Posts

Opinion piece #4: A controversial opinion: I'm conservative

How could a young, biracial woman be a Conservative? How could she be a Conservative if the color of her skin does not match the "correct" political party? She must be “against” her gender and race if she is a Conservative. She must be corrupted by rich, white men. I am a 20-year-old college student, I am a woman and I am biracial. I am also majoring in journalism with a double minor in business administration and Italian studies with aspirations to attend law school. I also speak Italian, but more importantly, I am a Conservative.  To the liberal mainstream, those who match this description are akin to a mythical unicorn. We are strange and surprising; however, individuals like myself are being celebrated in some newspapers and magazines for redefining social and cultural expectations. I truly love it when people are dumbfounded and confused that people like me exist. I was raised by an ultra-Conservative and Catholic family. Almost every night during my adolesc

Opinion critique #4: False Claims, Families In Danger: This Isn't A First For The Trump Administration

Upon reading this article , the theme is clear and is constantly reinforced in the article: the Trump Administration made false claims to cover up claims in regard to the zero tolerance policy. While I don't necessarily agree with the topic of the article, the authors do have a clear angle/theme. Additionally, I feel as if there aren't enough statistics and evidence to support their claim. Throughout the article, I only noticed two quotes (if that) in the entire piece and would have like to have seen more evidence; for example, the article states, "This report also warns that long after the zero tolerance policy ended, the Border Patrol may still not be keeping accurate records of families who arrive on the Southwest Border." In my opinion, I wish there was a hyperlink for this report, so I could read it myself. Similarly, in another paragraph, it reads, "Earlier this month, the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services issued a report

Opinion piece #3: Let's talk about socialism

Ah yes, socialism. Imagine: free college, free healthcare, or even basic universal income. Doesn’t that sound absolutely amazing in a completely sarcastic and hypothetical scenario? Quite frankly, no. Nothing is free, nor is such a thing attainable, unless we want increasingly higher taxes and want to dismantle the United States Constitution that our Founding Fathers vigorously worked on for our nation.  Socialism only works until you run out of other individual’s money. And that is a fact. By definition, socialism is a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. In other words, the government acts like an omnipresent guiding force that alleviates all of your social ills. Where is the incentive to work hard? Where’s the American Dream?  Socialism emerged as a response to the capitalist system. Whereas capitalism is based on a free market s

Opinion critique #3: Sanders gets it wrong on 'Medicare-for-all'

Throughout the article , the author makes the theme clear: Bernie Sander’s call for a “Medicare-for-all” health plan isn’t feasible. As for evidence, the author uses quotes from Sanders. The author also references a study that Sanders believes to show that “Medicare-for-all” will reduce health care costs and save the nation a bundle. In order to prove a point, the author analyzes the study that Sanders speaks about. The article states, “The chief author, Alison Galvani, worked as an unpaid adviser to Sanders’ Senate office. Galvani notes that she designed and wrote the study for the purpose of supporting Sanders   ‘Medicare-for-all’ bill.” What I find interesting is that the author analyzes the fallacies of Sanders’ speech—something that I found particularly strong about this piece. The study that Sanders uses was written by a scientist that specifically wrote the study for the purpose of supporting Sander’s agenda. That’s the opposite of what scientists

Editorial: Homelessness is a systemic problem, not a voluntary choice

Over half a million people go homeless on a single night in the United States. To be more precise, there were about 567,715 homeless people living in the United States in 2019. According to Statista, this number has been steadily increasing in the past two years. It’s been no secret that homelessness is a growing issue across the nation. The rate of homelessness amongst states continues to rise and the amount of affordable housing remains painstakingly low. Let’s make it clear: Homelessness is a systemic problem. It’s about disadvantage. It’s not a lifestyle choice. No one chooses to be homeless, nor does anyone want to be homeless. Among the top homeless cities in the world include places such as San Francisco, Los Angeles and New York City. In many major cities, like San Francisco, there are streets filled with people stacked upon people in tents asking for spare change, while they wonder how they can afford their next meal. And in High Point, No