My Commentary on Rachel MacKay's Post

On April 27th, 2017, Rachel MacKay posted an article titled "Missile Fail". In this article, she discussed her viewpoint on U.S. and North Korea relations regarding the failed Korean missile launch.

Using what I've observed previously, and from what I've learned upon further research (as can be seen in my other recent post), this just appears to be another "power move". As we've seen many a time before, North Korea is just pretending that they're preparing for war, and this is likely just another attempt. WWIII wouldn't be caused by this, and even if North Korea did attempt war, it would quickly end.

It's also worth mentioning that her claims about Trump not caring is untrue; there has been attempts to shut down North Korea's missile production by shutting down their economy, as well as U.S. ships based off of their shores.. I personally believe that North Korea isn't something we need to worry about, as their threat is being shut down as we speak.

Tensions Rising Between the U.S. and North Korea

If you've been on social media such as Facebook or Youtube as of late, there's no doubt that you've seen the most recent North Korean propaganda videos being spread across the internet. In the videos (HERE and HERE), U.S. owned bases and ships are being attacked by enemy forces, and missile warfare is shown hitting U.S. soil, specifically the white house. Images such as a burning American flag and crosses in a graveyard are shown. Along with the videography, North Korea also stated that it will "destroy the US if it feels endangered". Despite earlier remarks from the Trump administration talking about threatening North Korea with missile strikes, the President and Congress have taken steps to instead diplomatically drain the country's economy so as to shut down their missile funding.
 Although this is by far a superior idea to military action, it does not mean that North Korea won't see this as an act of war; it is already openly acknowledged that the U.S. is now working with China to shut off North Korea's imports and exports. These actions are dangerous to all parties involved, as U.S. allies Japan and South Korea as well as a large amount of troops stationed in the pacific are relatively close in location to North Korea, and would easily be bombed. The U.S. is trying to prevent military action, but their actions could very well lead to a war. Although North Korea is proven to often not follow up on their threats, as seen with the multiple claims and missile tests, it still worries me that these are the decisions that are being made. These plans along with the recent stationing of U.S. ships off the coast of North Korea and testing of our own missles might very well drive us to a World War III.

My Commentary on Hannah Chapman's Post

On March 29th, Hannah Chapman made a post titled Should Marijuana (Cannabis) be Legal that I personally agree with; the points she made in her argument are all reasonable and make sense. I haven't seen marijuana cause harm or have seen anyone high on it be a nuisance- if anything I've seen positive effects in those who use it. I think that the government has been trying to profit off of drug busts, imprisonment, and fining of those in possession of marijuana, and because of that, they have tried to prevent the legalization of marijuana. Now, as the population has adjusted to where marijuana is an acceptable norm, and is now angered that addictive drugs are being prescribed legally, but marijuana, a organic, harmless "drug" is not, the government is being forced to change their ways. Although I disagree with Hannah's statement about letting the government tax it, I still agree with the rest of her argument about legalizing it. If there's more pros than cons, why don't we allow it?

My Opinion On "Gender Rights"

In the past few years, a problem has risen involving the rights and treatment of transgender people and on the topic of  "Gender Rights". The most notable example of what is being argued is the case of Gavin Grimm, a transgender student that was denied entrance to a men's bathroom at his school. Since that event, Grimm and other advocates have been searching for the US Government to pass acts recognizing transgenders and those with other abstract "gender identities" as what they say they are. In this post, I will be discussing my opinions on the matter; seeing as the aforementioned case of which bathroom transgenders should use is the first and most evident case, this will be the one I reference.

If I were asked whether or not I support gender rights, I would claim to be in heavy disagreement with it. Transgenders technically have the same rights as any other person, just without the recognition and agreement with what the individual identifies as. Rather, I see the calling for respect of these "rights" as just wanting special treatment and for others to have the same opinion as them. Rather than wanting rights, these people just want everyone else to agree with what they think they are. Using the bathroom incident as reference again, other students at Grimm's school stated that they were uncomfortable with having someone who was biologically a different sex in the same bathroom as them. In this case, you can get a sense of proportion  to how others might feel about this. A very small minority that doesn't even make up half of a percent of the U.S. population wants their feelings put above the feelings of the other 99.7% of the U.S. citizens. And, besides that, a lot of the institutions and societal norms that these people are advocating for run off the basis of actual biological sex, not gender- therefore the points that these people try to make are unrealistic, and their claims have no value. If an individual such as Grimm, a biological female, does not have the genitalia of a biological male, there is no reason for the individual to be in there.

In final thought, I think that what these individuals demand is irrational. While it would normally be reasonable to want to be acknowledged for who they are, this is too much. I personally think the government should not take action in giving these people "rights", since they are not rights at all. I feel that, unless the individual gets an operation to have the parts of the other sex, they should continue to conform to the standards, rules, and areas set apart for the sex they were born as. If these rights were passed, I think they would be abused or set as an example for others who are self-entitled.

For this assignment, I have reviewed an editorial posted on National Review named The Democrats’ Clinton Problem (Heather Wilhelm, March 9th 2017). In this article, the author outlined the Democratic party's "obsession" with the Clinton family and why she thinks they should add variety into their candidates. It is very apparent as to whom the author's message is aimed to as well as her opinions on both the Republican and the Democratic candidates in this most recent election; it's clear that this message was intended for Democratic supporters to convince them to not support Hillary or anyone else in the Clinton family when one is running.

In the editorial, the author claims that Hillary and her family have been the center of attention in the Democratic party as of late, and backs it up with articles from other news sources speaking only positively about Hillary and her daughter Chelsea, who has been said to be running for office in the future as well. The author states that Hillary and the Democrats got too full of themselves during the election, and ended up making Trump look like the better choice. The article also said that despite the awards and media support the family receives, very few actually support her. While some of the claims the writer makes are biased, the point still stands relatively reasonable- the Democratic needs to open up to other candidates if they want to stand a chance. People have caught on to Hillary and her kin and no longer care about them; it's for the best that Hillary gets dropped.

Repair & Retain Obamacare by USA Today

The editorial I have found and chosen to write about is over the Trump Administration's decision on repealing Obamacare, hosted on USA Today's site. In this Article, the editorial board tries to make an argument that Republicans are wrong in trying to remove Obamacare assistance. In this review, the author(s) try to convince us that people should advocate for the repair of the Obamacare act rather than the repealing or avoidance of it.

While the idea of reviewing the act would seem fair, this news source has instead taken it to a bit of an extreme measure. Since there seems to be more than one author of this, I can't really make any SPECIFIC assumptions on their political viewpoint, but I can make a general one. From reasoning and possible solutions suggested by the writers, I can guess they are probably leaning more towards a leftist stance, and one could assume this individual(s) rely on Obamacare. While I feel like this article is also aimed more towards those with a currently standing leftist view, it is partially addressed to the right-wing as well.

There is a large amount of biased information present in the post I read- the article only outlined the positives of Obamacare, skipping over or barely acknowledging the negatives. The biggest evidence that the authors tried to present was how Obamacare only had a slight impact on insurance prices and on how our tax money is spent. Both claims can be discredited easily, as insurance companies are obviously raising rates, and the statistics on how much money is going to ACA assistance. Around 125 billion dollars were spent last year alone, and the amount of money spent in the next decade is estimated to reach over a trillion- all for a small population of the US.  Yet, they still argue that people with more money or who are older should pay more, between taxes and rates. The author also states their support for policies such as tighter policies on late payments, enrollment, and subsidization, all of which could be seen as an attempt to make more Americans reliant.

While the author(s) STATE that they want Obamacare to be repaired, their argument comes off more as if they want more people to use it or to view it's policies as positive, rather than thinking of the affect it has economically or on the people themselves. I personally disagree with Obamacare's policy, since it only helps a minority of our population, all while hampering the majority's.

Pentagon Considers Leasing Room at Trump Tower

In an article from the New York Times, the Pentagon has recently stated that they may possibly rent out space in the Trump Tower, where President trump and his family live part time to house staff and equipment. The Department of Defense is looking into giving Trump and his company money to use some room in the tower. The fact that this money is going to Trump himself has led some speculation as to whether or not Trump is doing this for personal and monetary gain, rather than in interest for the country. Although the leasing of space has occurred in the past, this could be much different. Read the article to see why this might be an act of greed, rather than for governmental affairs.