Blog Stage 8: Comment on a Colleague's Work #2

In her July 30th post, The Circle of Killing Someone Who Killed Someone, Caitlin Burnette of Current Views on Government News argues against the use of capital punishment. My classmate argues that it should be eradicated because it is immoral, hypocritical, and doesn't serve justice. I fully agree with her stance on this often debated issue.

The death penalty is not only wrong but it is incredibly unproductive and expensive. Inmates can wait on death row for years after sentencing. Maintaining death row prisoners costs taxpayers $90,000 more per year than non-death row inmates. Not only is is extremely costly in the economic sense, but as Caitlin pointed out, it's not uncommon for innocent men and women to be sentenced to death. Life in prison is not only a more economical approach for taxpayers, but it leaves opportunity to undo the damage of unfair sentencing.

Caitlin's argument is extremely solid because it effectively approaches the argument from multiple angles. Her use of statistical evidence and linking to outside sources expands and credits her argument further. By bringing in the Eighth Amendment, she brings in evidence directly from our nation's founders that supports her argument that capital punishment is immoral and flat-out un-American. Finally, by pointing out the hypocrisy inherent in the death penalty, Caitlin is offering a logical reason to support an end to capital punishment, offering a plausible alternative and effectively closing the argument.

Blog Stage 7: Affirmative Action Means Equality Opportunity

On March 6, 1961, President John F. Kennedy issued Executive Order #10925, which required government contractors to take "affirmative action" to ensure that applicants are employed without regard to their "race, creed, color, or national origin." This major step toward ensuring equality in the work place was perpetuated by Kennedy's successor, President Lyndon B. Johnson. Johnson extended affirmative action's scope by banning discrimination on the basis of sex. Affirmative action as it is often debated over today refers to the policy of favoring racial minorities and women in the college application process. It is absolutely necessary today because the history of racial inequality under the law in the United States continues to negatively impact the lives of racial minorities.

It's been over 150 years since slavery was abolished under the 13th amendment, yet its roots remain prevalent in modern American society. And while the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ended legal discrimination in the United States, institutional racism is alive and well. As of 2015, the high school graduation rate for white students was 88%, and 75% for black students. An even smaller number goes on to pursue higher education. This is with affirmative action in place. The legacy of slavery and discrimination that followed it has prevented many black Americans and other racial minorities from escaping its cycle. The median household income for white Americans is nearly double that of black Americans. As of 2013, 39% of black children live in poverty. This is no coincidence, and affirmative action is an effort to break the cycle and ensure that all Americans are given an equal shot at prosperity.

By no means does being a racial or ethnic minority equal an automatic acceptance. Affirmative action allows universities to give qualified minority students an opportunity to receive an education. The legal outright discrimination against these students that has plagued our nation from its birth until the late twentieth century has prevented such an occurrence. As a white American it might be easy to point the finger and paint affirmative action as discriminatory and unfair. But in reality, all is does is give everyone an equal opportunity at achieving success and the American dream. It's in place because white Americans are already given an advantage. What's so discriminatory about that?

Blog Stage 6: Comment on a Colleague's Work #1

In my classmate's blog, "A Real Nation," their editorial, Winners not losers, points out the lack of bipartisan cooperation within Congress and its detrimental effects to the American people. They argue that party allegiance has prevented most members of the Legislative Branch to stand up for what they believe is right or coming to compromises in fear of angering members of their party and risking reelection chances. They believe that this lack of bipartisanship has prevented our nation from improving and addressing issues within the American democratic system.

I agree fully with my classmate's overall argument. Especially in times like these, particularly regarding the position of the Affordable Care Act in Congress, cooperation between the Democratic and Republican party is pivotal to solve issues and progress our nation. Congress hasn't agreed on a bill to replace the ACA if it is repealed because the Republican party refuses to collaborate with the Democrats in Congress to come to a compromise. This isn't said enough and I am glad that my classmate pointed out how unproductive this lack of collaboration is making our government.

Their argument is strong and they don't tiptoe around the issue, which I admire. However, I wish there was a bit more evidence and exemplification to back up my colleague's argument. There is constant chaos in Congress and I wish they had brought more of that to light. Additionally, multiple members of Congress have obviously failed to defy their party even when they fail to align with their party on a particular issue. Bringing in a specific example, like how Donald Trump promotes such an occurrence, would solidify my classmate's argument.

Overall, this is an excellent editorial. It brings up an issue that many are afraid to talk about and my colleague executes it brilliantly. While it could use more specific evidence, it does an excellent job of getting straight to the point and exposing a serious issue that is a threat to democracy.

Blog Stage 5: The Attack on Freedom of the Press

As of July 24, 2017, President Trump has tweeted the phrase, "FAKE NEWS," 73 times. In the first tweet, posted on December 10, 2016, Trump attacks CNN, using the phrase for the first time. This was only the beginning of Trump's war on mainstream media. Whether it's from the "failing" New York Times or the "low rated" MSNBC, if a news outlet ever critiques the president, he makes sure to call them out for it. While these petty tweets lack substance or evidence of false news stories, they perpetuate contempt for the media. Over 80% of Republicans believe that the mainstream press is full of fake news. Just by scrolling to the bottom of a Washington Post or CNN article or tweet, you will find Trump admirers blindly regurgitating the content of his tweets. This rhetoric is dangerous for journalism and threatens freedom of the press.


Trump is right, fake news is out there. People write false stories all the time. There are plenty of unreliable "news" sources that spew nothing but false information. But the problem with Trump's Twitter blasts are the stories and sources he is attacking. Leading up to the 2016 presidential election, very few sources predicted a Trump victory. This isn't because they hated him or wished for him to lose, it was simply based on polls and other projections. The New York Times predicted that there was an 85% chance that Hillary Clinton would win the White House. Even Fox News failed to predict a Trump victory. Here's what Trump tweeted one week after his inauguration:

Last January, stories began breaking of the Trump administration's ties to the Russian government. The saga began as sources claimed that Michael Flynn, then the National Security Advisor of the United States, had been in contact with the Russian ambassador prior to his appointment. Trump's Twitter exploded, as he once again accused The New York Times, ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC of being fake for running these stories. But on February 13th, 2017, Michael Flynn resigned. In his letter of resignation he writes: "I inadvertently briefed the vice-president elect and others with incomplete information regarding my phone calls with the Russian ambassador."

It's safe to say that by crying "FAKE NEWS," Trump is attempting to draw attention away from his imperfections and downfalls. By labeling stories and sources as false and unreliable, he is denying that his administration could do any wrong. The job of journalists is to dig up corruption and expose what is wrong with America as they have for years. Every president has fallen victim to it, and some have too retaliated out of frustration. The fact that Americans can freely criticize their leaders is what makes America great. While the branches of government keep each other in check, the press holds them accountable. The increasing number of Americans who believe in the overwhelming presence of false journalism is proof that Trump's false claims are far-reaching and endanger the future of free press.

“Every president will try to use the press to his best advantage and to avoid those situations that aren’t to his advantage. The press can take care of itself quite nicely, and a president should be able to take care of himself as well.” -President Ronald Reagan, 1988 White House Correspondents Dinner

For a complete list of @realDonaldTrump's tweets featuring the phrase, "fake news," click here.

Blog Stage 4: Illegal Immigration...and Trump.

In the Washington Monthly blog post, What Trump Doesn't Understand About Immigration From Mexico, James P. Rooney argues that the construction of a large border wall between the United States and Mexico would not be efficient in preventing the flow of undocumented immigrants from Mexico. In the article, Rooney offers American policymakers different alternatives that they could take to curb illegal immigration.

Rooney's evidence is beyond sufficient in supporting his argument. He compares the current situation on the U.S.-Mexico border to the Israeli border wall, which has been unsuccessful in preventing the influx of Palestinian immigrants in search of work. Rooney also provides plenty of statistical evidence within the States that confirms the failure of the current border wall, as migrants have taken more dangerous routes through freight trains and dangerous terrain. He cites that over 6,000 hopeful immigrants have died in the Sonoran desert in order to avoid the wall. Rooney also provides multiple graphs that support his evidence and strengthen his overall argument.

Additionally, Rooney takes his argument a step further by proposing solutions. Rather than just bashing Trump and Republican policymakers for ignoring the evidence and jumping to conclusions, Rooney offers up some alternatives that could actually reduce illegal immigration that have been successful in the past. Statistics show that a majority of illegal immigrants are either seeking temporary work but are unable to obtain a work visa, or are seeking a permanent life in the United States but cannot obtain citizenship because they do not have family in the U.S. or do not possess a certain skill set. Rooney compares this to the situation to the U.S. response to the influx of illegal Cuban immigrants in the 1990's, where the number of Cubans who were let into a visa-granting lottery increased dramatically. Immediately, the number of undocumented Cuban immigrants dropped. Rooney also proposes expanding the temporary work visa program, which would also decrease the number of migrants seeking illegal entry into the United States.

Rooney is qualified to make this argument. He is a Boston attorney and the president of Massachusetts Citizens Against the Death Penalty. While his work isn't directly related to immigration, his experience as an attorney may have exposed him to immigration cases and it is likely that his education has qualified him to speak on such issues.

Rooney's blog post is an excellent introduction to the illegal immigration craze that has been rattled since Donald Trump promised during his campaign that he would build a wall stretching the U.S.-Mexico border once elected. Rooney's argument is well crafted and well supported. It refutes the claims made by the Trump administration simply by stating the facts and proposing a feasible solution that won't bust the budget and will actually work.

Blog Stage 3: Republicans Craft Health Care Plan To Screw Trump Voters

In the Huffington Post opinion article published on July 3rd, 2017, Republicans Craft Health Care Plan To Screw Trump Voters, economist Dean Baker argues that the repeal of the Affordable Care Act with the intention to replace it with the American Health Care Act, adamantly supported by President Trump, would be detrimental to a large number of Trump voters. In the piece, Baker argues that it is ironic that in the states where he won by the largest margins, many of Trump's voters would be negatively affected by the repeal and potential replacement, which would reduce the number of Americans with access to Medicaid. Trump carried white working class men 71 to 23 percent. However, this demographic has benefitted immensely since the expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare, particularly in red states like Kentucky and West Virginia. Baker claims that "no one is angrier at the white working class than Republicans in Congress."

Although this article is only Baker's opinion regarding the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, his argument is not groundless. He provides plenty of statistical evidence correlating the demographic of Trump's voters with their reliance on the current health care act. While the basis of his argument is strong, his analysis is surface level. Multiple times Baker explicitly states that the Republican party is purposely attacking its own voters without addressing, proposing, or analyzing a reason why the white working class voted for Trump in the first place. To take his argument a step further, Baker could have discussed the epidemic of uninformed voters or analyzed the ways candidates can deceive voters.

Baker's intended audience was likely Trump voters in general, as his argument implies that he wants them to realize that many of them aren't benefitting from Trump's policy, not limited to health care. However, given that this piece was posted on a left-wing blog, this article could be directed toward Democrats as well in order to paint Congress and President Trump in a bad light.

Baker is extremely well qualified to write a piece regarding the topic. According to his bio, Baker is an acclaimed economist and has been the co-director of the Center for Economic Policy Research since 1979. It is likely that his knowledge of economics and political policy helped him make the connection between the white working class and their dependence on Medicaid.

Overall, Baker's article is extremely insightful and shows a side of Trump voters that aren't often exposed in left or right-wing media. Additionally, it humanizes these voters and shows how their own candidate can leave a negative impact on their lives. While it lacks deeper analysis, it leaves room for the reader to investigate and form their own opinions on the reasons these voters were so blind to the consequences of electing Trump for president.

Blog Stage 2: The Trump Russia Saga Continues

In the New York Times article published on July 11th, 2017, Russian Dirt On Clinton? 'I Love It,' Donald Trump Jr. Said, Jo Becker, Adam Goldman, and Matt Apuzzo create a clear timeline of Trump Jr.'s exchange with a Russian lawyer who potentially had information that could damage Hillary Clinton's presidential run. In the emails, Trump Jr. seeks to meet with the lawyer, replying to the offer, "I love it especially later in the summer." Although Trump Jr. has publicly described the exchange as trivial, he revealed to Sean Hannity that he "probably would have done things a little differently."

This article is worth reading because it contains nothing but the facts. It lays out what the White House and Donald Trump Jr. himself have confirmed about the exchange, while leaving room for speculation up to the reader. While it hasn't been confirmed that the Trump campaign colluded with Russian officials prior to the 2016 election, recent evidence has raised plenty of questions about the White House's ties to Russia that are worth investigating.

Welcome!

Welcome to Lady Liberty! I hope you enjoy my blog!