Upload Assignment: Blog Stage Seven: Original editorial or commentary #2

     In his article “Trumpshould claim victory on the border and abandon his foolish wall” posted in the LA Times on April 27, 2017, David Horsey makes the case that Trump should drop the idea of building the wall. Horsey claims that Trump ‘could simply declare victory and say a wall along the border with Mexico is no longer necessary because illegal crossings have diminished to a trickle,’ which is somewhat true seeing that the people apprehended by the Border Patrol has dropped to 64% since last year. If Trump were to say that the problem was fixed then ‘his most ardent admirers will have no objection,’ because ‘they believe anything he says’ and ‘ most of them already interpreted talk of a wall as hyperbole, an amusing exaggeration that only meant he was going to get tougher on undocumented immigrants.’ John F. Kelly, secretary of Homeland Security said in a Senate testimony “It’s unlikely that we will build a wall or physical barrier” that border security will most likely be beefed up with smaller fences, drones, electronic monitoring, etc.. Horsey provides his own solution to decreasing the number of people attempting to cross the border, ‘Add to that assistance programs for Central American countries whose problems with criminal gangs and poverty are driving emigrants north.’ The latest plan from Rep. Dana Rohrabacher is to raise money for the wall by offering U.S. citizenship to any wealthy foreigner willing to pay $1 million. I, personally, don’t know my opinion on the wall, but I think if Trump is constantly making promises on a large controversial topic then he needs to come through, otherwise he won’t be taken seriously when it comes to topics as serious as this.

Blog Stage Five: Original editorial or commentary #1

     In his article “This Common Argument for U.S Foreign Aid is Actually Quite Xenophobic” posted in The Washington Post on March 31, 2017, William Easterly discusses the changes made to the U.S. foreign aid policy by first stating that “President Trump’s proposed budget includes steep cuts in foreign assistance.” The argument for foreign aid helped increase, then sustain the U.S. foreign aid budget after 9/11, (the annual U.S. aid increased from $8 billion before 9/11 to $18 billion after 9/11) unfortunately the continued reliance on the argument has left the foreign aid vulnerable to deep cuts. One of the reasoning’s from Easterly is that “the link from aid to counter-terrorism never had any evidence behind it.” Another one of Easterly’s reasoning’s is that “…the argument falsely generalized that the nationals of the poorest countries were prone to terrorism…” which he felt “…contributed to today’s toxic xenophobia toward refugees and migrants….” When I first read the title for William Easterly’s article I was set to disagree with him, but as I read his article I started realizing how much sense it made. I completely agree with Easterly’s article, most arguments that support foreign aid promote terrible images of immigrants. Easterly ends his article with a thought that I feel could only exist in a perfect world, “Let’s transcend our pettier squabbles about aid to come together in affirming the equal dignity and worth of all persons, regardless of religion, income level or nation of origin.” Unfortunately, fear sells better than equality, and that’s why immigrants will always be seen as enemies.  

Blog Stage Four: Substantial commentary or criticism #2

     In his article “The Conservative Guide to Impeaching Trump: ChristianSchneider” posted in USA Today on March 17, 2017, Christian Schneider discusses Paul Ryan’s plan the, American Health Care Act, and tries to use it as a reason to impeach Trump. Christian Schneider goes on to call the plan, ‘a sponge for negative reviews’ that Steve Bannon, who serves as both Trump’s chief strategist and head of Breitbart.com was ‘working to undermine the speaker (Paul Ryan) as soon as the plan dropped, Steve Bannon has had it out for Paul Ryan and even went as far to say that his goal was to have Paul Ryan “gone by spring” back in December 2015. Schneider calls this a stab in the back for Paul Ryan, and because of this betrayal Trump should be impeached. There’s probably many reasons why Trump should be impeached but I believe that this alone is not a good enough reason. I do agree that this is a stab in the back for Paul Ryan but based on what I read from Christian Schneider’s article, Trump was in no way involved in this situation. The only one I see who did any kind of betrayal is Steve Bannon, perhaps the reason Christian Schneider thinks this is a good enough reason to impeach Trump is because Steve Bannon and Paul Ryan work closely with Trump, either that or Christian Schneider needs to make his reason a little more clearer. I personally wouldn’t consider myself a Trump supporter but I don’t see this as a good enough reason for impeachment.

Maher's version of 'terrorism'

     In his article, "Bill Maher refers to Steve Bannon as a terrorist." posted in Townhall on February 25,2017, Justin Holcomb shares his views on Bill Maher and his comments towards White House advisor Steve Bannon. In Bill Maher's opening monologue on "Real Time", Bill Maher commented on Steve Bannon's speech at CPAC regarding the "deconstruction of the administrative state" and made the statement , "I'm not sure the word for that is 'conservative.' I think it's 'terrorist'." Justin Holcomb, who feels Maher took things 'a bit too far', makes his opinions on Maher very clear and one sided. Holcomb disagrees with Maher and states that, "Maher has abandoned his liberal principles and is now a proponent of keeping things the way they are. Anyone who voices a contrary opinion or challenges the status quo is now considered a "terrorist." I can't say that I agree or disagree with Justin Holcomb, seeing that I don"t have knowledge about Bill Maher or Steve Bannon. However, I feel that Justin Holcomb doesn't provide enough information to convince his readers to switch or consider his views.

Violence in Video Games

     In his article “How evil should a video game allow you to be?” posted in The New Yorker in 2013, Simon Parkin explains how violence in books or movies is easily dismissible because ‘we are merely spectators,’ However, violence in video games is not so easily dismissible because in video games we are active participants to crime and violence we decide to commit. Parkin explains this by comparing violent video games such as, Grand Theft Auto v, Metal Gear Solid, and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II, to American literature such as George Steiner’s “The Portage to San Cristobal of A.H.” I agree with some of Parkin's article but I feel that the violence in video games is not a threat to anyone. The violence in video games, though it may not seem like it, are to many a work of art. I don't see much of a difference between violence in books and violence in video games, other then the visuals. Although I agree at times the violence can be a little too graphic, if it's part of the creators vision, who are we to demand censorship.