Commentary #1: American Discrimination

Freedom is a privilege that all Americans are blessed with, but it's also something that Americans take for granted and overtime abuse. Many recognized people fought for the American freedom in hope that one day everybody would be equal and that everybody would treat one another equally. People like Rosa Parks, Harriet Truman, and Martin Luther King Jr. all courageously put their lives at risk in hope that the future generations will have a brighter future. They all want to seek equality, to cease discrimination, and to promote unity. Yet it seems that their dream is actually far from being accomplished. It's true that people now have the freedom to make choices, do the things they want, and aim for a higher goal. Yet it's also true that people are not seeking enough equality, not ending discrimination, and not advocating unity.

Being given the simple word of freedom, many Americans still fail to achieve the simple dreams that others once fought for our freedom. What does it mean by fail? It means that there are people out there that still discriminates other race and ethnicity. It also means that there people that still treats females as a minority. It also means that people discriminate others because of their own choices. Shouldn't all of this come to an end already? Why must other race and ethnicity be laugh at and point out? Why should males always think that females are inferior and be best suited at home? Freedom gives people the ability to make choices, so why must other still discriminate when others have opposing views?

Instead Americans should stop all the discrimination, whether it be against someone's race, or against someone's opinion. Everyone is born different and this is what makes us and the world a unique place. People shouldn't be judgemental against others' race or ethnicity. Instead,we should all respect different races and their cultures. Back then it was the norm for females to stay at home and tend for her children and husband, but now things have changed. More females are seeking higher education and becoming more independent, and for this reason we should admire them for their independence. At the same time, we should respect other people's opinion, whether we agree or disagree. Many people show complete disagreement to situations regarding things like abortions and gay marriages. These are all personal situations, so why must the nation put their opinions and tainted eye at those that agree with matters like abortions and gay marriages? Simply put, this nation is far from accomplishing the dreams of Martin Luther King Jr. that one day we all can join hands, regardless of race or color. Being given too much freedom, we don't understand that there are some things that are meant to be respected and kept private. Shouldn't we ask ourselves if we have ever discriminate others or been discriminated by others? Who are we to judge others when in reality we are imperfect human beings? All in all, the fight that many people once fought for the termination of discrimination is actually the start of new discrimination among people. When will discrimination finally be over?

Article #3:Obama's Team

In the blog, Washington Monthly, Steve Benen wrote an article on June 7, 2009 titled, Picking Players From The Other Team, to support Obama's decision in nominating five influential Republicans to work in the Obama administration. Benen claims that having Republicans collaborate with Obama will result in many benefits for both parties including: decrease in minority of party, increase in the president's appearance of nobility and forgiveness, but most importantly is to increase bipartisan administration. Benen argues that having powerful Republicans including McHugh, Leach, Gates, and LaHood in the Obama administration can show that this country is bipartisan. In other words, Benen claims that bringing in Republicans can strengthen the nation and increase equality. Benen points out that Obama remains different from other modern president for choosing Republicans, and this shows that Obama is fair because he nominates those with the capability to perform the task. By doing so, Benen includes an article from the New York Times that stresses out the benefits of including opposing members in the administration as evidence to support his stance.

It is important to understand that Benen asserts that the inclusion of Republicans under the Obama administration as the possible solution to the nation's division of political parties. In other words, Benen agrees with Obama's actions. Therefore, this article by Benen directs towards more democratic and more liberal people for many reasons. First, the author wants to explain to the Democratic the reasons behind Obama's decisions. Benen understands that the Democratic might feel unfair and questions Obama's decision in nominating Republicans to work for his administration. At the same time, Benen shows readers that this can increase bipartisan incredibility and make the nation a stronger country. Second, the author provides readers with reasons and benefits of having Republicans under the Obama administration in order to prevent any breakouts from the Democratic. Therefore, Benen's article is to support Obama and prevent the Democratic from any breakouts.

After finishing the article, I agree with Benen about how it can benefit the nation and both parties. I think that Obama's decision in picking members from the other side is a smart move. For one, these Republicans that he picked aren't any ordinary guys, but powerful people that have high ranking status and jobs. With such a high position, it can benefit the country because they have skills and experience to help Obama. This also shows that Obama is not favoring anyone, but he stands on equality and picks those that are capable of performing the best.

Article #2: Taxing Drinks

An editorial from the New York Times titled, A Healthy Tax, published on page A26 on June 3, 2009 argues the benefits of increasing taxes on sodas and any sugared liquids in order to reduce the level of obesity in America. In this article, the author claims that if the government does increase taxes on sodas, then less people will buy the drinks due to its high cost. The author uses Michael Jacobson, who is an executive director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest to support his claim that increase in tax for drinks will decrease in consumptions, and resulting in a decrease in calories. The author also provides readers with evidence stating that Americans spend about $50 billion per year on nondiet sodas, sugared teas, and sport drinks. Clearly from this evidence, it is obvious that sodas do have a connection with obesity in this country.

After reading this article, the author's intended audience is everyone in America for different reasons. First, the author wants to direct the purpose of the article towards the government to raise their awareness that the majority of Americans are obese, and this means that the nation must do something. Second, the author aims toward more general readers, who are advocates for increasing the quality of people's health. Therefore, the author incorporates information that can suit the readers of all kind in order for them to agree that an excise tax on drinks is the best answer for reduction in obesity. Because the author is able to provide various evidences about placing taxes on drinks, this draws attention from the two kinds of audiences and at the same time raise his credibility.

From my own perspective, I agree with the author to reduce the level of obesity in America and promote healthier lifestyles. It is shocking to know that Americans would spend such a great sum of money on sugared drinks, especially during an economic situation that's occurring right now. At the same time, I disagree with how the author recommends that increase in tax is the correct solution to the health care problem in America. It may make sense that increase in taxes can reduce in levels of consumptions, but will it last in the long run? Increase in taxes on drinks can result in many negative impacts for our economy as well, including the employment level for beverage industries and the impact for low-income families. Not only that, I think that sodas are not the prime cause for people's obesity, but their lack of exercise and effort to eat healthier foods. Therefore, reducing the obesity level is a must, but at the same time it must be the people's willingness to watch their diets in order to maintain healthier lives.

Article #1: Abortion

From the article, Abortion Doctor George Tiller is Killed, the title suggested the death of Doctor George Tiller, and the controversial debate about abortion that has resulted in many violent actions. In this article, authors Robin Abcarian and Nicholas Riccardi describe how Tiller performed abortions for women beyond the 22nd weeks of pregnancy. In other words, Tiller operated on late-term pregnancies for women compared to early abortions. Abcarian and Riccardi also state how much other people despise Tiller by targeting his clinic and Tiller in many ways, including bombing, threatening, shooting Tiller in the arms, but worse of all is killing him during a church service. Most importantly, Tiller's best friend, Warren Hern, emphasizes how inevitable Tiller's death is because of Tiller's willingness to perform late-term abortions for 35 years.

From the death of Tiller, it is clear that many people in America have opposing views, and consequentially can damage many lives. In the article President Obama expresses his point of view about abortion and the death of Tiller. Obama feels outraged that there are people out in this country that would kill others because of different perspectives.

Therefore, I highly recommend everyone to read this article about the death of Doctor Tiller, and understand the controversial issue of abortion at a personal scale. Reading this article can enhance the readers' awareness of how the problem of abortion is escalating nationwide. It is also worth the time to read this article because as citizens of America, we should do something for or against the sudden death of Tiller.