Out with Trump

President Donald Trump should be impeached. Reflecting on how the United States has grown socially and as a nation in general, Trump is completely setting us back and undermining our accomplishments. Besides the many administrative mistakes he’s made, he generally does not have the right personality or people skills. First of all, he is misogynistic and sexist. Not only does he not respect women, he is intentionally condescending and insulting. His tweets are one of his worst qualities while also being one of the best ways to highlight this downfall of his (one of many). In one of his tweets, speaking on the topic of women in the media, Trump said "You know, it doesn't really matter what [they] write as long as you've got a young and beautiful piece of ass." Furthermore, “Fat. Pig. Dog. Slob. [and] Disgusting animal” are a few more, but not all, of the names President Trump has called women, according to journalist Claire Cohen of The Telegraph. Another one of Trump’s defining, opposite of president-like characteristics is that he is racist. David Leonhardt of The New York Times writes that , “In June 2017, Trump said 15,000 recent immigrants from Haiti ‘all have AIDS’ and that 40,000 Nigerians, once seeing the United States, would never ‘go back to their huts’ in Africa.” Trump also spent several years trying to suggest and even prove that Barack Obama was actually born in Kenya. In one tweet, he even said himself that he had been informed by “an extremely credible source” as he put it, that Obama’s birth certificate was a fraud. Finally, on top of these two already awful traits of anyone, but especially a president, is that he is constantly lying. Journalists Glenn Kessler, Salvador Rizzo, and Meg Kelly of The Washington Post did an analysis on everything he’d said in a period of time and found that he had made 4229 false claims in 558 days. I could’ve stopped at the first characteristic and that would’ve been enough for someone to not be qualified as president, but all three are far too much.

My Comment on "We Should Not Build a Wall Between the United States and Mexico"

Our classmate Kiana wrote a commentary on President Trump's idea to build a wall on the border separating the US and Mexico, and my comment is below:

In this commentary on president Trump's idea to build a wall on the border of the US and Mexico, Kiana first and foremost lays out her belief, which is very strong formatting because it lets readers know exactly what the author is about and what they will be reading about. Still in her introductory paragraph, she employs emotions, which I also think is a strong way to persuade because it gets people feeling and connecting with what she is saying. In the subsequent paragraphs, the author goes on to give evidence and examples supporting her claim. Since she is on the opposing side of Trump's idea, she lists many cons. In listing the negatives, she talks about not only the families that will be affected directly by the wall , but also gives reasons to why all of America will be affected. This is useful and smart because again, people will be able to relate more and are more willing to agree with an argument if they can understand how they are involved themselves. Finally, she writes about what else will have to be done that comes with building this wall and then ends by summarizing her argument. Over all, Kiana does an excellent job of constructing her argument and making it clear and concise, while still incorporating the necessary details to make her claim strong.

Regarding the argument itself, I completely agree with her claim that we should not build the wall. Besides the simple cruelty of separating families and loved ones, a wall between countries is just asking for everyone to hate America. Besides Mexico, countries all over the world will see this as a sign that we think we're too good for everyone else and couldn't possibly interact with people who aren't in America. It just generally isn't a good idea, and Kiana does a great job of explaining this.

Euthanasia for All

As cliche as it may sound, tragedy of all sort strikes every day and is unfortunately unavoidable in some cases. Specifically, more often than we’d think or ever hope for, people are being diagnosed with terminating illnesses and become paralyzed in ways that can even require a second human being’s assistance to even stay alive. Sometimes, in such awful cases, even the greatest measures are not able to reverse the damage or do anything at all to aid the situation. Such lifestyles can be severely depressing and unbearable to the point of simply not wanting to continue living.

Imagine waking up one day and not being able to move your body from the neck down and being told that this is your new life, that nothing can be done. You probably cannot even begin to imagine that. I know I can’t. Unless you have experienced that feeling first hand, or something similar, very few situations would allow you to understand exactly how that would feel or affect you. More importantly, only someone in this situation would know what they want moving forward. Only they would have endured whatever pain and suffering would come with this situation, if any. I say “if any” because I personally have never experienced anything like this, so I can only speak to what I’ve heard and what I can assume, as far as feelings. Furthermore, I can only try to imagine what I would want to do with my life moving forward. Not only I, but also anyone else who isn’t the person in the situation, has no right to decide their wants or go as far as to hinder their decision making. With already such little control over the happenings in their life, they do not need any more boundaries on their control, especially when these are decisions that could easily be carried out. 

Just because euthanasia is illegal does not mean people in these situations or mindsets will not find a way to do what they feel necessary, if they are able. If someone wants to end their life, they will. So, why not allow a peaceful and humane means to do so? If this is truly their wish, given their circumstance, they should have the right to do so in a way that also allows the family and/or friends to be supportive and understanding. Euthanasia should especially be legal because of the people with a desire to end their life, but no means to. Who are we to say someone paralyzed from the neck down must go on living against their own will? Euthanasia should be a personal choice, not a concept debated over by people who are completely uninvolved in the first place.

Second Editorial Critique on a Blog

The editorial I chose is called “What Will We Tell Our Kids And Grandkids About Climate Change?” by Michael Smyer. Michael is a guest writer for the Huffington Post. In his piece, he generally intends for everyone who will listen to read it because he thinks they should all care about this issue. However specifically, his audience is people who have someone younger that should worry for their future.

In his article, he writes about his concern for climate change and how it will affect future generations. He specifically wonders what he would say to his little grandsons and their cousin one day if people now don’t do enough to help prevent the dangerous possibilities of climate change. He spends the rest of the article articulating different options of what he could tell his grandsons to explain everything that’s caused climate change and what people are and aren’t doing. He meaningfully ends his article saying that “when our kids and grandkids ask us what we did about climate change, we need to have a simple, true answer: Our best“ (Smyer).

Michael’s main argument is that climate change will without a doubt have negative consequences if people continue to push it aside and not take significant action. Michael seems to value the environment, but more importantly, how the environment can affect humans and what kind of impact a neglected environment could have on the people that will be around to see the repercussions. Regarding the government, he explains that in order for citizens to do their part, one of the main ways to help would be to elect officials that have these values and that would see these changes through.

Michael verbally cites several sources of evidence when explaining how bad climate change is getting. He provides the link to a chart from Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. He discusses a poll from the Pew Research Center. He gives results from Ikea’s Climate Change Behaviour Index. He also borrows ideas from several experts in the field, giving their name and even the title of their book, if applicable.

Personally, I think this was a very successful argument. The basic ideas are convincing with the sufficient evidence as well as his ability to make his opinions relatable and apply to everyone’s life. I don’t often consider the affects of climate change or how I can help, but now, I feel like I want to get involved and do what I can. I already had the basic belief of leaving the world better than you found it before reading this article, so Michael’s argument has not required me to rethink anything I believe.

Editorial Critique

The editorial I chose is titled “Make My Sexual Assault Matter” by Mara Gay. Mara is a member of the New York Times editorial board. In her article, she begins by addressing Christine Blasey Ford’s naming of Mark Judge as “an alleged witness and accomplice in her assault” (Gay). She then goes on to relay a few details of her own assault, and how until now, she had never felt the need to recount her story because she thought it was unimportant due to how frequent the occurrence was for women. Finally, she explains her opinion of how she thinks men (specifically the ones in our government) aren’t doing their part to end this or at least fight against it.

Ms. Gay’s target audience is obviously all women, first and foremost, to rally them together and relate to them. Even more specifically, she is reaching out to women who have some sort of connection to sexual assault. However, it’s also written for men to read and hear and contemplate. And finally, it seems like she intends to spread general awareness and for everyone to hear her message and support the cause.

At the core of the article, Ms. Gay’s basic argument is for people, men specifically, to believe women when they tell their sexual assault stories, because currently, not enough people do. Focusing in on the specific situation at hand, she gives several examples of groups or people that she thinks need to take responsibility and do better. Regarding the United States’ government, she includes Congress, U.S. senators, and lawmakers in her list. This points to her next argument that even the U.S. government isn’t doing their part, and that to make any sort of positive progress, the first step is to believe the women but it is not enough to stop there. She thinks that even if you believe the stories, you must also act on that belief. Gay’s deeper argument is that the U.S. government is prioritizing popularity over what morally should be done. The evidence she gives for this is how the senators that say they believe Dr. Blasey are voting or Kavanaugh anyway.

I think this is a successful argument. Although many of my own, previous beliefs lie in Mara Gay’s words, I had never really considered who was responsible or should be held accountable, other than who literally assaulted the victims. It is commonly known that sexual assault happens often and that not a whole lot is being done about the issue, so Gay already has those generally known statistics working in her favor which are a huge backbone in her argument. However, with the way she writes, she also does a good job of being relatable and calling upon many different sets of audiences to have a reason to listen and feel something in support of her arguments.

The political implication in this article is that the U.S. government, is still male-driven. And when it comes to who “wins” in the political process, what should seem to make a difference, unfortunately does not.

FEMA Stopped Paying For Hotels For Displaced Puerto Ricans

On September 20, 2018, The Huffington Post published an article by Sarah Ruiz-Grossman titled FEMA Stopped Paying For Hotels For Displaces Puerto Ricans. Now Some Are Homeless. Sarah is an Associate Reporter for Impact at the Huffington Post. This article is a brief story concerning the unfortunate and devastating new consequences of the Puerto Rican families who were affected by Hurricane Maria in 2017. This story is important to read and spread because it makes people aware of a situation that could be helped with increasing attention.

When Hurricane Maria hit Puerto Rico about a year ago, many families’ homes were destroyed, and they were left without a place to live or a source of income. Luckily, the Federal Emergency Management Agency had since been funding shelter for these families such as hotels. However, since September 14^th, the government has shut down this program for the victims of Maria. The ones who had been making use of this assistance are now left literally homeless because most, even with their kids also working full time, have not been able to make enough to get a place on their own.

Introduction Post

Hey y'all!!