Following our 4th participation topic, I came across "Dear Texas: Stay out of my health decisions." by Nicolette Loisel. My peer explains and analyzes two other restrictions against abortions in Texas, asserting that these restrictions undermines a woman's constitutional right of choice. My colleague cites two other Texas abortion restrictions to not only display the stupidity of these restrictions, but also to prove that she has the knowledge to address this topic.
My peer states that one restriction requires that women seeking an abortion must have a counseling session and an ultrasound 24 hours before the procedure. You would assume that the goal of this requirement is to ensure the safety of women during their procedure, but she exposes its true goal to prevent the abortion from occurring. Furthermore, my colleague comments upon the undue burden this restriction places on women and how it invades the privacy between women and their doctors. Women have a reason behind their decision to have an abortion. Why must the government impede as though they doubt women have the capacity to make correct decisions?
My colleague then moves on to address a second restriction, which requires that minors have parental permission before receiving an abortion. Of course, a teenager should discuss such a matter with their parents, but it should be for the purpose of informing their parents of their decision or ask for their assistance, not to have their parents make the choice for them. A teenager has the awareness and knowledge to decide what they believe is best for them. Like my peer states, this choice is no one's but the woman's, young or old, seeking the abortion.
My classmate asserts that these restrictions aren't solely about the abortion; they're about a woman's right to be in charge of her own body. It's time to again say no to the regulation of our bodies. People will have varying opinions about abortions, but does the government have the right to force their opinions on women?
Tuesday, July 5, 2016
Wednesday, June 29, 2016
The Throne, The Crown, and The Subjects
Needing another subject to argue about, I find myself aimlessly wandering through my previous blog posts. I realized that both of the New York Times articles I critiqued argue about the unity of the Democratic party. The authors of both articles have one goal: to never hear the words "President Trump." So I took the matter into my hands and asked myself "Should Donald Trump be president?"
The first thing that should be noted is Trump's (Expensive) Immigration Plan. Donald Trump has suggested that the federal government immediately fully enforce the current immigration law and took a jab at President Obama in stating that he could do so in 18 months—far shorter than how long it would take Obama. However, the American Action Forum estimates that doing so would cost the government from $400 billion to $600 billion, shrink the labor force by 11 million, reduce the GDP by $1.6 trillion, and take 20 years to complete. Immigration is an enormous source of economic vitality. Enforcing the immigration law not only harms the United States economy, but also the social diversity of a country that is known for its rich ethnic diversity. Trump claims that he can fix our economy, but he would clearly just bring our economy to ruins.
A big issue the United States has been facing is same-sex marriage. In its midst, is the Orlando shooting, the largest mass shooting in America. With 49 lives lost, people are supposed to come together and show strength and unity. However, Trump did the opposite. Rather than offering sincere condolences, Trump takes the opportunity to boast about his powers of foresight, blame President Obama, and demonize American Muslims. He rejects finding solutions in favor of placing blame—throwback to fights over who gets to go down the slide first during kindergarten recess and timeouts. Furthermore, blaming President Obama shows Trump's lack of respect for the United States as a nation. If Trump can't respect the person who represents the United States, how can he respect its citizens? Based on his boasts, it's clear that Trump wants a throne, a crown, and subjects ready to carry out his every wish in fear of deportation. The frosting on my dump the Trump cake would be the display of his racism. He demonizes American Muslims, stating that they are all terrorists and pledging that he will ban Muslims, yes all 1.6 billion of them, from entering the United States. Basically, if Muslims already residing in America were allowed to stay, Trump could very well strip them of their constitutional rights.
Are we, the people, really going to let a man who won't respect the U.S. Constitution or any of us claim the title as the President of the United States?
The first thing that should be noted is Trump's (Expensive) Immigration Plan. Donald Trump has suggested that the federal government immediately fully enforce the current immigration law and took a jab at President Obama in stating that he could do so in 18 months—far shorter than how long it would take Obama. However, the American Action Forum estimates that doing so would cost the government from $400 billion to $600 billion, shrink the labor force by 11 million, reduce the GDP by $1.6 trillion, and take 20 years to complete. Immigration is an enormous source of economic vitality. Enforcing the immigration law not only harms the United States economy, but also the social diversity of a country that is known for its rich ethnic diversity. Trump claims that he can fix our economy, but he would clearly just bring our economy to ruins.
A big issue the United States has been facing is same-sex marriage. In its midst, is the Orlando shooting, the largest mass shooting in America. With 49 lives lost, people are supposed to come together and show strength and unity. However, Trump did the opposite. Rather than offering sincere condolences, Trump takes the opportunity to boast about his powers of foresight, blame President Obama, and demonize American Muslims. He rejects finding solutions in favor of placing blame—throwback to fights over who gets to go down the slide first during kindergarten recess and timeouts. Furthermore, blaming President Obama shows Trump's lack of respect for the United States as a nation. If Trump can't respect the person who represents the United States, how can he respect its citizens? Based on his boasts, it's clear that Trump wants a throne, a crown, and subjects ready to carry out his every wish in fear of deportation. The frosting on my dump the Trump cake would be the display of his racism. He demonizes American Muslims, stating that they are all terrorists and pledging that he will ban Muslims, yes all 1.6 billion of them, from entering the United States. Basically, if Muslims already residing in America were allowed to stay, Trump could very well strip them of their constitutional rights.
Are we, the people, really going to let a man who won't respect the U.S. Constitution or any of us claim the title as the President of the United States?
Wednesday, June 22, 2016
Comment on "Is This Country Actually Anti-Gun Control?"
Reading through my classmates' blogs, I stumbled across a post that caught my eye titled "Is This Country Actually Anti-Gun Control?" by Jacob Greenly. My peer analyzes the United States's reaction to the Orlando shooting to support that although American citizens are not actually anti-gun control, United States politicians are.
My colleague states that Democrats are arguing for the discussion of gun regulation bills, while Republicans are focusing on who's to blame for these recurring killings rather than finding a solution. He addresses this widening gap between Democrats and Republicans in response to the Orlando shooting, asserting that America is land divided by guns. He then states that Republicans are anti-gun control because they are funded by the National Rifle Association. My classmate then moves to critique this reasoning and argues that if politicians want these massacres to stop, they must accept that although there may be consequences, standing up for what is best for the country will be worthwhile in the long run.
However, this country is not made up of solely politicians. There are every day citizens like you and I and my colleague moves to address what the people want by citing the results of a poll conducted by Pew Research Center to not only prove that the people are not anti-gun control, but also to prove that he has the credibility and knowledge to address this topic. Furthermore, my peer comments on how the American citizens are more unified than the people they elected to represent them and that clearly, politicians must focus on stopping these massacres because that's what the people demand. Therefore, I completely agree with my colleague. Money may be important, but is it worth risking millions of lives for? Does politician greed really surpass the importance of American lives?
Sunday, June 19, 2016
To Care or Not To Care
As the number of uninsured United States residents grows to over 45 million, our world is seeing an increase in populations that can't afford healthcare. Rather than increasing the cost of healthcare, perhaps the cost should be completely eliminated. These two factors, money and health, seem to be directly related: The better the job, the better your health. The more money you have, the more time you have for recreation and exercise. The larger the wealth, the more healthy, organic fruits and vegetables you can purchase. Money means a better, healthier lifestyle and most importantly, medicine and healthcare. Unfortunately, not everyone has the money for good health. Considering this relationship, the evolution of bacteria, and population growth, should the United States government provide free healthcare?
About forty or fifty years ago, antibiotics could effectively treat various diseases. In the past two decades, scientists and healthcare works have seen evolved breeds of bacteria and viruses coded with antibiotic resistance, including Antibiotic-Resistant Mycobacterium Tuberculosis (TB) and Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA).The main cause may very well be the lack of professional opinion. People will overuse antibiotics because they don't know its effects and if it's suitable to cure their conditions. This can easily be solved if people could freely speak to healthcare professionals and allow them to prescribe medicine rather than believing that a certain antibiotic would cure them. For example, some people will take penicillin for a cold even though a cold is a virus that is not affected by antibiotics. Furthermore, people will stop taking these antibiotics once they feel better even if the antibiotic has not completely eliminated the bacteria or virus, allowing it to adapt to the antibiotic and develop resistance. These new strains of bacteria can be spread around the world through travel and contact. However, the development of antibiotic resistance could be prevented if a professional opinion was involved—if only seeking healthcare was free.
With a larger population of about 7.4 billion, people are forced to live closer together, making it easier for diseases to spread. As more and more people get sick, the demand for healthcare increases. With economic matters out of the way, such as insurance procedures and malpractice liability, healthcare professionals can focus on giving more quality care. Additionally, many people cannot afford any form of healthcare and are left to wait until these diseases take their lives. These diseases can easily be treated early with free physical checkups. Research shows that about 44 million Americans avoid these physicals because of the cost. Millions of people can be spared if the United States government provides free healthcare.
Furthermore, if too many people become ill, the United States government will not have a nation to govern. Eventually, the diseases will reach the government too and scientists just can't magically pull cures out of their top hats.
About forty or fifty years ago, antibiotics could effectively treat various diseases. In the past two decades, scientists and healthcare works have seen evolved breeds of bacteria and viruses coded with antibiotic resistance, including Antibiotic-Resistant Mycobacterium Tuberculosis (TB) and Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA).The main cause may very well be the lack of professional opinion. People will overuse antibiotics because they don't know its effects and if it's suitable to cure their conditions. This can easily be solved if people could freely speak to healthcare professionals and allow them to prescribe medicine rather than believing that a certain antibiotic would cure them. For example, some people will take penicillin for a cold even though a cold is a virus that is not affected by antibiotics. Furthermore, people will stop taking these antibiotics once they feel better even if the antibiotic has not completely eliminated the bacteria or virus, allowing it to adapt to the antibiotic and develop resistance. These new strains of bacteria can be spread around the world through travel and contact. However, the development of antibiotic resistance could be prevented if a professional opinion was involved—if only seeking healthcare was free.
With a larger population of about 7.4 billion, people are forced to live closer together, making it easier for diseases to spread. As more and more people get sick, the demand for healthcare increases. With economic matters out of the way, such as insurance procedures and malpractice liability, healthcare professionals can focus on giving more quality care. Additionally, many people cannot afford any form of healthcare and are left to wait until these diseases take their lives. These diseases can easily be treated early with free physical checkups. Research shows that about 44 million Americans avoid these physicals because of the cost. Millions of people can be spared if the United States government provides free healthcare.
Furthermore, if too many people become ill, the United States government will not have a nation to govern. Eventually, the diseases will reach the government too and scientists just can't magically pull cures out of their top hats.
Thursday, June 16, 2016
United We Stand Tall
Following Kristof's article about the relationship between Sanders and Clinton, I set out to learn more about the connection between the two. This goal led me to "The Hillary and Bernie Road Trip" by Gail Collins, also a columnist for the New York Times. Collins's perspective is strikingly similar to Kristof's when it comes to the ties between the Democratic candidates.
To open the article, Collins references the post-primary bonding between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in 2008 and acknowledges that Clinton-Sanders would be a tougher merge, suggesting that she not only realizes the difficulty of the situation, but also that she has the knowledge and credibility to address the presidential election. Clinton critiques the relationship between Obama and Clinton throughout the presidential election of 2008 and explains how it mirrors that of Sanders and Clinton. Collins then asserts that the first useful thing Sanders needs to do is to stop suggesting that Clinton stole the nomination.
Collins tells Sanders, a part of her target audience, that no one can complain about the role of superdelegates... Unless you're Donald Trump, who tries to welcome Sanders's followers to become his supporters with "open arms." Collins states that this was Trump's attempt to appear as a normal candidate but quickly dismissing that fact, suggesting that this is never going to last. Is Collins referencing Trump's ability to be a normal candidate or America if he wins the presidency? It almost seems to be both.
Returning to Democrats, the bulk of her targeted audience, Collins states that Clinton is already coming around on many of Sanders's views. With being pitted against Trump right around the corner, Clinton may have to resort to talk about uniting us all and being a president for all Americans, which basically means nothing because no one ever follows through on such a statement, referencing Zachary Taylor and and what he delivered.
Therefore, Collins argues that the only way for the Democrats to come out on top is if Sanders admits Clinton won fair and square with 16.2 million votes to 12.3 million. Although Collins hopes this confession will occur, she suggests that a bonding trip is in order if it does not—anything to keep Trump out of the White House.
To open the article, Collins references the post-primary bonding between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in 2008 and acknowledges that Clinton-Sanders would be a tougher merge, suggesting that she not only realizes the difficulty of the situation, but also that she has the knowledge and credibility to address the presidential election. Clinton critiques the relationship between Obama and Clinton throughout the presidential election of 2008 and explains how it mirrors that of Sanders and Clinton. Collins then asserts that the first useful thing Sanders needs to do is to stop suggesting that Clinton stole the nomination.
Collins tells Sanders, a part of her target audience, that no one can complain about the role of superdelegates... Unless you're Donald Trump, who tries to welcome Sanders's followers to become his supporters with "open arms." Collins states that this was Trump's attempt to appear as a normal candidate but quickly dismissing that fact, suggesting that this is never going to last. Is Collins referencing Trump's ability to be a normal candidate or America if he wins the presidency? It almost seems to be both.
Returning to Democrats, the bulk of her targeted audience, Collins states that Clinton is already coming around on many of Sanders's views. With being pitted against Trump right around the corner, Clinton may have to resort to talk about uniting us all and being a president for all Americans, which basically means nothing because no one ever follows through on such a statement, referencing Zachary Taylor and and what he delivered.
Therefore, Collins argues that the only way for the Democrats to come out on top is if Sanders admits Clinton won fair and square with 16.2 million votes to 12.3 million. Although Collins hopes this confession will occur, she suggests that a bonding trip is in order if it does not—anything to keep Trump out of the White House.
Friday, June 10, 2016
Divided We Fall
When pondering how to complete this blog post, my fingers led me back to the New York Times and Nicholas Kristof. I had followed Kristof's articles last year for nearly 5 months for an English class and remember agreeing with many of his articles—just as I do with the article I will find. Crossing my fingers, I searched Kristof's articles in hopes of finding a political piece and came across Sanders, Clinton, and er, President Trump?
Kristof clearly displays his support of Bernie Sanders, but then declares that Sanders has lost. Kristof then turns to critique Sanders and his supporters, stating that it's "time for him [Sanders] and his followers to stop sniping and start uniting." Kristof believes that although Sanders has lost, Sanders will support the Democratic ticket, but at the moment, Sanders is not following through.
Kristof argues that Democratic warfare must cease to keep Trump, a man antithetical to everything they stand for, away from the title of president. Kristof utilizes the results from a New York Times/CBS poll last month to not only fuel his argument, but also to show that he has the knowledge and credibility to address the presidential elections. Kristof emphasizes that because a fourth of Sanders's supporters would vote for Trump over Clinton in a Hillary Clinton-Donald Trump matchup, Sanders is not effectively uniting his followers to support Clinton. Although a fourth may not seem like a large portion, it is enough to give Trump the advantage over Clinton. Kristof asserts that even though Sanders and Clinton are not the same candidate, they have mostly similar views, especially in comparison to Trump, suggesting that Sanders' followers, his intended audience, should unite and support Clinton.
Furthermore, Kristof expresses his disapproval of how Sanders is defying his own values by not uniting his supporters. Not only did Sanders state that he would support the Democratic ticket, he also stated that he would do whatever it took to keep Trump out of office. Yet here he is, not following through on his statements and perhaps even aiding Trump gain the presidential throne. Despite this truth, Kristof still believes that defying history is what this campaign has been about and hopes that the Anti-Sanders does not become the face of the United States.
Monday, June 6, 2016
Does Heritage Interfere with Fair Judgement?
Upon opening the National Review, I encountered an article posted earlier that morning titled Trump's Outrageous Attack on Judge Curiel by Ian Tuttle.
Federal Judge Gonzalo Curiel is presiding over the lawsuit against Trump University. Late last week week, documents about Trump University representatives and their sketchy tactics to gain a large amount of money were released. These documents, Trump's realization that he's in trouble, and Curiel's choice to allow the case to proceed to trial have triggered an onslaught of heritage from Trump. Trump claims the Curiel has an absolute conflict when it comes to the lawsuit because he is of Mexican heritage, causing Tuttle to question who could preside over this lawsuit if Trump was convinced that any heritage was a factor unfair judgement. But is Trump's notion true? Does heritage interfere with fair judgement?
This article is a recommended read because it informs its audience of current events, especially with voting coming up right around the corner. Furthermore, the article concerns every United States citizen because everyone is linked to some form of heritage and is entitled to have knowledge upon Trump's notion and their own opinions about it.
Federal Judge Gonzalo Curiel is presiding over the lawsuit against Trump University. Late last week week, documents about Trump University representatives and their sketchy tactics to gain a large amount of money were released. These documents, Trump's realization that he's in trouble, and Curiel's choice to allow the case to proceed to trial have triggered an onslaught of heritage from Trump. Trump claims the Curiel has an absolute conflict when it comes to the lawsuit because he is of Mexican heritage, causing Tuttle to question who could preside over this lawsuit if Trump was convinced that any heritage was a factor unfair judgement. But is Trump's notion true? Does heritage interfere with fair judgement?
This article is a recommended read because it informs its audience of current events, especially with voting coming up right around the corner. Furthermore, the article concerns every United States citizen because everyone is linked to some form of heritage and is entitled to have knowledge upon Trump's notion and their own opinions about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)