Our Government, The Media, and Anti-Muslim Sentiment

Nearly twenty years have passed since the terrorist attack in New York City on September 11^th. The event set into motion a paradigm shift in the United States affecting policy, media, and a new era of blanket racism. After all this time, and after all the information that we have learned since that day, the Anti-Muslim sentiment still remains staunchly prevalent as an inflammatory media and political tool. The currents administration’s actions have definitely reignited a flame beneath these feelings and thwarts any progress made by our country towards healing. Facing the brunt of the misinformation and manipulation of meaning is Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota. The New York Times took a speech she gave at a banquet hosted by the Council on American-Islamic Relations and threw context out the window with a rabble-rousing cover, and otherAmerican media and politicians took it and ran amok. When this happens, and our president and people of respected office respond in such ways as calling Rep. Omar a "disgrace" or questioning if Omar is ". . . an American first," or spread videos of the terrorist attack itself, the intention is not to honor those who died or were affected that day. The intent is to create unrest and division. The fact that Omar’s words, when denouncing Islamophobia, were twisted and used to create the very thing she strives to change, is a sad irony that has resulted in Rep. Omar facing threats on her life. 

The Greener New Deal

For my third blog assignment I chose to read and critique The Washington Post's editorial on The Green New Deal. 

The author's desired audience is made clear to me in the title of this opinion piece. Asking and answering, "Want a Green New Deal? Here's a Better One," grabs the attention of those already in support of finding climate saving solutions. The author speaks to those who wanted more from the proposal, who support yet are not yet satisfied with what the policy states as is. I believe that it also speaks to those who may not be sold on the idea of the Green New Deal as it stands now, and introduces a more bipartisan approach.

In summation, the article highlights the issues with the proposal and counters with a more focused, mutually agreeable course of action. The authors call for "smart government intervention - and on transforming the relentless power of the market from an obstacle to a centerpiece of the solution." Clear and efficient, The Washington Post editorial makes the case for harnessing the power of the market by using examples like Dominion Energy's Cove Point plant. Seeing two sides of the issue, the article details how the market responded to cheaper and cleaner energy than coal by the rapid replacement of natural gas. Washington Post uses statistics from The Union of Concerned Scientists and U.S. Energy Information Administration  to demonstrate how well the market responded to a better option than coal. 

A solution proposed by Washington Post is pollution pricing. Stressing a need for efficiency with both time and money, WP uses the results of pollution pricing on the drop in acid rain to demonstrate the efficacy of such programs. The concern highlighted by the article is that the Green New Deal's stance on pollution pricing is too non-committal and is a mark obvious missed.

The Washington Post takes statistics and proven best practice, removes the unrelated and refocuses it's own New Deal to be a more efficient and affordable answer to the policy we have been offered. While I see the importance of some of The Green New Deal's more social policies, I can't help but agree with the Washington Post. Our focus for this deal needs to be solely on meaningful environmental change.

"Lalalalala I can't hear you," or Trump's Border Wall and Emergency Shmergency

For this blog assignment I chose to read and discuss NPR's article discussing Trump's declaration of National Emergency and the response thus far.

It seems clear to me that the president is choosing to ignore the wishes of his peers and the people of the United States by moving forward with the decision to declare a national emergency to provide funding for a single, non-strategic method of border security. Notable Republican senators, such as Susan Collins and Will Hurd have spoken out against the president's decision. Hurd, a senator from Texas whose districts cover a reported 800 miles of border land, makes the case that a strategy to enforce border security should be the goal, not a single tool, such as a wall.

Citing violence, drugs, criminals and human traffickers, Trump turns a blind eye to the statistical truth of the matter, that illegal border crossings have actually decreased in recent years. Most of those crossing the border illegally are seeking asylum, they are the huddled masses yearning to break free.

 This article is highlights past situations in which national emergencies have taken place. "This is not 9/11. This is not the Iran hostage crisis of 1979,"  said California Attorney General Xavier Becerra. No, this is an over-blown pseudo-crisis invented by President Trump, who continually chooses to hold his fingers into his ears and ignore any opposition.

Get it? Like "What in tarnation?!" but "What in our Nation?!" Ok, cool.