Blog Post No. 8

This is a response to this blog post.

Hey, Angela!

First of all, your use of logos (logic and reasoning) is SO spot on in this commentary! Obviously, since we have amended the Constitution before, we accept the idea that changing our "rules" is sometimes necessary for an always adapting and changing society. Our nation's circumstances surrounding gun rights has vastly shifted from when the Constitution first considered those rights. I think that legislators that refuse to see this only do so to either remain elected or get more money. I love how you also bring up common anti-gun reform arguments and then counter them with solid logic.

Your suggestions for gun reform are also super reasonable. I too am not someone that owns guns, but I think that people should have the right to. (If I'm being honest, I really don't. I wish we could just get rid of all of the guns, but that's not reasonable, nor is it likely.) So, if people are to continue to own guns, there should certainly be some requirements, rules, and regulations that go along with owning a weapon like that.

I really loved this commentary! When it feels like every other person out there is putting their rights to own a gun over someone's right to be alive, it is absolutely inspiring to know that some are still fighting for gun control.

Blog Post No. 6

This is a response to Luna Trevino's "Let's Talk Guns."

Hey Luna,

First of all, I love how much passion you convey in your writing! I can really tell that you are so adamant about gun control regulation, and that you care so much about this issue. I'm with you wholeheartedly. I too am disgusted by the lack of change, awareness, attention, and flexibility when it comes to the way most right-wing politicians have reacted to the obvious rise in gun violence.

Second, your use of facts and statistics to back up your opinions is really well done. This technique makes for a much more accurate and logical argument. Of course, you're sort of preaching to the choir, and it seems that those that need to be convinced by facts and statistics refuse to, but overall it makes your argument much more reasonable. I also love that you mention the constitution and how problematic it is to follow it so strictly. As our society changes, so do the rules that we implement, or at least they should, to fit and align with current issues. Of course, gun violence is a major issue in America, so shouldn't we adapt our rules to fit our needs? I think yes.

Third, I love that you bring up other countries in your commentary! I always use Japan as an example for being pro-gun regulation whenever I'm debating with gun rights activists (to be honest, though, I try to avoid doing that at all costs).

Overall your commentary is spot on, powerful, and very, very important!

Blog Post No. 5

For the last several months since hurricane Maria decimated the gorgeous land of Puerto Rico, the island has had sporadic and inconsistent access to power. Today, Puerto Rico experienced yet another power outage, except this time, the power outage covered the entire island; this has been the second island-wide power outage in a week. But going back to the days after Maria hit, when Puerto Rico was powerless, drowning, and in desperate need of help from the United States, President Trump disregarded the island’s distress, blamed it for its own natural disaster, and did nothing to help Puerto Rico and its citizens. (If anything demonstrates this the best, its this video.) In fact, he still has not done much to help this neighboring territory. He did, however, provided many of his resources to, and offered his deepest sympathies for the citizens of Houston. Of course, the effects of hurricane Harvey were devastating and deserved the government’s attention. But, there has been a striking imbalance regarding the amount of help that Houston has received over the entire island of Puerto Rico. This not only perfectly illustrates how spiteful President Trump and his administration are, but it also highlights an issue that has yet to be fixed. 

The island of Puerto Rico inhabits about 3.3 million people, which is about a million more people than the city of Houston. According to puertoricoreport.com, the island saw a staggering decrease in population after hurricane Maria. This population decrease can be explained by the hundreds of thousands of Puerto Ricans moving to surrounding areas, most notably, Florida and other coastal American states. FEMA set up Disaster Relief Centers in Miami, Orlando, and Fort Lauderdale, but did not provide the same aid to Puerto Rico directly. FEMA also did not implement the same shuttle services to the victims of Maria as they did to the victims of Harvey. This negligence has caused a plethora of Puerto Ricans to flee and find safety in the states, when if the federal government, or organizations like FEMA, had been devoted to helping Puerto Rico, many of its citizens might have been able to stay in their homes. While the United States does not have unlimited resources, this situation is less about not being able to do something, and more about simply caring enough to do something.

Blog Post No. 4

In a Huffington Post article, reporter David Moye addresses Senator Marco Rubio’s new gun control claims. In a response to both the school shooting in Parkland, Florida and Florida Governor Rick Scott’s new gun laws, Rubio has offered his consent towards Scott’s decision; Scott has surprisingly upped the minimum age requirement to buy a firearm to 21 years of age. However, some, like David Moye, are skeptical to Rubio’s newfound embrace of recent gun control measures.

Moye notably points out Rubio’s seemingly indestructible ties to the National Rifle Association. Currently, the NRA has shelled out a whopping $3 million dollars towards helping Rubio stay in office. So if this is the case, why would Rubio want to do anything to disturb those gentle waters? Moye’s reminder of this hypocrisy makes his argument so powerful because so many politicians have a rich history of doing anything to stay in office, despite the conflict of ethics or betrayal of their constituents.

Moye also brings to light a claim from Senator Rubio’s spokeswoman, Olivia Perez-Cubas. She insists that Rubio has not shifted his position since his controversial appearance at a town hall meeting in Parkland, in which he refused to budge on his opposition to gun control; Rubio was famously booed by students, parents, and faculty with ties to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High. In a supposed mix-up of words, Rubio’s currently argument, according to his spokeswoman, is that only some rifles should be inaccessible to 18 year old, but others like those used for hunting should remain available. With this, Moye is continuing to point out the inconsistencies in Rubio’s claims and, more importantly, his determination to ignore the problem. Moye even highlights this when he writes that the Huffington Post asked Senator Rubio if he thought, “whether underage gun enthusiasts should be able to use their parent’s semiautomatic weapons,” but he was hesitant to answer. All of these critiques that Moye makes are reasonable and logical. If politicians can’t be consistent with their stances, and if their ties with companies are unbreakable, then how can you believe or trust them? Moye very effectively asks this question with his short, but astute, article.

Blog Post No. 3

In a recent New York Times op-ed piece titled, "A Combat Zone, With Desks," high school math teacher and Afghanistan veteran Ashley Nicolas makes a compelling plea for gun control. Before establishing her main argument, however, Nicolas dives into her military past, recalling her extensive and intense military training, and commenting on how ironically similar most school drills are to those that she experienced in Afghanistan. As she explains the drills she and her students perform at the school, she notes that despite the similarities in the drills, the school's methods of defense would not be enough to deter an active shooter. Nicolas illustrates the tactics she brings to the drills, and she provides a rich description of her attempts to make the classroom as bulletproof as possible. Nicolas then interrupts her own thoughts with the heart of her argument: that it is astounding at how commonplace this kind of classroom defense has become. She states, "I was preparing my classroom for combat. But our school was built to cultivate learning, not withstand an attack; our teachers were trained to instruct, not shield students from bullets." Nicolas is not the only person to make a compelling argument for gun control, and nor is she the first teacher to do it. But, what makes her argument so effective is her experience both in the military and in academia. By giving her readers a brief description of her military credentials and experiences, she makes her argument for sensible gun control all the more trustworthy and credible. If anyone knew the proper defense tactics against gun fire, it would almost certainly be a former soldier. Furthermore, Nicolas' years of teaching in a high school give her the kind of perspective that she, and so many other gun control advocates, know is not matched by many pro-gun politicians. An increasingly popular suggestion, made predominantly by Republicans, that teachers and schools themselves should be armed is a proposal that Nicolas wholeheartedly disagrees with. Nicolas goes so far as to directly condemn recent comments made by Senator Mike Rounds, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, Senator Marco Rubio, and, of course, President Donald Trump. But again, Nicolas' experience as an educator, as a teacher, and as someone who has to directly face the consequences of any kind of gun regulation or deregulation, gives her argument the perfect and unique amount of credibility, making for a fresh, poignant, and honest opinion piece.

Blog Post No.2

Uma Thurman is angry. She has reasons to be.

Maureen Dowd, a New York Times Op-Ed Columnist, gives actress Uma Thurman a platform in this recent piece. Thurman open up about her experiences with sexual assault and misconduct in the workplace. Incidentally, the workplace is Hollywood, and like most other businesses, it is male-dominated, cutthroat, and can be a young, beautiful, up-and-coming starlet's worst nightmare. Uma Thurman, alongside many young women in show business at the time became the victim(s) of film producer Harvey "The Robe" Weinstein. And, although Thurman speaks in depth about her sickening experiences with Weinstein, the majority of the article focuses on Thurman's relationship with her long-time collaborator, Quentin Tarantino. Thurman recalls a moment on set during the filming of "Kill Bill Vol. I", in which Tarantino pressured her into performing a stunt that she wasn't comfortable doing; Tarantino instructed her to drive a malfunctioning car, on a sand road, at forty miles per hour so as to achieve the perfect shot of her hair. Of course, Thurman crashed the car during the stunt and suffered permanent damage to her knees and neck. This, unfortunately, was Thurman's only abusive encounter with Tarantino. As Dowd writes, "Thurman says that in 'Kill Bill,' Tarantino had done the honors with some of the sadistic flourishes himself, spitting in her face in the scene where Michael Madsen is seen on screen doing it and choking her with a chain in the scene where a teenager named Gogo is on screen doing it."

The #MeToo movement is in its prime and this article could not have been more appropriate. As more and more women in Hollywood come out and talk about their experiences of abuse, mistreatment, and injustice, the more people will recognize how widespread this problem, at least in Hollywood, really is. This also brings to light a twisted pattern in some films with female leads or with female driven narratives. Abuse is not empowering. And yet, so many men in Hollywood create stories where women become empowered and realize their potential through their abuse. In Kill Bill, Uma Thurman's character is beaten, raped, nearly killed, and that experience inspires her to blossom and grow. As Thurman herself states, “Personally, it has taken me 47 years to stop calling people who are mean to you ‘in love’ with you. It took a long time because I think that as little girls we are conditioned to believe that cruelty and love somehow have a connection and that is like the sort of era that we need to evolve out of.”

Blog Post No. 1

This is my introductory post (obviously)!