Once again, I found an article on my classmate Abigail Clark's blog that resonated with some thoughts I'd had all week about Planned Parenthood. In her article, she makes a strong, concise argument as to why our fretting over Planned Parenthood is a waste of time and a laughably bad thing to get worked up over. I agree with her to the fullest extent, and all of the points she brought up are great food for thought.
The fact that we as a nation are still trying to "debate" something that has already been settled years ago is a fantastic example of entitlement among people who don't get what they want. It's also an example of willful ignorance, since PP's sole purpose isn't to serve as an abortion clinic. It's no secret that the organization provides vital health care services for women and multitudes of other preventative and educational services; the people who are against the prosperity of the clinic are simply choosing to brush off that fact so they can continue whining about something that probably doesn't have any affect on them or their lives.
With each passing day, I feel more and more strongly that the government is really trying to eradicate anything that holds even the possibility of a shred of well-being for its citizens. What's worse is that I truly have no idea what they think they'll be accomplishing if they take away a service that provides responsible and safe care for all patients. People will resort to illegal and unsafe methods of attaining care, and then what? Will they try to prevent black market and back alley procedures by passing an act or law? This mess could be solved in a much simpler way: don't take away or mess with organizations that are here to help.
I saw a headline on the Internet today (Dec. 4th) that read that Planned Parenthood has officially been cut off from federal funding, and although I didn't look into the full article, I hope that that isn't true. Knowing the media today and how they skew things, it could have been a click bait headline. In the event that it is true, I believe that the government is completely wasting their energy focusing on this organization and it leaves me worried that this is the type of thing the government is choosing to spend its time on. This whole ordeal is a telling sign of what will be to come if the White House goes back into the hands of conservatives and I'm not looking forward to having to deal with this country taking yet another step backwards in equality/critical thinking.
Friday, December 4, 2015
Monday, November 23, 2015
We Just Might Be Entering a Dystopia in 2016
Looks like Hollywood's obsession with adapting hit Young Adult Dystopia novels for the big screen has attracted a real life equivalent in the form of the 2016 presidential race.
While searching for inspiration to base this very editorial on, I found the perfect article on the New York Times' website about Trump's latest transgression at one of his own campaign events. Apparently, a Black Lives Matter protester that was present at the event was violently beaten by Trump's supporters. Trump responded to the commotion with a simple "Get him the hell out of here," the "him" of course referring to the protester. When asked to comment on the situation, he responded with, "Maybe he should have been roughed up, because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing." Let that sink in.
I really wanted to avoid writing an editorial on something negative, as I didn't want to fuel our society's outrage addiction by publishing a blog post on the Internet about something that will further anger people. But my point in talking about this specific situation is to bring some proper attention to the type of person that an alarmingly large portion of America wants to elect as their leader.
Trump has never been subtle about, well, anything. So many articles from endless news outlets are published and printed every week chronicling each of his controversial missteps that we've grown immune to his predictable personality by now. His Twitter account is even a parody of himself. But now, he just openly called an activist's desire for racial equality disgusting. And how are people responding? Are they responding at all? One could say they're responding by looking the other way and continuing their support for Trump anyway. Has our immunity to his behavior become a serious problem? Does the media play a role in our immunity? What will the elections (both Primary and Actual) uncover about America's latest desires for a leader? Is this real life?!
Trump's actions in the Primary alone are enough to garner concern for the future of our nation. His ideas and beliefs sound like something a leader directly out of a post-apocalytpic novel or movie would implement (Hunger Games, anyone? Abundance for the rich and poverty for everyone else sounds like just the course of action Trump wouldn't hesitate to take one day) and his followers/supporters are equally guilty/responsible for implementing a dystopian society upon the rest of us. Speaking of the rest of us, we need to, with a good conscious, think about what our society needs when voting in the upcoming election. Do we want to bring Panem to life and elect the beginning of a potential downfall of our society? That may sound dramatic, but when you look into what kind of person Trump is, I have no doubt that the nation will suffer at his hands if he wins. Of course, nothing in this blog post is truly new information (we all know Trump is scary and dense) but I felt the need to bring about the dystopia comparison to cement the fact that Trump will not be a healthy president. As for other societies I'd like to see America become, I'd much rather bring to life a utopian universe with dragons or Marvel heroes. Or student discounts on Netflix accounts, at least.
While searching for inspiration to base this very editorial on, I found the perfect article on the New York Times' website about Trump's latest transgression at one of his own campaign events. Apparently, a Black Lives Matter protester that was present at the event was violently beaten by Trump's supporters. Trump responded to the commotion with a simple "Get him the hell out of here," the "him" of course referring to the protester. When asked to comment on the situation, he responded with, "Maybe he should have been roughed up, because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing." Let that sink in.
I really wanted to avoid writing an editorial on something negative, as I didn't want to fuel our society's outrage addiction by publishing a blog post on the Internet about something that will further anger people. But my point in talking about this specific situation is to bring some proper attention to the type of person that an alarmingly large portion of America wants to elect as their leader.
Trump has never been subtle about, well, anything. So many articles from endless news outlets are published and printed every week chronicling each of his controversial missteps that we've grown immune to his predictable personality by now. His Twitter account is even a parody of himself. But now, he just openly called an activist's desire for racial equality disgusting. And how are people responding? Are they responding at all? One could say they're responding by looking the other way and continuing their support for Trump anyway. Has our immunity to his behavior become a serious problem? Does the media play a role in our immunity? What will the elections (both Primary and Actual) uncover about America's latest desires for a leader? Is this real life?!
Trump's actions in the Primary alone are enough to garner concern for the future of our nation. His ideas and beliefs sound like something a leader directly out of a post-apocalytpic novel or movie would implement (Hunger Games, anyone? Abundance for the rich and poverty for everyone else sounds like just the course of action Trump wouldn't hesitate to take one day) and his followers/supporters are equally guilty/responsible for implementing a dystopian society upon the rest of us. Speaking of the rest of us, we need to, with a good conscious, think about what our society needs when voting in the upcoming election. Do we want to bring Panem to life and elect the beginning of a potential downfall of our society? That may sound dramatic, but when you look into what kind of person Trump is, I have no doubt that the nation will suffer at his hands if he wins. Of course, nothing in this blog post is truly new information (we all know Trump is scary and dense) but I felt the need to bring about the dystopia comparison to cement the fact that Trump will not be a healthy president. As for other societies I'd like to see America become, I'd much rather bring to life a utopian universe with dragons or Marvel heroes. Or student discounts on Netflix accounts, at least.
Friday, November 13, 2015
In Response to Abigail Clark's "Bernie Sanders for President?"
I've seen the potential presidential candidates for the 2016 race and I can say with confidence that I'm not too impressed, even with the liberals' side. This time around, the candidates fall on two extremes: the conservatives are too uptight and the liberals are too loose. However, this article written by my classmate/colleague Abigail Clark about her support of Bernie Sanders actually did a great job of swaying me to side with Sanders in the upcoming election.
I really do support Sanders and his ideas, I just feel that he's way too genuine for the field of politics he's entering. Politics is nothing but a huge game of strategy, and I can't see his sobering personality swaying the politicians that run the behind-the-scenes of the election. I actually didn't know that Sanders wanted to make public college free prior to reading Abigail's article, and I think that's amazing and needs to happen. But in reality, will current politicians and other one-percenters really let themselves be subjected to higher taxes for the sake of sending some middle-class millennials to school? Sanders' target demographic are exactly the people that don't show up to vote which is really worrying, and maybe if Sanders is lucky enough to win the Primary and be the democratic candidate in the 2016 race, people will change their minds and go vote for him. Because I truly agree with Abigial when she says that Sanders is the president we need right now, but I just don't think that the electoral college will feel the same way. Especially when Sanders' policies directly attack and affect the people in the highest powers in the government.
If Sanders makes it through the Primary I will be beyond shocked but I will also be overjoyed. Because if Sanders can make it as the democratic nominee, then there's a sliver of a chance that he'll be able to pull through as president. I just hope the electoral college makes the right decision when it comes down to it on election night.
I really do support Sanders and his ideas, I just feel that he's way too genuine for the field of politics he's entering. Politics is nothing but a huge game of strategy, and I can't see his sobering personality swaying the politicians that run the behind-the-scenes of the election. I actually didn't know that Sanders wanted to make public college free prior to reading Abigail's article, and I think that's amazing and needs to happen. But in reality, will current politicians and other one-percenters really let themselves be subjected to higher taxes for the sake of sending some middle-class millennials to school? Sanders' target demographic are exactly the people that don't show up to vote which is really worrying, and maybe if Sanders is lucky enough to win the Primary and be the democratic candidate in the 2016 race, people will change their minds and go vote for him. Because I truly agree with Abigial when she says that Sanders is the president we need right now, but I just don't think that the electoral college will feel the same way. Especially when Sanders' policies directly attack and affect the people in the highest powers in the government.
If Sanders makes it through the Primary I will be beyond shocked but I will also be overjoyed. Because if Sanders can make it as the democratic nominee, then there's a sliver of a chance that he'll be able to pull through as president. I just hope the electoral college makes the right decision when it comes down to it on election night.
Wednesday, October 28, 2015
Support Gap Jeans, Not Gender Pay Gaps
The only gap I care for is The Gap. Their jeans are
comfortable on an ethereal level and their striped shirt selection is
impeccable. What I don't appreciate is the gap in wages between men's and women's earnings. I knew for a while that there was a substantial divide between the salaries of men and women but what really brought this issue to my attention was the recent unearthing of actors' and actresses' differing earnings (specifically Jennifer Lawrence's statements about her own earnings). I had no idea that this issue stretched all the way to Hollywood too, so I decided research it further. What I read definitely made me want to see change, and I believe that it's time the government intervenes with this inequality and finally establishes equal pay for both men and women, regardless of the occupation.
The fact that women are paid less than men in the year 2015 is truly ridiculous. What's even more ridiculous is how this reality is generally accepted without much fuss from the public or the government. It is the responsibility of the federal government to directly correct this problem in conjunction with companies. If an individual company cannot be trusted to pay its employees equally on its own volition, then the government needs to step in to take corrective action.
One way that companies may step up without government intervention is through a system that will allow companies to display their finances online to the public. This very interesting article from Yahoo News suggests that companies adopt a transparent salary policy that will help combat unequal pay. A transparent salary is a salary that is published online for anyone to see, which shows that the company is confident in its payment policies. I personally think this is a fantastic idea that could a) show the credibility of a company and b) raise the morale of employees and heighten the interest of potential employees. Not to mention it would be good promo/exposure for the company, as well.
This article was also informative, and it broke down the basics of the gap and provided statistics on different factors of the gap. One that I personally found really interesting was the chart displaying the differing wages by state. I was beyond surprised to learn that some states, such as Wyoming, had as much as a $16,000 annual salary difference between genders.
My hope is that in the next few years (or sooner, I'd really hope), the US can start to own up to the fact that pay inequality exists and needs to be fixed. As a very career driven person, I would hate to find out that I'm being paid less than I should be in a job that I love just because of something so inconsequential as my gender.
The fact that women are paid less than men in the year 2015 is truly ridiculous. What's even more ridiculous is how this reality is generally accepted without much fuss from the public or the government. It is the responsibility of the federal government to directly correct this problem in conjunction with companies. If an individual company cannot be trusted to pay its employees equally on its own volition, then the government needs to step in to take corrective action.
One way that companies may step up without government intervention is through a system that will allow companies to display their finances online to the public. This very interesting article from Yahoo News suggests that companies adopt a transparent salary policy that will help combat unequal pay. A transparent salary is a salary that is published online for anyone to see, which shows that the company is confident in its payment policies. I personally think this is a fantastic idea that could a) show the credibility of a company and b) raise the morale of employees and heighten the interest of potential employees. Not to mention it would be good promo/exposure for the company, as well.
This article was also informative, and it broke down the basics of the gap and provided statistics on different factors of the gap. One that I personally found really interesting was the chart displaying the differing wages by state. I was beyond surprised to learn that some states, such as Wyoming, had as much as a $16,000 annual salary difference between genders.
My hope is that in the next few years (or sooner, I'd really hope), the US can start to own up to the fact that pay inequality exists and needs to be fixed. As a very career driven person, I would hate to find out that I'm being paid less than I should be in a job that I love just because of something so inconsequential as my gender.
Friday, October 16, 2015
State of Confusion: A Spiraling Look into Same-Sex Parentage Rights
Before looking into this extremely informative article written by Washington Monthly correspondent Alison Gash, I had no idea just how complicated parenting for same-sex couples could be. In this article, Gash breaks down the story of Michelle and Brittany Conover, a couple who had a child together (the child is biologically Brittany's bot not biologically Michelle's) but then filed for divorce after their child was born. The state, however, did not grant Michelle legal access to her own child on account of the fact that Michelle was not "technically" the biological mother of her son since Brittany was the one to carry him.
Gash did a great job with summarizing a topic that has many complex layers to it and the overall article was very informative. Her intended audience is most likely a liberal one, as conservatives rarely display interest in a topic such as this one. Especially since this article goes very in-depth in the topic of parental legality, I doubt that any Republican, GOP member, or generally conservative person would give the time of day to an article based on anything to do with same-sex couples. The article also did a fantastic job of straying from biases: the information given was strictly straight-forward, and even her opinions were presented with subtlety. I especially agreed with her when she mentions at the end that children of same-sex couples are even more likely to be subjected to a rocky household without the government's support, and the government should be extremely supportive in situations like this. Events like this one show that marriage equality was a wonderful thing to happen to this country but we've still got a very long way to go in regard to all-encompassing equality.
The only gripe I have with this article is that it tends to get a little confusing in parts, especially when breaking down the state laws regarding what constitutes a legal parent of a child. A few paragraphs were also kind of redundant when talking about the specific situation of Michelle and Brittany, but overall I feel like that helped solidify the information.
Situations like Michelle and Brittany's make me so angry because no one should be subjected to treatment like that, whether it's by way of the state or way of morals. As I previously stated, I had no idea that same-sex couples endured messes like this one when deciding custody of a child, and this article did a great job of presenting me with information I had no clue about. I would love to look more into this issue in the future.
Gash did a great job with summarizing a topic that has many complex layers to it and the overall article was very informative. Her intended audience is most likely a liberal one, as conservatives rarely display interest in a topic such as this one. Especially since this article goes very in-depth in the topic of parental legality, I doubt that any Republican, GOP member, or generally conservative person would give the time of day to an article based on anything to do with same-sex couples. The article also did a fantastic job of straying from biases: the information given was strictly straight-forward, and even her opinions were presented with subtlety. I especially agreed with her when she mentions at the end that children of same-sex couples are even more likely to be subjected to a rocky household without the government's support, and the government should be extremely supportive in situations like this. Events like this one show that marriage equality was a wonderful thing to happen to this country but we've still got a very long way to go in regard to all-encompassing equality.
The only gripe I have with this article is that it tends to get a little confusing in parts, especially when breaking down the state laws regarding what constitutes a legal parent of a child. A few paragraphs were also kind of redundant when talking about the specific situation of Michelle and Brittany, but overall I feel like that helped solidify the information.
Situations like Michelle and Brittany's make me so angry because no one should be subjected to treatment like that, whether it's by way of the state or way of morals. As I previously stated, I had no idea that same-sex couples endured messes like this one when deciding custody of a child, and this article did a great job of presenting me with information I had no clue about. I would love to look more into this issue in the future.
Friday, October 2, 2015
President? More Like Presi-DON'T: A Look Into Donald Trump's Vision for America
While speaking briefly about the upcoming election on his podcast, YouTube personality Tyler Oakley made a simple remark about Donald Trump's potential presidency that really stuck with me: "It's a joke until it's not." For the longest time, I was positively tickled by the fact that this man was actually planning on running for president. But now that it looks like he has a more than decent shot of becoming the Republican candidate in the 2016 elections, I am nothing short of truly frightened.
This really great article titled "GOP Can't Shed Itself of Racist Appeals" written by Derrick Z. Jackson of the Boston Globe argues that Donald Trump and the rest of the GOP using racism and hatred to lead their party is a very, very bad thing for America to be supporting. While there are many problems circling the GOP, this article specifically discusses racism and the blatant fashion in which the party boasts about its support of it. Throughout the article, he touches on the fact that yes, he disagrees with the conservative party, but also that their campaign methods are horrendously outdated and obviously discriminative. He includes plenty of links and sources to other articles within the piece, and these other sources really propel his argument for the better. Especially since I could hardly believe half of the quotes that Jackson paraphrased- the links provided factual evidence of some of the shocking things said by Trump (the specific point of how the GOP would like to maintain a "whitewashed America" and aren't shy about expressing that fact was news to me personally and also extremely unnerving).
From my perspective, I can't be one hundred percent certain of who the specific audience of this piece is. Of course it's for liberals, but I also feel that this piece, while remaining argumentative throughout, also doubles as an informative piece for people who aren't in the know with Trump's shenanigans. And since it's an argumentative article, it could be directed towards the GOP as a call-out to their behavior and actions. Additionally, the reporter himself is quite credible: he is a "9 time winner from the National Association of Black Journalists" and a "2-time winner of opinion awards from the Education Writers Association." Not only does the liberal appeal of the article get me interested in the story, but the fact that the journalist has had previous work recognized is equally appealing. I'd love to see more stories like this one emerge as we get closer to the elections.
This really great article titled "GOP Can't Shed Itself of Racist Appeals" written by Derrick Z. Jackson of the Boston Globe argues that Donald Trump and the rest of the GOP using racism and hatred to lead their party is a very, very bad thing for America to be supporting. While there are many problems circling the GOP, this article specifically discusses racism and the blatant fashion in which the party boasts about its support of it. Throughout the article, he touches on the fact that yes, he disagrees with the conservative party, but also that their campaign methods are horrendously outdated and obviously discriminative. He includes plenty of links and sources to other articles within the piece, and these other sources really propel his argument for the better. Especially since I could hardly believe half of the quotes that Jackson paraphrased- the links provided factual evidence of some of the shocking things said by Trump (the specific point of how the GOP would like to maintain a "whitewashed America" and aren't shy about expressing that fact was news to me personally and also extremely unnerving).
From my perspective, I can't be one hundred percent certain of who the specific audience of this piece is. Of course it's for liberals, but I also feel that this piece, while remaining argumentative throughout, also doubles as an informative piece for people who aren't in the know with Trump's shenanigans. And since it's an argumentative article, it could be directed towards the GOP as a call-out to their behavior and actions. Additionally, the reporter himself is quite credible: he is a "9 time winner from the National Association of Black Journalists" and a "2-time winner of opinion awards from the Education Writers Association." Not only does the liberal appeal of the article get me interested in the story, but the fact that the journalist has had previous work recognized is equally appealing. I'd love to see more stories like this one emerge as we get closer to the elections.
Thursday, September 17, 2015
The Celebri-Tea Party
A couple days ago, I was browsing the front page of YouTube when I saw the thumbnail for a clip of Donald Trump on The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon. I didn't watch the clip, but I thought to myself, if Donald Trump is running for president, why didn't Arnold Schwarzenegger ever decide to run? He was the governor of California, so he's allowed to join in. I guess someone was thinking along the same plane as me, because when I was browsing articles for this blog assignment, I happened across an article of someone comparing Trump and Schwarzenegger and their political appeal. "Trump and Schwarzenegger: A Political Comparison" by Los Angeles Times writer Seema Mehta isn't exactly a persuasive piece; instead it's a great examination of the celebrity effect on politicians. The writer compares the two politicians to each other and breaks down the various components of each of their campaigns. It also kind of gets you thinking about how weird it is that these really famous and prominent entertainment figures have the ability to run for office if they really want to. Remember Ronald Reagan? That guy was an actor before taking office. Additionally, if Donald Trump wins the presidency (*shudders profusely*) will this set a trend or have an effect on future- potentially celebrity- candidates? If you ask me, it sounds like something out of a weird, parallel-universe dystopia novel. Overall, this article is a really fun, quick read- plus the opening line of the article is pretty great.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)