Blog Assignment 4

This article is attempting to convince taxpayers that Scott Pruitt, head of the EPA, needs to step down because he has been wasting taxpayer money to avoid taxpayers, to socialize with big business and to garner support for a future campaign in Oklahoma. The article justifies this claim with evidence indicating that within the first three months his security team cost twice as much as the previous 2 holders of his office, he fought to keep his calendar secret and when he was forced to reveal its contents it showed almost daily meetings with corporate executives and industry lobbyists with little time for anyone else, and he has spent half his time in office in Oklahoma taking part in events with his prospective support base. The article then asserts that Tom Price stepped down for much less severe abuse of authority and so Scott Pruitt should also be forced to step down. The article was written by two members of the Center for American Progress, a liberal, left-leaning and anti-trump organization and is thus innately biased against any member of Trump’s administration. While their nature undercuts any argument made against Trumps administration the variety and comprehensive evidence they present for their position. Despite the articles innate bias, Pruitt is the head of the Environmental Protection Agency and that means it is his job to protect the environment, not prepare for future campaigns or act in favor of industrial interests. He also has a responsibility to justify his expenses to the taxpayers and if he cannot do so should step down.

Blog assignment 3

This article was written by a board of journalists at the New York Times to convince the American people that we need to talk about gun laws and regulations. The article argues that Republican lawmakers are attempting to delay discussing the issue to buy time to distract the public with other events. The article further shows that the Republicans have made the same argument after every mass shooting to give it more time and to not politicize a tragedy. The article reasons that since no move has been made after any prior mass shootings that it is just a delay tactic because they don’t want to address the issue. I agree that this is a major contribution to the issue of regulating and controlling firearms. With most people not paying attention to news past the first week of its occurrence, if the issue is not addressed immediately then people will forget about it. Since this has happened at most previous mass shootings Republican lawmakers cannot claim ignorance as to their delay tactics aftereffects. We need to talk about gun control, we need to do it now, and we need to keep discussing it until a real solution is found, because we obviously haven't yet.