blog stage 8

     In Betsy Rivera's blog stage seven commentary entitled "Voter Turnout", it seems to be the last entry into this topic. This last entry consists of the ways counties and cities can promote voter turnout. The beginning paragraph explains how voters would be more likely to vote if they had incentives, instead of receiving a sticker. This is a good opener as readers who have voted can relate to the frustration of long voting lines, therefore hooking the reader in.
     Rivera mentions that when people vote once, "they're more likely to continue voting"; however, there are no figures to back that statement up. This is really the only instance of not including figures, as her next example of what voters have won in various locations. The examples Rivera utilizes are great, it possibly gives the reader an incentive to ask for changes like these.
     Rivera also added a piece that didn't cross my mind until reading that paragraph and gives a good solution to possible problems that would arise. Her suggestion is to inform voters on candidates before announcing incentives so that people could still make somewhat informed decisions. This is a great way to show readers that the author truly thought this issue out, therefore gaining the trust of the reader.
     The last paragraph focuses on Texas, and its significant low voter turnout despite a nationwide increase in the 2016 election. Rivera explains how Texas needs incentives for voters, to further encourage citizen participation. Her ending statement is a good conclusion to her commentary, noting that this would benefit citizens and political decisions alike.

blog stage 7

    The national government is an enormously powerful tool utilized by those in power. This utilization can be beneficial to its constituents, or detrimental. An example of how this overwhelming power can be utilized for bad is with the recent government shutdown. Our president has the power to partially shut down the government in a large scale temper tantrum to get his wall built. The government shutdown lasted for 35 days and affected everyone in some shape or form.

    Farmers suffered by being underpaid for their crops. The FDA had stopped doing routine checks on seafood, vegetables, and fruits, meaning that there was a high risk of contaminated or otherwise unsafe food being distributed to the public. Around 800,000 government employees were not paid during the shutdown. I believe that it is incredibly cruel and not fair for the president to demand a border wall in the peace of his own home when many citizens did not know when they would get paid next.

    The national government should do more to regulate the power of the president. While I understand that his role is incredibly important and vital to our country, many people suffered due to this temper tantrum. It is unacceptable that we the people had to suffer for his unmatched temper and stubbornness.

blog stage 5

The U.S. national government is a critical establishment that has been in place for the past 200 years. Over the past two centuries, our nation has evolved and changed in many ways. I believe that the ability to change and adapt is essential to the success of our country. Although the government has evolved, I believe that larger adaptations need to be put in place to broaden the reach of national government. A great starting place would be in the form of electronic voting.

Public participation, especially when it comes to voting, is almost always lower than expected and hoped for. For many, voting is simply an inconvenience. School, work, and other responsibilities can make standing in line at the public library for an hour not possible. Electronic voting allows individuals to cast their vote at their own convenience, independent of location. This broadens accessibility to many more, ensuring that those who are able to cast their vote have the resources to do so. If we have the technology to make this incredibly important civic duty more accessible, why not do so?

The U.S. national government should do more to incorporate the available technology we have so we can further the country evolve as a whole. The constitution and other rules we abide by were written over 200 years ago when they didn’t even have septic systems. Its time for a change.

blog stage 6

     In an editorial entitled "Legalize the Lettuce!", Matthew Serpas explains the benefits of utilizing medicinal marijuana. The two main points being that it will provide job opportunities and will help athletes recover faster.
     In explaining why legal medicinal marijuana would be beneficial to the job market, Serpas states that entrepreneurs would be able to organize their own store or possibly a hospital. He adds that it would be a government-run business, as well as the idea that "a certain percentage of taxes" will be deducted from to go towards "those who struggle with the addiction of actual drugs that can harm themselves or others". This is a very interesting and creative solution, however there would probably need to be copious amounts of research and congressional convincing for this to actually happen. 
     The other point being made is that medicinal marijuana would be beneficial in the recovery of specifically athletes. I believe that instead of persuading readers that it would "help recovery the athlete to get back on the field as quick as possible", he should have made it seem beneficial to everyone. I don't believe that politicians would consider the health of athletes more than those of regular citizens. There is still a valid point that, if further researched, would work great with this point. Serpas states that "with faster recovery, we will be able to see more athletes on the field and healthier through the impact of" medicinal marijuana. If expanded on, this would be an interesting experiment to monitor the effects of marijuana for injury recovery.
     Serpas does a good job of including out-of-the-box examples to his points. The first point and example is great at being in direct correlation with national government, however the second one should have used more. This is overall a good editorial that provides thought-provoking ideas that not many people have suggested.

Blog stage 4

     On March 12, 2019, The Chicago Tribune posted an editorial entitled "Another horrific puppy mill: Why Congress should crack down on animal cruelty". It is an editorial piece written by the editorial board from The Chicago Tribune. The piece focuses on the recent raid of a puppy mill in Berrien County, Georgia. They describe the stories and pictures of the 700 dogs as "half past maddening". They utilize this recent story on a topic that most can agree is sad and wrong to bring the reader in and introduce their reasoning as to why Congress should be harsher on animal abuse cases.
     They introduce the assumption that while Americans are divided among many things, most are against the abuse or negligence of animals. This means that this specific piece is aimed at all Americans with the main target being Congress. They go on to praise Congress for implementing the Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act back in 2010 in response to graphic animal abuse videos being posted online. While this was a largely beneficial act, the editorial board notes that it does not prohibit animal abuse itself. It is then introduced that Congress is now considering a bill called "The Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture Act".
     While their examples are sparse, the example following their introduction to the PACT is strong and gives the audience a better view of the extent of animal abuse occurring in the United States. The editorial boards claim that PACT is a pressing issue that should be addressed is a fair and valid one. Their piece is short, however, they do a fine job at introducing this issue to those who are aware and unaware of the issue.  The logic is not hard to follow, just don't abuse animals.

Blog stage 3

On February 25th, 2019, The Editorial Board from the New York Times published an editorial piece titled “Build Central America, Not a Wall.” This title alone is already powerful as the wall and border security is currently one of the main issues in America. The Editorial Board is a representation of the thoughts of the board, its editor, and the publisher, so these opinions are not from one entity alone. The intended audience for this piece is the general population in the US, with better reception coming from those who oppose the wall or who are undecided on the issue. They explore other options, with providing aid to Central America being the main topic throughout. El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras are plagued with gang violence and corruption; the main reason why people are attempting to flee to America. However, when those families arrive at the border, parents and children are separated. The Editorial Board believe that a more effective and humane option would be to fix the problem at the source so that immigrating north won't have to be their only option. The evidence they provide is not concrete, but it's not something to disregard completely either. When the Trump administration attempted to scale back aid, Congress denied it and provided $2.1 billion for the region for 2 years. Murder rates declined in 2018 but were still relatively high. However, they include a 2014 study that community-based programs ran by the US Agency for International Development reported 19% fewer robberies and 51% fewer murders. These pieces of information give them a fair amount of credibility and make their ideas and argument valid. Their logic is quite sound. Sure, it will take many years to truly bring change to Central America. However, if these changes were implemented and successful, there would be no border wall and less hostility between the US and Central America.

Blog Stage 2: Article Introduction

     On Thursday, February 14th, 2019, The New York Times posted an article titled "E.P.A. Will Study Limits on Cancer-Linked Chemicals. Critics Say the Plan Delays Action." I believe this article is worth reading as it is actually a big deal in terms of the E.P.A. as officials have described this plan as the "first-ever nationwide action plan" to finally address the harmful effects of man-made chemicals. PFASs or poly- currently have no regulation and are being manufactured in many products. They also are carcinogens that can lie dormant in humans for years. Their plan is to set regulations on the harmful PFAS chemicals found in water that are linked to cancer, low birth weight, and other reported health issues.
     While it is great that there are finally going to be regulations put on the harmful chemicals that are around us and that are found in our water supply, this is still a political issue so of course there's some drama within the department and article. Many people criticize the E.P.A. for not treating this crisis as a crisis should be treated, which is a fair point. This is an interesting article that people should read as it informs them on an important act by the E.P.A. and there's also a lot of shade thrown by senators and the acting head for the E.P.A. which is also really entertaining.

Introduction Post

Hello friends