Blog Stage Eight: Response to "Illegal Immigration"

I read a journal from my classmate—Joshua Waggoner’s blog this morning. On her blog—American Soup Talk, she published a piece of writing about the issue of illegal immigration.

In her opinion, she believe that illegal immigration must be a serious problem in the United States, and the US government should solve this problem immediately so that lives, money, and benefits of this country can be secured (protected). In summary, she argued that illegal immigrants should get penalty, and illegal immigration causes substantial harm to American citizens and legal immigrants.

I agree with her. In recent years, more and more illegal immigrants have crossed the U.S. border to work and to receive publicly-funded services, often with the aid of fraudulent documents. Maybe this way benefits some corporations and illegal immigrants, and they like to paint it as a victimless crime, but in fact, illegal immigration brings harmful results to American citizens and legal immigrants.

In my opinion, illegal immigration is a crime, for 4 reasons: 1) increasing terrorism, 2) increasing drug trafficking, 3) increasing unemployment rate for U. S. citizens and legal immigrants, and 4) making dramatic population growth. For example, illegal immigration causes over population. As a result, there is shortage of basic amenities, such as consuming already limited affordable housing and straining precious natural resources like water, energy, and forestland. Also, job competition by waves of illegal immigrants willing to work at much lower wages and working conditions depresses the wages of American workers. In addition, illegal immigration causes and enormous drain on public funds. According to the study of the costs of immigration by the National Academy of Sciences, if we continue to bring in endless numbers of poor and unskilled immigrants, the taxes paid by immigrants do not cover the cost of services received by them. As a result, American citizens and legal immigrants can not obtain high quality education, health care, and retirement security. Therefore, our government needs to end illegal immigration immediately and find out solutions to solve this serious problem.

In conclusion, Congress and the Executive Branch need to strengthen the three components of immigration control--deterrence, apprehension and removal, to ensure that people who enter the United States legally. This will be fair to American citizens and legal immigrants.

Blog Stage Seven

Handguns for 18-Year-Olds is an article that I read this morning from the New York Times.  Although the author’s name was not published in this article, I believe that this article is credible and worth to read. In summary, the author made an argument about whether the idea—allowing young people between 18 and 20 years old to buy handguns and carry them concealed in public places is rational.

In order to maximize their profits and undermine public safety, the National Rifle Association supported this law suit (the idea). Believe it or not, last week, President Obama had barely nominated a new director, Andrew Traver, to deal with this issue. Since the N.R.A. had a big power,

Traver’s  action and intended purpose—associating with a police chief’s group to reduce the use of handguns on city streets did not make any sense.  This law suit challenges and contests a Texas law—setting 21 as the minimum age for carrying a concealed weapon.

In this article, the anonymous author strongly opposed this idea. I agree with this person. Setting 18 as the minimum age for carrying a concealed handguns is not rational. In my opinion, there are 3 reasons that I strongly believe that this way is absolutely wrong: 1) Increasing crime rate, 2) becoming more unsafe places (streets) 3) destroying many youths’ prospect (future).  According to F.B.I. crime data, young people who is between 18 and 21 years old has the highest violent crimes rate, such as gun violence, murder, nonnegligent homicides and manslaughters.  If this idea were passed, we can image how danger will be near us. Also, since these young people are under age 21, they are not mature. If they have the right to carry handgun, this way could destroy not only the safety of the schools but also the streets.  For example, if they use the gun to make a revenge or kill someone because of a stupid conflict or misunderstanding, this way could totally destroy the young individual’s future. Therefore, hand guns for 18-year-olds should be prohibited.  The N.R.A. should support the gun control and protect people’s safety.

Blog Stage Six

The journal that I wrote today is a response to my classmate—Zachary Waggoner’s post on Stage 5.

I read both his article and journal this morning. He published Dont Ask in his blog—Wake Up America.

Actually it was an argument about the military policy, “don’t ask, don’t tell.” This policy prohibits gays from serving openly in the military. Most students hoped that President Obama can stand out and take action with federal government to repeal this policy. However, the critics argued that reversing the policy could hurt the effectiveness of troops during war. As a result, there is still not a solution for this issue.

I strongly agreed with my colleague—Zachary’s opinion.  The U.S. national government should hurry up and repeal this policy. Also, I liked his excellent idea—“if a person is willing to fight and put their lives on the line for our country that person’s sexual orientation shouldn’t matter.” That is the main point and important reason that I believe our federal government should repeal this unfair policy.

In my opinion, there are 3 reasons why this policy still has not been repealed: 1) many national members worry about their voting status, 2) most people care about their fame and prestige, like Zachary said, “it can have a negative effect on the way people view that person.” 

In conclusion, this tough issue should be solved. Our government needs a strong leader who has an open-minded view and sensible( wise) judgment and  effective solving way to change this policy.

Blog Stage Five

The Age of Alzheimer’s is an article about editorial that I read this afternoon from the New York Times.  This is a good article that reflects a serious problem: Alzheimer is a fatal disease. It will be a threat to baby boomers in the future, but now our government is not paying too much attention on it.

Three authors contributed on this article. They are not only outstanding, but also credible.  The authors are Sandra Day O’Connor, Stanley Prusiner, and Ken Dychtwald.  Sandra Day O’Connor is a retired associate justice of the Supreme Court. Stanley  Prusiner is the director of the Institute for Neurodegenerative Diseases at the University of California, San Francisco. He received the 1997 Nobel Prize in Medicine. The last author, Ken Dychtwald, is a psychologist and gerontologist. Also, he is the chief executive of a company that consults with businesses about the aging world population. 

The authors’ intended audiences could be old people, baby boomers, politicians, and lawmakers.

In this article, they argued that the risk of the Alzheimer for baby boomers is very high, but so far

only a handful of medications have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat this horrific disease. Also, our government did not care about this problem. However, the authors used facts, examples, and comparisons to explain the importance for treating and protecting this disease. In conclusion, they appealed and hoped lawmakers could pass a legislation related to solve this disease. Like they mentioned, a well-designed and adequately financed national strategic plan can be used to against Alzheimer’s.

I agree with the author. If we cannot avoid Alzheimer’s disease by physical testing, the best way to fight this disease must be improve our ability to protect ourselves. Older people must pay more attention about it. Although we are young now, after 20 or 30 years, we will turn old. Government should put more attention on it—setting a goal of stopping Alzheimer’s by 2020. Otherwise, it will become a tragedy in the future.

Stage Four: Critique and Editorial from a Blog

I read the article—In Climate Denial, Again from the New York Times this evening.  The article’s kind is opinion (editorial). Although this article does not publish the author’s name, it is worth for people to read and think about its issue-- “global warming.”  Also, this article reveals a fact: most republicans not only reject global warming solutions but also changed the truth and minimize its effort.

In my opinion, the author’s intended audience is republicans, democrats, scientists, environmentalists and other people.  Even though we do not know the author’s name, this article effectively uses historical examples and present facts demonstrate its credibility. Absolutely, it is credible.

Republicans are not concerned about global warming though this problem is very serious right now. In order to avoid this problem and keep their benefit, they repudiated scientific & peer-reviewed findings, altered congressional testimony, and suppressed the Environmental  Protection Agency and related people to veto this issue.  However, the writer points out an ugly fact: all of the actions are guided by the Former Vice President, Dick Cheney.  For example, Mr. Cheney has been used his powerful to undercut Mrs. Whitman (A leader who took climate change seriously.) According to Cheney, the effect of global warming is not very important at all. In addition, he thinks that there is not enough evidence to prove the future results. Is that really true? I do not think so. We can find statistical data and scientific findings and analysis online.  They show us that global warming is a very serious problem right now.

As we know, global warming is based upon man-made CO2. There is a strong correlation between CO2 concentrations and increased global temperature.  Ice core samples and polar bear movements show us this is a really urgent problem.  This problem must be solved. If the political party parrots the Cheney line, how can American trust them?  The United States has been built on innovation and scientific prowess, but now this spirit is threatened. 

Creating an embeded link in blogger

I read an article about an editorial from the opinion section of the New York Times yesterday.

The author, Richard D. Kahlenberg, made an argument about whether the elites manipulate the system to their advantage ---easy college admission for their children. This is a good article because it provides strong evidence, logic thinking, and practical statistics.

The author’s intended audience could be college or university alumni, legacy children, lawyers, tax collectors, law makers, and populists. Populist is growing anger about this situation. They think the educational system is the United States is not fair now because colleges grant easy admission channel for the children of alumni.  Some of the alumni and legacy children may argue that this is not true.
There is no hard evidence to prove  that legacy preference are often justified as a way of building loyalty among alumni, sustaining tradition, and increasing donations for colleges.  However, the author, Richard D. Kahlenberg provides a very strong evidence to make an argument --- “Studies have shown that being the child of an alumnus adds the equivalent of 160 SAT points to one’s application and increases one’s chances of admission by almost 20% points.”  

Both article and author are credible. The author, Richard D. Kahlenberg, is a senior fellow at the Century Foundation. Also, he is the editor of “Affirmative Action for the Rich: Legacy Preferences in College Admissions.”  In this article, he uses Thomas Jefferson’s  famous quote—“natural aristocracy based on virtue and talent” to explain hereditary preferences.  Then he took and example –the two lawyers’ arguments in Pennsylvania, to explain legacy preference violates the US law. Finally, the author appeals Congress outlaw alumni preferences at all universities. Otherwise, it will put an end to the form of discrimination in higher education.

I agree with the author.  Our government should protect the quality of the higher education. Congress should outlaw alumni preferences.  If legislators don’t act, some colleges and universities will lose credit for people.

Creating an Embedded Link to Blogger

          This morning, I read an article from Times. The article, Are HIV Rates in Gay Men Really 'Out of Control'?, was written by  John Cloud. It is a good article that use comparisons,statistics, evidence, and examples to prove a truth: HIV rates in gay men  are not really out of control.
          In summary, two different kinds of paper-The Lancet Infectious Disease Paper & The BMC Infectious Diseases Paper informed readers only one truth: HIV transmission among young gay men has grown in Europe because of their bad habits, unprotected sex, and sharing disease. The two papers may get the false conclusion. However,the writer point out an significant point: the data in both two papers prove that HIV remains a problem among gay men, one that requires steady intervention, not outrageous language.
          In my opinion, the article is worth reading. It tells a misunderstanding about statistics. On the one hand,  I learned that  we should face some issues objectively, such as gay marriage, abortion, and so on. On the other hand,whether the HIV transmission rate is higher or lower than the previous years, everone living in the world should improve the knowledge and protection of this disease.