Blog Stage 7: Original commentary

It appears as though the U.S. government has reached peak incompetence, in regard to the ethics infractions on the part of members of Trumps transition team. After taking a brief hiatus, Michael Flynn appears to be back in the news with now a handful of republican members openly coming out and condemning him and his actions. Although the Russian-interference-investigation is still under way, it is becoming clearer with each passing day that Michael Flynn committed treason- and likely did so in retaliation for his dismissal from the Obama administration. I, like many of my fellow Americans, want Flynn to get a penalty equal to that of anyone else in such a position. It is a crime that is punishable by fines, prison, and or the death penalty. The latter of which, although controversial, may be fitting for an individual such as Flynn- who betrayed the trust and safety of the American people, in such a reckless and careless way. If any other American committed the Crimes that Michael Flynn had, they would already be sitting on death row. There is a double standard that exists in our penal system where politicians seem to evade law and not face any consequences for their actions.

Blog Stage 6: Response to Hailey Kim

Dear Hailey,
I think it's important to bring attention to this matter because of it's broader impact. I agree that people deserve to be treated equally, no matter who they are. From the limited-bit that I know about the transition process, it is not something to be taken lightly. Transgender individuals have a tough enough time in our society, without passing laws that try to control everything from marriage to bathroom usage.
It seem's rather ironic that Trump, who rallies for smaller government, feels compelled to create and enforce laws concerning the most private aspects of people's lives. Looking at the situation more broadly, if such laws become the norm, they will need people to enforce them. It's not hard to imagine a slippery slope where guard's may become "appropriate" to enforce such laws- which in itself would likely result in numerous "police brutality" issues. If not guards, camera's with artificial identification programs might become the norm.
I think that passing laws that have to do with issues concerning bathroom habits is not only cruel but would open up the door to serious problems. The fact is that there is no evidence to suggest that transgender people sharing bathrooms with cisgender individuals lead's to any dangerous situations. As the old saying goes, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Blog Stage Five: Spicer gets Spicier

In reference to a Think-Progress article, "Out of Options, Spicer attacks Hillary, suggests Obama engaged in illegal surveillance," Sean Spicer appears to be losing his grip on his sanity. It has been almost a month since the President released the notorious "tweets" where he lied and made accusations that the former administration wiretapped Trump Tower. Since the tweets were made public, the President has made it a top goal to find evidence that supports his false claims. The sick little games that Trump likes to play with Spicer appear to be taking their toll on him and he seems to be unravelling in front of our very eyes. Sean Spicer arguably has one of the most difficult jobs in history: defending the indefensible and getting yelled at and scrutinized by the president post every meeting. Its no wonder why Spicer has come full circle to once again blame Trumps former opponent, Hillary Clinton, for... existing? Clinton has been out of the spotlight for months yet the press secretary can find something to criticize about her, before considering to critique his incompetent-mess of an employer. The criminal charges multiply daily because of the constant stream of leaks the are coming out of the administration. Rather than investigating the leakers and the substance of the leaks, the white house has made an attempt to overshadow the substance of the leaks in order to change the talking points. Sean Spicer's most recent technique for shifting the conversation, has been to make the argument that perhaps the clinton campaign is even closer to the Russian government than Trump. Clearly this is a white house that will never admit to fault.

Blog Stage 4:

The article that I chose to cover was called "The GOP Repeal Plan is Pretty Bad", written by David Harsanyi, and published by the National Review. Although this was my first time visiting the right-wing site, my first impression was that this was a very well made blog. The layout is attractive and well organized and the titles of the articles are vague enough that one would have to read them to confirm where the writer stands on the position. I believe that this blog targets young-educated citizens in our society and uses conspiracy theories and false assertions to try to muddy the waters between truth and lies. One thing that stood out to me about the article was that the writer had a complete lack of awareness in regard to the heavy backlash from people who rely on the ACA to survive. In truth, I believe that this site lacks credibility and it's existence is a threat to intelligence. David Harsanyi poses the question of whether something is better than nothing (the "something" being the GOP proposal). His conclusion is that the GOP bill is a victory in itself since it "halted federal funding of the nations largest abortion mill". This logic is what defines this blog for me: the lack of respect for women's health and the spread of fake news to advance agenda's.

Leo Ashner

The editorial piece that I read was entitled: Why Undoing Obamacare Will Be So Hard, by Steven Rattner. In his piece, he talks about the difficulties involved with the Republicans' goal of dismantling the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Rattner writes, "what is becoming increasingly clear is the extent to which Obamacare has become embedded in the American health care structure". He backs it up with numerous facts including the 23-26 million Americans who were able to purchase healthcare with Obamacare; who had not been able to afford healthcare prior. Another issue is that Republicans have made numerous promises that some of the most popular provisions of the act will be kept in tact, yet they also promised to cut the taxes that were used to finance those parts. It does not take an economist to realize that without funding, what's left of the A.C.A. will not be capable of supporting those popular provisions and Americans will be back to a time when people with previous medical conditions were unable to get medical insurance. Personally I agree with Steven Rattner and I believe that most rational people would as well. He frames out his argument well and offers a lot of detail. The intended audience for this piece is definitely liberals who are educated. When Mr. Rattner is not writing editorials in the New York Times, he is the Chairman of a investment advising firm that represents former mayor, Michael Bloomberg. His resume is impressive as he was formerly a wall-street financier who ended up being a councilor to the secretary of energy under President Obama. Steven Rattner is an interesting individual as one would not expect for a previous Wall-Street financier to care to preserve the Affordable Care Act, but this piece goes to show that a repeal wouldn't be bad for those that are current beneficiaries, but it would be bad in general.

Blog Stage 2: Stay on Immigration upheld

As many already are aware, Trump desperately wants to pass his anti immigration policies. The article that I read, Court Refuses to Reinstate Travel Ban, Dealing Trump Another Legal Loss, opens with news of the decision from the Federal Appeals Court that Trump's ban has officially been halted. The national government played an important role in upholding the ban's repeal. The decision to repeal the ban came from a Federal judge's ruling last week, issued in San Francisco. Although Trump brought the appeal before the Supreme court, their 4-4 tie allows the Federal judge's previous ruling to remain in effect. I believe that this article is a worthwhile read because it reminds people why Trump's Supreme Court pick is important. Had he already had his Supreme Court pick approved, the decision from San Francisco would have likely been overturned. The fight to stop the travel ban is clearly not over.

NYT Article

Introduction: According to my political ideology quiz, I am considered to be a "solid liberal", along with 15% of the population. Two particular traits of a solid liberal stood out to me and that is: being educated, and being optimistic as to the future of our world. That generally describes me perfectly which is why I find myself in a bit of a conundrum. I believe that the future is positive and that human decency and ingenuity can solve the problems that lie ahead. The difficulty that I have is in regard to the new president, Trump. His every move and action concerns me because he is creating unnecessary busy work for the next administration (who will surely work for much of their term to undo much of the damage). I am optimistic about the future but I also consider myself well informed and have reasons to worry. The uncertainty of the American way of life has led me to drop cable television and get my information through streaming sources. In this way, I am able to compare quality news organizations like: The Young Turks, Secular Talk, The David Pakman show, etc. Using streaming services, I am able to compare quality news to less credible, mainstream outlets: CNN, MSNBC, FOX. Aside from my interest in the subject matter, I enrolled in this class to satisfy a credit requirement. I am hoping to take advantage of the formal class setting to help solidify my understanding and beliefs on how our country works. Fortunately, on our civil liberty and current events quizzes, I did well. I am looking forward to being a part of this course.