Anna's blog can be found here
I agree with Anna's argument towards President Trump decision in cutting federal spending on facilities which provide women resources such as abortions. I also liked how Anna add the description about, if women couldn't get abortion that they would find another way that could lead up to health risk. As an equality for men there should be the same equality for women as well. People that are against abortion would only see that women are killing a life inside of them, but they wouldn't ever understand there reason's why they're doing it. There's many reasons why a women gets an abortion, but some of us judge them without knowing their situation.
Tuesday, May 9, 2017
Thursday, April 27, 2017
Climate Change or Not ? : Part II
As I mentioned in my previous blog, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that could spell the end of Obama's environmental policy. Which means a clear difference between how Trump and former President Barack Obama view the role the U.S plays in combating climate change, and dramatically alters the governments approach to rising sea levels and temperatures, two impacts of climate change.
I found a new article that talked about Trump's executive order on climate change, and has completely change my mind towards Trumps executive order. In the article, "What Trump's executive order on climate change means for the world", made a better understanding of Trump's decision towards climate change. I thought the whole time Trump wanted to decrease air pollution, but I was wrong. In this article mentions Trumps order will curb the enforcement of a number of climate regulations in an effort, the Trump administration says, to prioritize American jobs above addressing climate change. Which means Trump is focusing on to make coal competitive again in the U.S economy, by re-fossilizing the U.S power sector and increasing carbon emissions.
Which means Trump's administration is putting "Climate Change" aside and putting climate change deniers in positions of power.
I found a new article that talked about Trump's executive order on climate change, and has completely change my mind towards Trumps executive order. In the article, "What Trump's executive order on climate change means for the world", made a better understanding of Trump's decision towards climate change. I thought the whole time Trump wanted to decrease air pollution, but I was wrong. In this article mentions Trumps order will curb the enforcement of a number of climate regulations in an effort, the Trump administration says, to prioritize American jobs above addressing climate change. Which means Trump is focusing on to make coal competitive again in the U.S economy, by re-fossilizing the U.S power sector and increasing carbon emissions.
Which means Trump's administration is putting "Climate Change" aside and putting climate change deniers in positions of power.
Thursday, April 13, 2017
Comment on Betsy Benitez blog
Betsy's blog can be found here
I agree that there's issues that has been going on with our new President. I remember when Trump got elected as our new President he promised that he was going to make America great again, but is the opposite. Until this day I haven't heard nothing good about our new President. The most shocking thing I heard about Trump was when he launch military strike against Syria. I never thought he was going to do something like that. Also I never thought he was going to do so much executive orders one to another, and that just barely the beginning. I would suggest to add more issues that Trump has done while in his presidency besides the one you already talking about.
I agree that there's issues that has been going on with our new President. I remember when Trump got elected as our new President he promised that he was going to make America great again, but is the opposite. Until this day I haven't heard nothing good about our new President. The most shocking thing I heard about Trump was when he launch military strike against Syria. I never thought he was going to do something like that. Also I never thought he was going to do so much executive orders one to another, and that just barely the beginning. I would suggest to add more issues that Trump has done while in his presidency besides the one you already talking about.
Wednesday, March 29, 2017
Climate Change or Not ?
President Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday, opening a new front in his battle against former President Obama's environmental legacy. The order is a broad assault on key aspects of Obama's climate change policies, and dramatically alters the government's approach to rising sea levels and temperatures- two impacts of climate change. The administration believes the government can both serve the environment and increase energy by urging the EPA to focus on what the administration believes its core mission: clean air and clean water. Here is an article of the CNN news of Trumps executive order, "Trump dramatically changes U.S approach to climate change"
I agree with president Trump's order to decrease the amount of pollution in the air, and provide clean air. I'm assuming that limiting pollution in the air would improve our environment. President Trump is also protecting American jobs, even though some of these factories had made pollution in our air, Trump is trying to reduce the amount of pollution without people losing their jobs. Trump has been clear that he wouldn't pursue climate change policies that put U.S economy at risk.
Also by limiting pollution in the air can make a better change for our health, and decrease climate change. The White House went on to argue the best way to protect the environment is to have a strong economy, and not like the countries of China and India that do less to protect their environment, we can save more peoples lives by reducing toxins in the air. Also it can benefit future generations such as grandchildren, so they can have a clean air to breath.
I agree with president Trump's order to decrease the amount of pollution in the air, and provide clean air. I'm assuming that limiting pollution in the air would improve our environment. President Trump is also protecting American jobs, even though some of these factories had made pollution in our air, Trump is trying to reduce the amount of pollution without people losing their jobs. Trump has been clear that he wouldn't pursue climate change policies that put U.S economy at risk.
Also by limiting pollution in the air can make a better change for our health, and decrease climate change. The White House went on to argue the best way to protect the environment is to have a strong economy, and not like the countries of China and India that do less to protect their environment, we can save more peoples lives by reducing toxins in the air. Also it can benefit future generations such as grandchildren, so they can have a clean air to breath.
Thursday, March 9, 2017
No wonder the Republicans Hid the Health Bill
On Tuesday, March 7, 2017, the New York Times published an article titled No wonder the Republicans Hid the Health Bill.
In the article, "No wonder the Republicans Hid the Health Bill," by the Editorial Board, mentions the Republican plan to replace the Affordable Care Act is not making progress, and they're hiding it to the general public because they can't find a better way to replace it. The argument being made in this editorial is that the Republicans are trying to make a law that would apply a per-person limit on how much the federal government spends on Health Care Insurance. The provided evidence informs the intended audience why this new law is a bad idea, "This change could shift about 370 billion of dollars in health care costs over 10 years to state governments." Many state governments will have to face limited budgets, and be forced to cut benefits or cover fewer people.
The article, attempts to hook the reader's attention by providing some in depth information about the American Health Care Act Law. Also the author's use their knowledge to provide numerous statistics when they mention the comparison between the Affordable Care Act (Obama care) and the new American Health Care Act Law. They provide credibility with their well-informed evidence that leads the reader to accept their point.
Overall the author's arguments that were made in the article were strong enough because they were well explained, and back up with good evidence. Their evidence towards their statement were brilliant. This article was written to inform the intended audience about what would happen if the Republicans pass this new law, even though they still haven't come up with a workable replacement
In the article, "No wonder the Republicans Hid the Health Bill," by the Editorial Board, mentions the Republican plan to replace the Affordable Care Act is not making progress, and they're hiding it to the general public because they can't find a better way to replace it. The argument being made in this editorial is that the Republicans are trying to make a law that would apply a per-person limit on how much the federal government spends on Health Care Insurance. The provided evidence informs the intended audience why this new law is a bad idea, "This change could shift about 370 billion of dollars in health care costs over 10 years to state governments." Many state governments will have to face limited budgets, and be forced to cut benefits or cover fewer people.
The article, attempts to hook the reader's attention by providing some in depth information about the American Health Care Act Law. Also the author's use their knowledge to provide numerous statistics when they mention the comparison between the Affordable Care Act (Obama care) and the new American Health Care Act Law. They provide credibility with their well-informed evidence that leads the reader to accept their point.
Overall the author's arguments that were made in the article were strong enough because they were well explained, and back up with good evidence. Their evidence towards their statement were brilliant. This article was written to inform the intended audience about what would happen if the Republicans pass this new law, even though they still haven't come up with a workable replacement
Wednesday, February 22, 2017
Breaking the Anti-immigrant Fever
On Saturday, February 18, 2017, the New York Times published an article titled Breaking the Anti-immigrant Fever.
The Editorial Board of the New York Times (Breaking the Anti-immigrant Fever) wrote about daily deportations that has been made, tearing families apart, and those who are undocumented are threatened as if they were criminals. Especially those who have live here most of their lives and suddenly are fearful as fugitives. The argument being made is that Mr. Trump is deporting innocent people that are undocumented and not focusing on the people that are criminals. The provided evidence includes the difference between Mr. Obama's and Mr. Trump's deportations orders. (ICE and the Border Patrol under Mr. Obama were ordered to focus on arresting serious criminals and national security risks. Mr. Trump wants to triple the number ICE agents, revive federal agreements tot deputize state and local police officers, and wants to increase the number of detention beds and spur the boom in private prisons.
I believe this author provide numerous statistics to hook the readers attention to its point of view. The authors editorial is strongly confirmed in its opinion about the topic because it provides evidence that are clearly. Especially when it provide the difference between the two presidents, it got me thinking a lot. The sentiment of the opinion is fearful while, "Breaking the Anti-immigrant Fever." When speaking about a singular subject, such as, "Breaking the Anti-immigrant Fever," and providing evidence it shows about 99% of the picture. The logic is based on inspiring. Since it provides good evidence and well instructed. I believe this editorial was a good article, since it provide clear information on a primary subject. The opinions being stated are something that lots of people are thinking as well, but towards the end it feels more like a persuasive article.
The Editorial Board of the New York Times (Breaking the Anti-immigrant Fever) wrote about daily deportations that has been made, tearing families apart, and those who are undocumented are threatened as if they were criminals. Especially those who have live here most of their lives and suddenly are fearful as fugitives. The argument being made is that Mr. Trump is deporting innocent people that are undocumented and not focusing on the people that are criminals. The provided evidence includes the difference between Mr. Obama's and Mr. Trump's deportations orders. (ICE and the Border Patrol under Mr. Obama were ordered to focus on arresting serious criminals and national security risks. Mr. Trump wants to triple the number ICE agents, revive federal agreements tot deputize state and local police officers, and wants to increase the number of detention beds and spur the boom in private prisons.
I believe this author provide numerous statistics to hook the readers attention to its point of view. The authors editorial is strongly confirmed in its opinion about the topic because it provides evidence that are clearly. Especially when it provide the difference between the two presidents, it got me thinking a lot. The sentiment of the opinion is fearful while, "Breaking the Anti-immigrant Fever." When speaking about a singular subject, such as, "Breaking the Anti-immigrant Fever," and providing evidence it shows about 99% of the picture. The logic is based on inspiring. Since it provides good evidence and well instructed. I believe this editorial was a good article, since it provide clear information on a primary subject. The opinions being stated are something that lots of people are thinking as well, but towards the end it feels more like a persuasive article.
Wednesday, February 8, 2017
Embedding a Link in Blogger
On Wednesday, February 8, the New York Times published an article titled Before the wall: Life Along the U.S-Mexico Border, written by Azam Ahmed, Manny Villegas, and Paulina Villegas.
This article is mainly about people who live right next to the border wall, and witnessed those who try crossing it. These people tell their own stories how it was at first before the wall got more vigilant. Especially now that president Trump has confirm an executive order to begin the construction of the wall between the U.S and Mexico.
This article is very interested because it gives us an idea how these people sacrifices there life's to come into the U.S to work, and tend to have a decent job to be able to maintain their family's in Mexico. Especially now that president Trump wants to build the wall bigger, how it will affect those family's?
This article is mainly about people who live right next to the border wall, and witnessed those who try crossing it. These people tell their own stories how it was at first before the wall got more vigilant. Especially now that president Trump has confirm an executive order to begin the construction of the wall between the U.S and Mexico.
This article is very interested because it gives us an idea how these people sacrifices there life's to come into the U.S to work, and tend to have a decent job to be able to maintain their family's in Mexico. Especially now that president Trump wants to build the wall bigger, how it will affect those family's?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)