Original Editorial/Commentary #1

There are 109 women in the 115^th congress out of 535 members; meaning although women make up over half of the population, they are severely underrepresented amongst our lawmakers. The house and senate consist of majority men, where is the problem in this? A group of middle age men (and older) should not be calling the shots for 162 million people who differ in anatomy, mindset, history, and concerns.

A perfect example of this is abortion, although I feel I’m beating a dead horse by mentioning it. Men are certainly, entirely excluded from the act of getting an abortion or perhaps they should be. There are certain aspects of abortion that affect everyone, and for those, all sexes should be involved such as, should government pay for abortion.

The primary purpose of mentioning the old “pro-life” or “pro-choice” ordeal is because it should be “women’s choice”. Personally, I feel the act should be (women’s choice), but I’m referring to the voting process. Middle aged men shouldn’t be voting on a subject that they cannot possibly empathize (key word, empathize) with. Women should play a majority role (if not the only) in making the decisions that exclusively affect them.

The only solution to this dilemma is to corral more women into congress. Women who’ve lacked encouragement and inclusion growing up tend to avoid office. While this is not the fault of congress, but more within the arena of parenting, there is something congress can do. It is on the shoulders of congresswomen to encourage younger generations to become more involved. Whether it be taking time out of their day to speak to girl scout troops in their area or suggest a push for more informative government education (not taught by gym teachers) across the board.

While it is important for young boys to be encouraged as well, I believe we are at a point where girls require more of a push (the numbers truly speak for themselves). It’s disheartening to know it is 2017 and women still don’t have the voice they should, along with various races/ethnicities. Women were the last to legally vote, the last to be allowed work, the last allowed in the streets unaccompanied (this refers to ALL women in the United States). Congress needs more women within its ranks or women will never truly be represented in this country.

Substantial Commentary #2

The argument produced by “Trump just lost a big court case because he’s a terrible liar,” by Ian Millhiser, is in regards to Donald Trump and his administration’s attempt to cover up his desire to discriminate against predominately Muslim nations. Millhiser hypothesizes that through the addition of Venezuelan Government Officials and North Koreans to a new version of the Muslim travel ban, they will appear to only be concerned with the politics of the situation versus their genuine motive; to ban all Muslims from the United States.

Millhiser provides several hyperlinks within his text, thus sending the message he has nothing to hide. He’s established great credibility for himself through this display of confidence in his work, and fearlessness of allowing the public to fact check his claims. His article seems rational and well sourced, although his heated tone rails throughout. My only dilemma with lacing so much anger through an article is that: it will deter those opposing from reading and those who agree will have little choice but to walk away fuming.

His intended audience is clearly those who are in support of Trump. Millhiser is attempting to persuade those who stand with our president of his idiocy as well as his dishonesty. I cannot say I disagree that Trump is a liar, and that I feel he is a bad one. Clearly there are those who do not feel he is a bad liar though, or perhaps he wouldn’t be at the head of our country now.

Substantial Commentary #1

            “America Used to Be Good at Gun Control. What Happened?”, by Robert J. Spitzer argues the government should do more, place more regulations on gun control, to prevent the wrong people from procuring destructive weapons. In my experience mentioning gun control creates the great divide, you have those for and those opposed. Spitzer avoids arguing to have gun rights dismantled entirely and takes a more logical route in suggesting we tighten the reins on regulations. In depth background and personality checks, mental competency tests, and realistic necessities. (i.e. you don’t need a silencer to use a gun for self-preservation.)

            Spitzer uses evidence of alterations in gun control throughout history, even referring back to the 20’s and into modern day, using the shooting in Las Vegas as an example. The use of a wound so fresh proves to be a very successful method because it evokes an emotional response from the public. Spitzer suggests that the government follow the example of New York, which does extensive character background checks. A topic he has personal experience with, as it is the same process he used to obtain his pistol permit. I did notice no evidence was cited in this article, although most of his examples can be fact checked without. It would be ideal for every article to contain direct citations to the source of their information, holding them accountable for what they publish.

            The plea to place more regulations on gun laws directs our attention to; who might the intended audience be? My conclusion is Congress, who Spitzer suggests is attempting to repeal the 1934 N.F.A. background check along with other requirements to own a silencer. This effectively supports his argument because it combats that silencers are not safe. They prevent civilians from hearing gunfire. A sense that allows them the ability to avoid the area or contact the authorities in a hostile situation. The second intended audience is those who support more lax gun laws. I believe his argument may reach their ears as well, because he isn’t attacking citizens right to own guns, he is arguing the process in which they do. If you can pass a mental competency test as well as have a clean record, your right to own is safe.

            Opinion based articles are inevitably laced with emotion, in this scenario you can detect Spitzer’s dismay and frustration regarding the government’s inability to control who owns these guns. He does admit to understanding not all signs of an unstable person present themselves prior to such an incident, and with this there is no possible route for control. Supplying a counter argument to his own demonstrates his ability to be rational about the situation. This aspect of writing is important because through showing understanding you allow the other side a moment of being understood. Even a moment break through may allow you to persuade an audience, or enable them to be more sympathetic to your cause.

            A well written article can be very impactful in politics. If it is fair, logical, and informative it can tip the opinions of those on the fence about issues. Spitzer’s article may pose as an important wake up call for the community, or it may inspire people to veer in the opposite direction. Either way in times like these, it’s clear something must be done and political authors are influential to the public, hopefully they all strive to be honest and correct before publishing their work.