Blog Stage 7 Vaccines

I believe that the government  should implement mandatory vaccinations. If these are not met than there should be real consequences including jail time or fines. Many people are scared of vaccines. One reason is that a severe allergic reaction could occur. It’s 1 in a million chance of this reaction and thats about the same as getting struck by lightening. People also believe that medical decisions should not be made by the government, but by the parent or guardians. Medical doctors know what is best because it is their area of study, and what they have dedicated their life to understanding.

Knowledge on what a vaccine is and how it works is very important to understanding this medical need.  According to Merriam-Websters dictionary a vaccine is, “the introduction into humans or domestic animals of microorganisms that have previously been treated to make them harmless for the purpose of inducing the development of immunity,” They work by allowing your body to create antibodies to harmless viruses. Then when the full virus attacks your body already has a specific army ready to fight the disease.According to the CDC hundreds of thousands of people used to be infected and thousands died every year from these diseases. These vaccinations have given society protection. Some of the disease that have vaccines may not seem that bad and have mild symptoms. We are mostly vaccinated to keep these diseases from spreading to older people young children or people with compromised immune systems. Vaccines protect our population because when vaccinated from a disease then it protects your grandmother, yourself, your neighbors kids, etc. People who don’t believe in vaccination should watch a video of a baby with pertussis, its traumatic they choke on their own mucus until their airway is blocked. Another argument is how pharmaceutical companies want to make money and that is why they push vaccines. If children were actually infected with the disease it would make much more money for the companies. Vaccines are quick and inexpensive whereas a hospital stay is very expensive. The world health organization says the deaths from measles are down by 79% worldwide because of vaccines. Some symptoms seem like the flu or a cold but the real fear is how contagious it is. These viruses are not extinct our society has eradicated them from America. Vaccines are for the next generations. People have not had to witness the horrors of some of these diseases and they don't understand how much simpler it is to get a shot.

Once again as with many of the controversial issue the most important thing about mandatory vaccines is knowledge. A class or orientation about them and the effects not having these vaccines could produce could also be mandatory. We need to teach our kids that the government does care and medicine is here to help.

Stage Six Comment On Colleague's Work

             The main point of  Yady Garcia’s original editorial is that society needs to be more involved in government. Mostly to save the planet because global warming and environmental issues are very real and important. The evidence that this author uses includes information about a bill promoting access to the  Keystone Pipeline. Then she states how Obama vetoed this bill. There are also some statements about scientists and their research. I personally don't think there is enough supportive evidence. I believe adding some statistics, some research quotes from reliable qualified scientists, or some direct evidence on climate change would have made the argument stronger. The presented evidence is consistent with the article, but in my opinion is not sufficient enough for me to judge the article. I need some more concrete insight into how global warming is effecting society including facts in the form of data and measurements. I agree with the world view that the author present’s, but Yady Garcia needs to consider the other side. By doing this I mean that an understanding of why some people do not think the environment needs help or even that global warming is not real. These are the people that need to be convinced so that change can occur. I already agree with the article, which is why it is so interesting for me to read. I completely agree we need to be more involved in government to make changes that will effect our world. I am terrified that our new president is planning on appointing Myron Ebell to head the EPA transition team and this man believes global warming is “silly.” This is one example of a person who would not agree. There are also many people in society that think the same way as this individual. These people would need a stronger argument with more proof to come to an insightful conclusion.

Increase USA Minimum Wage, Blog Stage Five

We should increase minimum wage and base its increase on inflation in the United States of America. Currently it is not increased with inflation meaning people are still making the same amount with a higher cost-of-living. Minimum wage is defined by Merriam Webster as “an amount of money that is the least amount of money per hour that workers must be paid according to the law.” Only 5% of laws introduced into Congress actually pass and become a law. If the minimum wage were increased it would increase education, job security, employment and quality of life. People have been and still come to America for the “American Dream,” which is a belief that every citizen should have the chance to be successful and happy. I believe this is a philosophical dream for any human being and can only be achieved by changing our minimum wage.

There are many articles stating most minimum-wage workers are teens or under 25 and live with their parents or in a $50,000 or more household. These articles state an opinion that this group of people does not need to be paid more than minimum wage. Other sources also argue that only a small percentage of people over 25 are in minimum wage jobs, and that this small margin of people would not affect the economy. According to the US Department of Labor, “89 percent of those who would benefit from a federal minimum wage increase to $12 per hour are age 20 or older, and 56 percent are women.” According to the Washington Post, “ only 27% of college graduates have a job related to their major.” I personally know plenty of students that are graduates under 25 working for minimum wage and living with their parents. These educated adults definitely deserve to get paid enough to move out and pay back their student loans. Also, some argue about people getting paid for the skills that they have, but I believe paying more would increase savings. This would lead to continuing education and allow people to get out of a paycheck-to-paycheck cycle.

According to the National Employment Law Project increasing minimum wage in states has had some very positive feedback. According to this article the few states that increased their minimum wage also increased economic growth without decreasing employment. They also show how increasing it slowly does not affect businesses. This is an example of how increasing with inflation would be an asset instead of by law. Americans need to be able to have savings and this is how we accomplish a sustainable goal.

Some possible options instead of increasing minimum wage could be to decreasing education cost. This way American’s could increase education and their ability to learn skills. Another option would be to decreasing the margin between rich and poor so that there is an equal opportunity to succeed. Lastly, even decreasing welfare for increased available funds to increase minimum wage. These ideas are the other paths I imagine would help all citizens to achieve the “American Dream.”

Stage Four Blog Criticism

          During the final presidential debate on Wednesday October 19, 2016 Donald Trump called Hillary a “nasty woman.” There have been many comments about this statement on social media, mainstream media, and political blogs. The article “What Donald Trump Really Meant When He Said“Nasty Woman”,” by Emily Peck ultimately explains the meaning most women heard. The authors intended audience includes the American public especially women who were offended. Emily Peck’s credibility is that she is an editor at the Huffington Post and has previously worked for the Wall Street Journal and The American Lawyer magazine. Another asset to her credibility is that she is a woman and can write this article from an average American woman’s perspective.

The main claim of Emily’s argument is that Trump meant “bitch” when he said “nasty woman.” The Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines the word “bitch” in two ways. The first one is “a lewd or immoral woman and the second is a malicious, spiteful, or overbearing woman —sometimes used as a generalized term of abuse.” Both of these have negative connotations and are not appropriate for an educated man to call a professional woman. The evidence the author uses points out the way women have been treated throughout history. To support her argument she uses quotes from a writer Andy Zeisler and his opinions about Hillary he wrote in The New York Times.  The other evidence is how the American public feels about this quote including personal twitter tweets. The logic of the author can best be observed with a quote from the article, “Bitch is a gendered slur, meant to shame and silence women who dare speak up for themselves.”

I agree with this article, but I do not think there was enough evidence. It is mostly an angry rant. I also believe this behavior is wrong even if the roles were reversed. Donald has an extensive history of insulting women. This can be examined from many sources online including all sorts of news, personal websites, even a sexism tracker. Hillary has notoriously been sexually harassed and treated badly for years. It has only has gotten worse since she decided to run for president. One of these people will represent America as its top leader. This fact is laughable considering one has a bad attitude and the other one a bad reputation.

Stage Three Critique

The argumentative opinion article I chose to critique was from the New York Times. It was called, “What Does Immigration Actually Cost Us?” by Thomas B. Edsall. The audience he chose to write to includes most American voters. I feel like it was more of a liberal argument because the quotes from Trump were negative in connotation. Although, the perception of hostility may just be attributed to Trump’s personality and not a left wing enticement. Hillary had great things to say that alluding to a positive impression. The author of this piece is very credible. Thomas B. Edsall has been writing opinion pieces for 25 years. According to Wikipedia he has been an editor, written for many national newspapers, teaches at Columbia University, and has other political and educational accomplishments.

The claim of Edsall’s argument is about immigration hurting American citizens and their wages while having an affect on our economy. He is good at presenting the liberal and conservative perspective.  There are two quotes that supported the author’s argument on a strong contrast between the two parties. The quote from Hillary that made an impact was “because they know it strengthens families, strengthens our economy, and strengthens our country. The quote that contrasted Hillary’s argument the most was when Trump used another negative statement saying, “They should – and need to – go home and get in line.” Evidence Edsall uses includes statistics and opinions from Harvard and Dallas Federal Reserve economists. They state how immigration is good for the economy and promotes skilled workers while filling voids for laborers. The other side concludes immigration hurts lower income Americans. In the logic of this article the author presents the strong contradiction between two sides and states that all republicans agree with Trump and all democratics agree with Hillary.

I agree that there are two strong stances and that as American citizens we must evaluate the best compromise for our country. As a liberal I am like this author predicted and swayed towards Hillary’s arguments. I do believe the evidence that proves making illegals a part of our society helps not hurts our economy. The one critique I must mention is I am not sure I agree because I am liberal or because of my ethics and close family values.

Native Americans and Dakota Access, Stage Two ABC News Article

This article on ABC News is about the tensions between many Native American tribes in North Dakota and Dakota Access. The Native Americans want to keep sacred sites for future generations while respecting nature and being peaceful. They also believe Dakota Access is going to damage the Missouri river water and their sacred sites. It seemed as though they were a little aggressive when three hundred Native American protestors against 14 officers tried to stop the bulldozers from demolishing these sacred sites. The article has a statement from a witness that believes it was chaotic but misunderstood. The Company wants to deliver sweet crude oil more cost effectively and environmentally responsible. Dakota Access has gotten permission from the landowners to put this pipeline through their private land. This is very important for people to read as American citizens. It is a tension that has been going on since we first settled America. It also involves our environment; Our Earth is very precious, since we only have one. Lastly it emphasizes communication and that is an important tool in any conflict or government situation.

Hello US GOVT 2305-148-10191!