Blog Stage Eight: Comment on a colleague's work #2

On June 30, 2016, one of my fellow classmates, Jung Moon Yoon, put up an entry on his blog Jung Moon Yoon US Government. On the entry Yoon argued that Gay people have the right to serve the country just as well as other people. Yoon emphasizes the importance of being in a nation that protects and accepts all of its people. Using a NewYorkTimes article as a reference, Yoon successfully translates his thoughts over this topic to the readers. I agree with Yoon's stance, because even though not everyone may be stoked about accepting transgender or gay people as their equals, these transgender and gay people are actually just as much human as everyone else, and they deserve the rights and protection of the government equally. Some people may have a hard time relating to gay people or transgender people, but at the end of the day, you and the gay or transgender person next to you, or across from you, or behind you are all Americans who have the duty but also the privilege to serve the country. Although Yoon's argument was very convincing I must admit that it was difficult to distinguish whether this was an original editorial or a commentary of another article. As a reader, I think I was confused about this because it was concerning an article that talked "about how openly-gay individuals are allowed to serve in the military now.", meaning this had already happened. However, I wasn't too bothered because Yoon still gave his opinion and expressed and explained his support for both the article and the nation's decision allowing transgender individuals to serve the nation and seek the nation's protection in return. Overall I believe Yoon's argument was very concise yet strong and appealing to the readers.

Blog Stage Seven: Original editorial or commentary #2

In 2015 alone, there were 372 mass shootings, including 64 school shootings in America alone. In 2015 alone, some 13,286 people were killed by firearms just in the US. In 2015 alone, there were no significant changes to our gun laws. We are half way through the year of 2017, and yet we are still struggling with the issue that should have been controlled centuries ago. We cannot sit still any longer; we must strengthen our gun laws.

On June 12, 2016, a man came into a gay bar and began shooting at innocent people; marking our history as the most deadliest mass shooting in the United States. Although some people felt that gun laws must be enforced before, after this traumatic event, many Americans and Politicians began to seek change in our laws. Or so they say. Although this event was the most deadliest mass shooting in the United States, it is not the first shooting to gain the nation's attention. December 2, 2015, two assailants killed 14 people and injured 22 in San Bernardino, California. June 18, 2015, a man ran into a church killing nine people in the middle of prayer at Charleston, South Carolina. December 14, 2012, a man forced his way into an elementary school, shooting at first graders, killing 20 first graders and six teachers in Newtown Connecticut. July 20, 2012, a man begins shooting in a movie theater, killing 12 and injuring over fifty. The list goes on and on. The shooting in Orlando may have had the most victims, however unfortunately at the current rate we are at, the Orlando shooting can be expected to eventually just become another shooting to add onto our list. When will our government finally realize we need to step up our gun laws?!

A NewYorkPost claimed that in a poll taken on June 21- 27, 2016, "59 percent favor an assault weapons ban, even though only 47 percent said the ban would work and 49 percent said it “would not be effective.”. Fifty-seven percent said it’s too easy to buy a gun, and 62 percent said “expanding background checks would help reduce gun violence.”". Some may argue that sticter gun laws would not do much, arguing that those who seek violence will get their way around the laws, however when comparing the statistics, America has the greatest ratio of deaths caused by gunfire to all deaths.

                                    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34996604

Our problem with shootings may require more than just stricter gun laws; our issue may even be embedded deep in our culture. Our solution is not clear yet, but something else is: We cannot just sit still anymore, we must make a change, and it begins with out gun laws. For the hopes of a brighter future, I cannot emphasize more how much more we need to change our gun laws for the better. 

Stage Six: Comment on a colleague’s work #1

On June 20th, 2016, one of my fellow classmates, Karlie Fitzsimmons, put up an entry titled Blog Stage Five: Don't Vote for Trump on her blog the Youth of Our Government. Fizsimmons argues that Trump is ultimately up to no good for America, that he is only an impulsive, vindictive racist man. Although it seemed like her argument was very biased as she only criticized Trump and failed to mention the flaws of Clinton as well, her argument was very convincing through the way she organized and supported her claims. By adding a rhetorical question "How can Americans be confident in someone who can’t even handle their own money when we as a nation are 19 trillion dollars in debt?" she even made me question whether Trump is really fit for the office. In addition her use of other sources from USA Today, Huffington post, and even Trumps own book, has made her appear as a knowledgeable individual who knows quiet a bit about Trump. Reading her blog, I've put together that Trump is a threat to every U.S Citizen, the Democratic party, our economy, our relations to other countries, and to other races in even our country.

Although I think she could have mentioned why Clinton is a better candidate by comparing Clinton directly with Trump to strengthen her argument, and to convince even some Trump followers to re-evaluate both Trump and Clinton, I find that her argument was more than sufficient enough in expressing Fitzsimmon's thoughts.

Blog Stage Five: Let's change our election days!

The United State's government is run by the people and for the people yet the great irony is that only 50% of the American people are taking up the opportunity to vote. Many may argue that the voter turnout is low because many people (approximately 50% of the american people) do not care to place a vote. This however is not an appropriate answer. The key issues is that America is the only democracy to hold its elections on Tuesdays while other democracies vote on the weekends, or have a day off work to vote, or have more than one day to vote, ultimately restricting many Americans from even having the chance to vote. Though this argument seems to be well acknowledged by the government, the government has not done much due to two reasons: It's almost a tradition to vote on Tuesdays since 1845, and changing the voting day or making them a holiday, would create a great change in our economy.

The tradition of voting on the first Tuesdays of Novembers was establish in 1845 when it made sense to many Americans living on farms to rest on the Sabbath, travel on Monday, vote on Tuesday, and to travel back home on Wednesday. Yet as Eric Black puts it, it "Made some sense in 1845. Makes little sense now.", the vast majority of Americans are no longer farmers, we no longer have to travel far to vote, and this tradition no longer helps Americans vote but rather restricts many of them. A study has shown that when non-voters are asked why they haven't voted yet, the two common answers have been "schedule conflicts" or "too busy", poor excuses, however we must greatly consider them and find a solution. Perhaps a better alternative could be making the first Tuesdays of Novembers a national holiday, or perhaps changing the the day to a Saturday or extending the voting period for the entire weekend. Some individuals may be against these alternatives, arguing we must not change our traditions, or bother the economy, arguing that we're doing 'just fine', however I think that it is more important to provide everyone at least the opportunity to vote, and thus I'm arguing that we should change our elections days.

Blog Stage 4: Substantial commentary or criticism #2

On June 16, 2016, CounterPunch put up a blog entry Can Hillary Win Over Bernie Voters written by Ted Rall. Not long ago has Hillary won the democratic presidential nomination, yet it seems as if she is already losing the respect and interest of many of Bernie's supporters. Although Bernie and Hillary were both running for the democratic party, and it would seem like the Bernie supporters would slide their votes now for Hillary, this does not seem to be the case.

Ted Rall seems to be speaking directly to the public, or more specifically, those eligible to vote, and indirectly to Hillary Clinton. Ted Rall informs the public of Hillary's failure to win over many of the Bernie supporters so that the public may re-evaluate Clinton as a candidate. Although Ted Rall uses the pronoun "You," when referring to the public, he is also indirectly hinting at Clinton to change her ways, warning "It’s obvious to everyone that Hillary Clinton will need as many Bernie Sanders supporters as possible in November if she indeed becomes her party’s nominee.".

Although I have never heard of Ted Rall, or of his writings, or even of CounterPunch itself, I can argue that Ted Rall's credibility is sufficient enough to convince many readers. In fact, Ted Rall starts the blog entry with "Unless you follow politics closely, you could be forgiven for thinking that Hillary Clinton has locked up the Democratic presidential nomination. This is not true.". From the start he increases his credibility, ensuring that his words are reliable and that he is knowledgeable because he follows politics very closely.

He argues that Hillary is not living up as a presidential candidate as he condemns her for accepting bribes of big insurance companies, and for her  "I have nothing to learn from Bernie and he'll be lucky to get a speech at the convention" attitude. Ted Rall is not simply angry will Hillary, he hopes in making a change in how candidates run in elections.

Reading this blog, I've noticed a complete different style of writing. Previously I've critiqued a New York Times editorial, however I've noticed that Ted Rall writes much more bluntly and gets to his point right away. In some ways I see that Ted Rall's style of writing allows him to convey his true thoughts on presidential candidates and his opinions about this presidential election. Personally, I think Ted Rall's points were very convincing. I had thought Hillary Clinton would have actually won a lot of more Bernie supporters, however now I can now see why she would have some trouble doing so.

Stage 3 : Critique an editorial or commentary from a national newspaper

On June 13 2016, New York Times published an editorial Orlando and Trump's America  written by Roger Cohen. In the editorial, Roger Cohen expresses his concerns towards terrorist activities such as the most recent tragedy in a Gay Club in Orlando that left 50 dead and many more injured. The shooter, Omar Mateen, aged 29 and American citizen of an Afghan descent, has "set a spark to a time of inflammable anger" in both politics and in the  American people. According to Cohen, Mateen did much more than wrongfully take the lives of many people; he ushered “the world into a downward spiral of escalating violence,” and has forced America to review the terrorist activities.

Mateen was not the first to bring Islamic terrorist activities. Roger Cohen supports his argument by bringing in evidence and other past events like the murder of Theo van Gogh in Amsterdam. Claiming that the Obama Administration failed to control these patterns of terrorist activities by ‘doing nothing’ in fear of worsening the conditions, Cohen argues that the activities would eventually bring support to the Trump’s call for a temporary ban on non-American Muslims entering the United States.

Although Cohen mentions that calling jihadi terrorists “violent extremists” is true but entirely inadequate ;calling them in such ways is like “calling Nazism a reaction to German humiliation in World War I”. Cohen, also clarifies that “It is poisonous to blame all the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims for this crisis of their religion”.  Although I agree with Cohen in that the activities of a small group of Muslims should not define and discriminate the whole Muslim race, I do not believe America should sit still waiting for another attack.

Cohen’s argument was convincing; we shouldn't discriminate Muslims as a whole but we cannot be vulnerable and sit still while the situation worsens. In some aspects, Cohen is speaking directly to politicians, urging them to take a step forward, and to american citizens to support his argument.

Stage 2

In the most recent New York Times article Obama Endorses Hillary Clinton, and Urges Democrats to Unite, Obama, the current president of United States, publicly announces his support of Hillary Clinton stating "I don't think there's ever been someone so qualified to hold this office.". In the article, Julie Hirschfeld Davis, the writer,  brings attention to how this small announcement would affect many Americans in their views towards Clinton, and possibly even change their votes for Clinton. Although Obama may not have necessarily favored Clinton over Sanders, he realizes that she has won the democratic race and thus he must support her to finish the election. This article reveals that even our own leaders are controlled and pressured to act a certain way. In the 2008 election, Obama and Clinton seemed to have tension between them as they were running against each other, but why is Obama all of a sudden  congratulating her on "making history" stating"I'm with her, I am fired up, and I cannot wait to get out there to campaign for Hillary."? This article allows the readers to notice our own leaders are also pressured and controlled to act a certain way, to speak a certain way, and to even fight a certain way.