Stage 6: Response to Trump should prioritize our country's environment

I strongly agree with the views presented in this post that it is important for the government to focus on environmental concerns instead of dismissing them outright. In this post, the author indicates that Trump signing an executive order to unravel President Obama's administration to combat change, in order to save more jobs, is a bad move. I agree with this point, because I do not think that economic development and environmental protection are mutually exclusive. When a government funds research and development focusing on environmental protection, more jobs can be created as more people are needed to work in this new industry. Furthermore, it is clear that Trump's intention was to protect the US manufacturing and coal industry, but by cutting funding to the EPA meant that jobs are also lost through his actions.

The authors of this post also mentions President Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. I would like to expand on this point, that not only this move is bad for the environment but it also affects US soft power internationally. This is because under President Obama's administration, the US became the champion for many countries that view climate change as a serious problem. By withdrawing from this agreement, Trump might have negatively affected the relationship between these countries and the US. This meant that the in future, the US might have difficulty in swaying other nations to act in a way that is conducive to US interests.

Comments

Stage 3 : New York Times commentary

Ariel Davis On July 18 2017, the New York Times published an opinion piece written by Farhana Khera and Jonathan J.Smith. The title of this piece is How Trump is stealthily carrying out his Muslim Ban. The writers' argument was that while Trump has not explicitly enacted a Muslim ban, he is trying to do so subtly by issuing orders that targeted Muslims. These orders, as pointed out by the writers,include increasing administrative hurdles and cementing or even expanding the current travel restrictions that are not under review in court. The writes of this piece are members of Muslim Advocates, a civil rights organization group. As the organization name indicates, it most likely focuses on the welfare of Muslims. Therefore the writers are probably trying to draw attention to the plight of Muslims trying to travel to the United States. By writing this article on the huge platform like the New York Times, I feel that the writers also want readers to be aware...

Stage 5: Should the government continue to fund Planned Parenthood

On April 13 2017, the New York Times reported that President Trump signed legislation aimed at cutting of federal funding to Planned Parenthood and other organizations that performed abortions. This move was welcomed by several conservatives who wanted to impose curbs on reproductive rights. I do not agree with this move as I believe defunding such organizations will bring about more problems. Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organization that provides reproductive health services in the United States and internationally. In 2014, federal and state governments provided the organization with $528 million in funding (40% of its annual budget). The majority of this funding comes from Medicaid which subsidizes reproductive healthcare for low-income women. Abortions account for about 3 percent of the services ...

Stage 7 : Trump's proposed transgender military ban is hurtful to the American society

On July 26, President Trump caught everyone by surprise, when he tweeted his intentions of banning transgender people from serving the military. Trump's reasoning for his decision was that it was too expensive to pay for transgender troops' healthcare and the potential disruptions it might cause. While I do understand the President's concern, I feel that his actions will bring about greater harm compared to the benefit of reducing the cost of the military spending. President Trump reasoned that the cost of transition related treatment will be "tremendous." A study done by the Rand Corporation shows that the costs of such treatment will add between 2.4 million and 8.4 million dollars to the military's annual budget. While the number may seem high, this will only increase the military spending by 0.017% . This cost is pretty insignificant compared to the potential cost of retraining troops to replace transgender troops. Furthermore, some trans gende...

50Stars

Search This Blog