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

Blog #7: Islamophobia

In this country, ever since 9/11, Americans have been afraid of what they don't know. That is only natural, humans have evolved due to this trait and has save people in different scenarios. But when it comes to fear of a religion, that leads to more problems then solutions. Thanks to the media, when people hear of Islam, all they think is terrorist and repressive government. Aziz Ansari said it perfectly in his SNL monologue on January 21, 2017, "... Because any time they watch movies, and TV shows, and a character is Arabic, or they’re praying or something like that, that scary-ass music from Homeland is underneath it, it’s terrifying!

People are like, “Aah! What are they saying?” Just “God is good!” Normal religion stuff!" This is the a spot on representation of how a majority of Americans are when they hear I am a Muslim or my name is Osama. For the past, i don't know how many, years when ever I tell someone my name is Osama or I am a Muslim, the first response is a joke about my name, or a flash of fear in their eyes on what I would do. Thankfully I never had the experience of anyone attacking me, but I know fellow classmates in Michigan, (where I grew up) that felt threatened of their lives because they were outside. During the Obama administration, this incidents were less often, but ever since Trump took office, it feels like almost every week, you can find an incident where someone was attacked or harassed for being Muslim. This is for two main reasons I see, one is Trump seems to support this type of discrimination, and two, the media doesn't help make people feel safe about Muslims. One of Trump's accomplishments in his presidency was his "Muslim ban" which really seemed like a pointless ban. He tried to ban people from Muslim countries to enter America, and all I thought during that was, what stops them from flying to a different country and then entering America. But because he kept talking about the ban, and how we need to stop Muslims from entering the country, that stuck in people's head on Muslims are bad. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the amount of anti Muslim groups quardrupled during 2016. Also multiple law organization noticed within the past year that hate crimes are spiking up. Also the media doesn't help, like Aziz said on SNL. If there is an evil organization group in the film, very likely that it is Arab or Islam based. This is slowly changing, but only because director have taken chances with some Middle East and Asian actor and they are now successful and they can campaign for diverse villains and point out the racism involved making a Muslim the villian. Hopefully this shift in media can help people see how Islam and terrorism are not synonyms, but until people start learning about Islam and not relying on what just the media says, hate crimes and the War on Terror will never truely end.

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

My fellow classmate, Caitlin Burnette, wrote an editorial about the Death Penalty called "The Circle of Killing Someone Who Killed Someone" which points out the hypocrisy of the death penalty. Also in the editorial are many different example on why it is an overuse of force, due to the fact that not all people on death row are guilty, and hypocritical, due to the fact that the 8th Amendment of the Bill of Rights prevents cruel and unusual punishment, but the very act of killing someone is a cruel punishment. 
I agree with Caitlin's viewpoint fully. The whole concept of killing someone for killing another person reminds me of the Code of Hammurabi, which is most famous for the phrase "an eye for an eye". Also, last semester I wrote a persuasive paper about the exact same topic and how the Death Penalty isn't worth the cost and used about the exact same arguments to convey how senseless it is.There are better ways to punish criminals in a more humane way, and Caitlin talked about how life without parole is as drastic a punishment for criminals but doesn't kill them, and allow them to clear their name if they are innocent.  
I believe this is a well written editorial that shows how the Death Penalty is too extreme and should only be used if we can guarantee that it will punish only the guilty.

Blog Stage 5: Trump and Putin

Even since Donald Trump has been elected to the Presidency, there has always been the constantly running story about how much were Russia and Putin involved in this. FBI and CIA established that Putin was very likely involved, while Trump talked about how this was just Democrats complaining about the election results and said (or more accurately tweeted) "Vladimir Putin said today about Hillary and Dems: "In my opinion, it is humiliating. One must be able to lose with dignity." So true!". Now call me crazy, but when I have the two biggest intelligence agencies tell me that they is a good chance that the leader of a foreign county and that leader used to be in the KGB in the First and Second Direcorate where he was trained to lie and deceive people, I wouldn't trust them when they say they are innocent. But hey, I am not the president and maybe he has other information that no one else knows. But wait, two weeks later, Trump admits that Russia was involved in the hacking, weird, wonder why no one told President Trump this earlier? I understand that President Trump has a responsibility to maintain relationships with other countries, it is just weird that he is so friendly with a country that the President admitted tampered with the election process, lied to the President, yet when they met at the G20 summit, Trump described the meeting as an honor. That is why the Russian sanction bill is such a big deal, and seemed like an easy piece of legislation to get through. Russia escalated tension in Ukraine and Syria with use of military force and for cyber attacks on America and for that the United States will punish them for that, simple right? Apparently not to Trump, who signed the bill after it went through the Congress with about 5 people voting against it (out of 535 people), but Trump still complained about how this is unconstitutional and takes away the rights of the Presidents. Well President Trump, you need to decide what is more important, your buddy Putin or the United States of America, you can't have it both and until that is decided, the Trump Presidency is always going to be remembered with the Russian interference

Blog Stage 4: 1st Amendment Under Fire Federal Judge Rules Township Residents Can’t Mention Muslim Or Islam

In an article by the RedState, 1st Amendment Under Fire Federal Judge Rules Township Residents Can’t Mention Muslim Or Islam, talks about how a town in New Jersey, in a settlement offer for 3.5 million dollar, the officials agreed that during the public hearing for the settlement, townspeople cannot talk about Islam or Muslims and how a lawsuit is being filed against it due to it violation on freedom of speech. The author, under the username, Juliphant, talks about how the judge who ruled in favor of the Islamic Community in the area is "either must have been an Obama appointee or on drugs, perhaps both" They then go on and talk about how this is a violation of freedom, since apparently the Islamic Society there has tons of anti-Christian and anti-Semantic practices and how the federal judges are abusing their power and the townfolks are unable to stop them. This is a fine article for the intended Conservative audience who saw the title and take the author's words as fact (which we can't do since the author does not show why they should be trusted since they are writing under a username with no credentials) The author makes sure that she is connecting her story, but it falls apart when comparing it to other story. CNN posted an article about the same New Jersey town to pay $3.25 million in lawsuit over mosque, but they talk about how the city changed laws and discriminated against the Muslims in the first place. So while Juliphant's article was technically right and most likely written to raise people's attention about lack of freedoms, they forgot to include both sides of the story and biased it to make Muslims seem like the problem.

Blog Stage 3: Anti-Radical Muslims Need to Organize and Draw Lines

In the article Anti-Radical Muslims Need to Organize and Draw Lines, by The National Review, the author, Dan McLaughlin, talks about how Muslims need to separate themselves from Muslim extremist and gave examples of other groups in the past and how they were able to prevent being stereotyped with extremist. McLauglin, a corporate attorney in New York City, makes some valid point that are intended for a reader with a conservative background. He talks about how actors during the Red Scare were able to distinguish themselves from Communist and how Italians distinguish themselves from the Mafia. His only problem in his arguments, is that he is looking back at the past and cherry picking the facts. During the Red Scare, tons of people were falsely accused of being Communist without real proof, and people's careers were ruined based off the word of other actors and directors. Italians are still stereotyped as being member of the Mafia, decades after the main Mafia problem happened. I agree with the author that Muslims need to be more active to seperate themselves from extremist, but I do not agree with his conclusion that "moderate Muslims" are actually hurting the perception of Islam as a whole.

Blog Stage 2: Healthcare overhaul falling apart

On July 17, 2017, The New York Times published an article called Health Care Overhaul Collapses as Two Republican Senators Defect. This article discusses how two more Republican senators, Mike Lee of Utah and Jerry Moran of Kansas, announced that they would not support the Senate bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act (more commonly known as Obama Care). They join fellow senators Rand Paul of Kentucky and Susan Collins of Maine, making Republicans lose the majority vote they need to pass it through. The article then focuses on why this is a major blow to the plan to repeal  Obamacare and why it happened. The reason these senators bowed out of the bill together was due to concerns that it wasn't doing enough to repeal and replace Obamacare, and neither of them wanted to be the sole "no" vote coming out. It also talks about how the Democrats are using this as an opportunity to open talks for a more bipartisan bill, while The President released tweets saying that the Senate should just repeal Obamacare right now and worry about replacing it later.
I would recommend this article because it shows how split the country is on this issue still and is a reminder that the health care bill debate is still going on after it passed the House in May. Also it tells readers exactly where each side of the political spectrum stands on this issues and shows possible avenues this bill could take.