Americans to “go buy Ivanka’s stuff” or the pressure placed on foreign diplomats to stay and host events at the Trump's Hotel. This point could have been further supported by providing specific examples of foreign interactions, as well as links to these instances so that audience understands the claims are factual. Furthermore, the use of statistics showing how Trump is profiting from these policies could enhance the argument since numbers are objective.

All in all, I agree with McConnell’s opinion. Trump’s decisions are not in the best interest of the country and his policies seem to further increase tensions. The editorial is constructed well, and there seem to be few flaws in the reasoning. The commentary, however, could have been strengthened by citing the information as well as including numerical data. Furthermore, I believe that McConnell should have ended the editorial by informing the audience of the actions they can take to encourage Congress to take action against Donald Trump. After all, the power of the country lies with the people and individuals must understand when their rights are at risk.

Blog Stage 5

The Ice Caps are Melting, and so is Trump’s Power.

There’s no denying that the Earth is warming at an alarming rate and human activities are to blame. Every day millions of cars race down roads, factories pump out products, and homes suck up energy. Humanity depends on fossil fuels as if they were air, and the irony here is that at the rate we are consuming fuels, there won’t be any clean air left to breathe. Rising seas, melting glaciers caps, wildfires, and dying animals are all apart of the climate change issue, something that our government and president seem to blatantly ignore.

The United States government is doing an ill job of protecting the environment, in fact, they seem to be doing the exact opposite. By pulling out of the Paris climate change agreement that was created in 2015 and ratified by over 150 nations, the U.S is directly refusing to do its part to save the planet. French President Emmanuel Macron has tried to reverse Trump’s decision to take the US out of this landmark global agreement, but like most things with Trump, it was futile. There seems to be zero chance that Trump would reaffirm Obama’s commitment to encourage reductions in America’s greenhouse gas emissions or even seek to re-establish Obama’s role as a global communicator. Trump has claimed that by pulling out of the climate act he is encouraging the economy to grow by reviving the energy business through coal mining. He also looks skeptically at international agreements because he thinks they weaken the United States. Both of these ideas are utterly incorrect and ludicrous, once again humiliating Americans across the nation. Coal is not the future of energy; renewable energy and natural gas, which is cleaner and cheaper than coal, are the future. As for doing international business, sometimes it just makes sense to cooperate with the rest of the world.

The biggest weakness in Trump's argument is that he's overlooking the main purpose of the Paris agreement: to protect the world from environmental catastrophe. There is a scientific consensus that global warming is a man-made threat to Earth, its habitats, and its people. The Paris deal represented the first time the world's governments agreed they all have a responsibility to limit pollution, but without U.S cooperation, the goal to keep the temperature from rising above 2° Celsius is seems impossible. The role of the U.S. should be a leader, pushing and coaxing other countries to do as much as possible to clean up the atmosphere everyone shares, but with Trump’s decision, it puts the U.S. on the sidelines of one of the most important issues of our time.

A more promising scenario is that someday Trump will awaken to the fact that the leaders of the world will no longer meet with him or maintain a relationship between the nations. Time after time, Trump has proven he possesses different goals and on environmental issues he has turned the United States into a pariah. We can, however, hope that the rest of the world will keep trying and pushing the market for new green technology that will achieve the cleaner energy future that Trump and the United States government seems unable to embrace.

Blog Stage 4

On July 22, 2017, The New York Times published an editorial by Nicholas Kristof called Jared Kushner’s Got Too Many Secrets to Keep Ours ridiculing Trump’s Senior Advisor, Jared Kushner. Nicholas Kristof has established his credibility over the 16 years of writing for The New York Times, and by covering numerous political events with a straightforward voice.

Kristof’s central argument in the editorial is that Jared Kushner should not be working in the White House, and he should not have security clearance. Although there is no proof Kushner broke the law or plotted Russian interference, he has been under investigation and numerous revelations have bolstered suspicions. Viewed as a security risk to many Americans, Kushner attended a meeting in June 2016 which supposedly was to advance a Kremlin initiative to interfere in the US election. However, he failed to disclose the meeting on government forms and was apparently complicit in a cover-up in which Trump's administration denied that there had been any contacts with Russians to influence the elections. Additionally, Kushner also sought to set up a secret communications channel with the Kremlin during the presidential transition. Kristof, as well as many others, believe that until this situation is clarified, a person like Kushner should not have access to the country’s most important secrets.

Furthermore, Kristof argues that a similar issue arises with Ivanka Trump. The SF-86 form to attain a national security clearance requires the inclusion of a spouse's foreign contacts, so the question that remains is: did Ivanka list the Russians that Kushner was believed to have spoken with? Or were they intentionally left out, which is considered a felony. Kristof admits that these two individuals may be innocent of wrongdoing, forced and manipulated by the Trump administration, but it is still untenable for someone to remain a senior official or continue to have access to the government secrets while under federal investigation for possible ties to Kremlin. Investigators are also looking into whether Trump's digital campaign operation, which Kushner oversaw, colluded with Russians in efforts to spread fake news about Hillary Clinton. The endless allegations and issues are so troublesome that even some Republicans are calling for Kushner to be ousted from the White House.

All in all, I agree with Kristof conclusion that Jared Kushner needs to be closely monitored or even removed from his office. He poses a great security risk to the country and should not be trusted to keep secrets since he is believed to have ties with Russia. Kushner’s difficulties not only harm his credibility and diminishes his own influence but it also paints America as global soft power. The American people have a right to know that they are protected by their government, these secrets and strange relationship with Russia create worry and fear amongst the public. The only way to ensure the safety of America is to keep Jared Kushner, while under investigation for possible felonies and collusion with Russia, from serving as a top White House official. The targeted audience is the public, specifically those who are not as politically active. Kristof conveys his argument to these less engaged individuals to show that they need to learn the facts about the people in office, in order to protect their rights, and maintain a successful and secure government.

Blog Stage 3

On July 18, 2017, The New York Times published an editorial by David Leonhardt called The Health Care Collapse Is a Victory for the Truth ridiculing Trump’s approach to the current healthcare crisis and what it means for the future of America. David Leonhardt has built his credibility over many years writing for The New York Times, and by covering numerous political events with accurate statistics and a satirical voice.

Leonhardt’s central argument in his editorial is that political facts do not matter in the government anymore. He claims that Americans have plagued their minds with so many fallacies that they live in ignorance, which subsequently allowed Donald Trump to win the presidency through a constant stream of falsehoods. From launching his campaign with a lie about Obama’s birthplace to refusing to release his tax reforms, Trump seemed to violate the core values of the United States. Yet despite all of this, he was still elected into office, leaving the country in a state of despondency.

However, the editorial takes on an optimistic turn stating that in recent days the American public has demonstrated that facts still indeed matter due to the rejection of the Republican healthcare plan. The rejection proved that the American public still possessed a realistic view on their rights and would not let the government implement a new system that would infringe upon them. Republicans had spent years criticizing Obamacare and conjugating lies, which allowed many politicians to be elected into office, but ultimately were faced with the problem of creating a “real-world” healthcare plan. They instead created unrealistic bills that would have taken insurance coverage from millions and raise costs for others. Experts from all medicals fields, as well as common citizens, belittled their bill. Additionally, many Republican senators understood that the bill’s defenders could “make up fictions about it for only so long”, eventually, real people would lose real health insurance and be denied real medical care for their illnesses.

All in all, Leonhardt’s claim that facts still matter in the national government is well supported. The internet, as well as the media, is filled with so much fake news, it makes it difficult for people to clearly understand political matters. The rejection of the Republican healthcare plan stands to prove that people are still making an effort to stay vigilant and protect their medical rights. I agree with the authors claim that facts still matter, without them, our national government would not be an accurate representation of the people. Furthermore, I agree that Trump is his own worst enemy and is doing an ill job at handling health policies. He possesses a low approval rate and must adjust his views in order to re-establish his legitimacy with many individuals. The targeted audience is the public, specifically those who are not as politically active. Leonhardt conveys his argument to these less engaged individuals to show that they need to learn the facts in order to protect their rights and maintain a successful government.

Blog Stage 2

On July 17th, 2017, CBS posted an article called Poll: Half of people in U.S. prefer Obamacare over GOP health care proposals. The article highlights the disapproval of Trump’s new healthcare policy, claiming that 50% of Americans prefer Obamacare over the replacement plan presented by the Republican party, which only possess a 24% approval rate. Additionally, the article states that the second bill to save Obamacare will also be repealed. The bill would end penalties for people who do not purchase insurance, cut back an expansion of Medicaid, and implement cuts to the entitlement program. The new measure would additionally require several tax increases, $70 billion to cover state-based health care reforms, and another  $45 billion to aid states in the fight against the opioid epidemic.

I would recommend this article because it emphasizes the healthcare crisis our country is dealing with. Repealing Obamacare affects a plethora of individuals and it is necessary that Americans understand the changing system, as they are directly affected by it. People have a right to be protected by their government, but the new GOP health care plan would instead leave many medically vulnerable. We should be focusing and working together to provide health care for the financially and physically handicapped, rather than tending to the desires of the wealthy elite.