Over the summer I have been interested in the columns written by Joel Achenbach. Achenbach is a writer for the Washington Post on subjects that pertain to science and politics, particularly topics such as COVID-19, space, and even plants. While Joel Achenbach mainly gives facts and data to support what he is talking about, he often presents only certain facts that support what he is talking about to persuade you to follow his beliefs. Overall, it was fun reading his articles though, and they were very informative. The article he wrote for the Washington Post titled, “Covid Was the Fourth Leading Cause of Death in 2022, CDC Data Shows” gives us good insight into how he is as a writer and what bias he presents.

Joel Achenbach wants to inform us of all the numbers provided by the CDC to show us the main reasons people are dying, but we have to look behind the numbers to see the bias and what he is trying to persuade us of. In the article, he mentions that heart disease, cancer, and “unintentional injury” were the three leading causes of death in 2022. While the death rate in 2022 was overall lower than in 2021, the three leading causes actually increased the number of deaths. This is where the bias comes into play. Achenbach suggests that much of our research efforts in 2022 went to “curing” Covid and thus halted the process of the research for the other causes of death, which made them get worse. What could have been done about this? There was a debate for a while about letting a virus “take its course” and “weed out” the people that are vulnerable thus getting rid of the virus. Achenbach supported this concept and writes about how a Yale medical professional thinks that this stall has ultimately reversed some of the progress in the medical field, and the CDC numbers agree. This would help medical professionals keep the numbers lower for cancer, heart disease, and unintentional injury. The vaccine created from this pandemic may have saved some lives by helping your body fight the disease, but was it enough to have let go of valuable progress towards “solutions” for the other three leading causes of death?

Finally, we learn a valuable lesson from this article. As Harlan Krumholz, a cardiologist at the Yale School of Medicine, says, “This may represent further evidence that the health of Americans continues to decline despite the enormous sum we spend on health care.” This teaches us that we can’t rely on hospitals to fix all of our problems and we need to take care of ourselves.

Discussion question: Do you think that what we (America) did in response to Covid was appropriate? Do you think we could have done anything better?

Throughout the Summer, I have read numerous columns written by Ann Coulter. Coulter is an American Conservative, columnist, author, and lawyer. She has been writing about her take on controversial topics for over thirty years, before she was known by the media. Her takes on controversial and serious topics are very right-winged. Although she may seem close minded at time, I believe she is a very well-educated, and intelligent individual who just has strong opinions. One column she wrote that shows this  as well as her expository-descriptive writing style is titled, “Trump is Still Right About Mexican Rapists”. 

Ann Coulter started this column off by stating that there is a “cultural acceptance of child rape in Latino culture that doesn’t exist in even the most dysfunctional American ghettoes.” To follow this, she began telling a story about a Mexican girl, who was raped by her stepfather back in Mexico before they illegally made their way to Texas. Coulter says “When it comes to child rape, the whole family gets involved. (They are family-oriented!)” because the girls’ sisters said her clothing was too promiscuous and the mother said she had the body, even though this was happening from ages of 5 to 11. She continues to tell 2 more stories about Hispanics raping children with the family getting involved and no one doing anything about it. Towards the end of the column, she begins to show her strong opinions while talking about how there is more publisis on the one fake rape story against the Duke lacrosse players than about the plethora of child rape cases by Hispanics because “Democrats want the votes and businesses want the cheap labor . No wonder they hate Trump.” 

Discussion Question: Is the media bias with what they choose to focus on? If so, why do you think they choose to post about certain things?  

Amy Alkon is not just the columnist that I have been studying this summer, but she is also a light to many people going through tough times in their lives. Unlike a lot of the other columnists we had the option of reading work from, I chose to read Alkon’s columns because she not only writes about her opinions, but she also directly talks to someone who needs help while also still spinning it in a more broad sense to keep other people from getting hurt or to help them get out of a bad situation that might be similar. The most prominent reason for her being  so respected in her field is how she saves her bias until the end of her work, leaving viable room for the readers to absorb the rational thinking and scientific proof in order to  develop their own feelings on the topic before being clouded by another person’s views.

In one of her columns I read entitled “Ghosting Story”, Amy Alkon breaks down and rationalizes why people might “ghost” someone else during or before a relationship. She talks about how having the ability to hide behind a screen and completely cut another person out of your life and never have to think of them again with the single click of a button has caused so many people  to develop things like trust issues, anxiety and depression at younger and younger ages. As our generation progresses, we can see that the romantic idea of falling in love forever is clouded by the constant fear in the back of your mind that another person could just easily leave you out of the blue, never giving you an explanation and leaving you even more insecure and damaged than you were before. Alkon used these facts to address her fan who was seeking advice who Alkon gave the code name of “disturbed” for the sake of her column. Alkon then ended this column by telling her readers to “expect unreliability” with other people nowadays.

Discussion Question: Do you think our generation’s commitment issues have anything to do with the society we’ve been raised in? If so, what part of our upbringing do you think had the biggest impact on this?

It’s a cliche topic to talk about. Once in our life we have heard the very iconic “money doesn’t buy you happiness” or something like that, or along those lines. We hear the cheesy, “happiness is something you find on the inside!”
However, genuinely, what is happiness?

I have been reading Dr. Laura Schlessinger’s columns over the summer. She doesn’t explicitly state her political side, as she is more focused on nationwide family issues, and issues women go through (however, she is not specifically talking about women’s rights. An example is that she talks about single moms and how the media affects them.) Dr. Laura is extremely passionate about the topics she talks about and is always trying to help others and spread awareness.

One of the readings I looked at was about happiness. Dr. Laura makes excellent points talking about the difference between happiness and pleasure in a different way that I never really thought of. She addresses how pleasure is like winning the lottery, and while it’s not bad it’s not actual happiness; and true happiness can delve deeper than just “true happiness is being with family.” She make’s excellent points about how children are an easy way to explain the difference between pleasure and true happiness. She says in one of her writings “I spoke of pleasure as someone winning the lottery and screaming with delight because of all the things the money will buy. You may be excited and relieved that you have a lot of dough, but it won’t buy happiness. I said that real happiness shows up not in a squeal of delight, but as a lump in your throat — that “supremely proud of your kid” happiness, or the contentment that swells in your heart when your kid says, “Love you, Mom, love you, Dad,” out of the clear blue in front of his buddies. It chokes you up. That’s real happiness.”

Do you think there is a difference between pleasure and happiness? What to you, is true happiness? Would you rather happiness or pleasure?

This summer, I have read various columns written by Larry Elder. Elder is a black male who is very invested in politics and the problems in the United States. One issue that he writes about a lot is racism and how it can be seen in his everyday life. He is able to present this problem to the reader through storytelling. This can be seen primarily in the column “On Race, Can We All Lighten Up?” In this column, Elder uses vivid descriptions of situations he has encountered to show how racism has been ingrained into society and the stereotypes that have been formed.

     Elder covers 2 experiences where he falsy took race into account in this column. He first writes about an experience that he once encountered at a gas station. He states that when he got out of his, he heard the phrase, “Hey, want a banana?” This instantly surprised Elder and he began to look for the man who he thought was racist. He then discovers that the man was carrying bananas in his SUV, and was offering one to a homeless man. Elder then makes a few jokes with the men about the situation and carries on with his day. Next, he talks about a previous job that he had where he was looking for a new candidate. Elder states, “Before submitting his resume to my client, I wanted to meet this candidate, and we arranged to get together at a Philadelphia hotel. I was to be there for other business, and he worked nearby. This was pre-internet and pre-Zoom call, and we had only spoken several times on the phone. We agreed to an 8 a.m. breakfast and that I would meet him in the hotel lobby.” When he arrived at the lobby, he says that there were at least 15 people waiting for meetings or other things. As time went by, many of these people had left the lobby and Elder could not find his candidate. Then, Elder decides to walk up to a man who was constantly glancing at his watch. It turns out that man was the candidate, and he was also black, just like Elder. Both men made false assumptions, as the candidate thought the “Head Hunter” would be white, and Elder thought his candidate would be white. These stories both show the stereotypes that have been formed in today’s society. They are also able to show us that racism is a part of our everyday lives, whether we know it or not. 

Discussion Question: Have you experienced a situation like this, where a peer or maybe even yourself had made a claim that was harmful to another race when in reality, it was not intended to be. How can we teach up-and-coming generations to ignore stereotypes that have been made?

Throughout the summer, I have been studying the columns written by Michelle Malkin. Michelle Malkin is an American conservative political commentator. She worked with Fox News for a long period of time while also becoming an author. She has also founded various conservative websites as well. Malkin tends to write about her life experiences while also passionately sharing her political opinions to go along with this as well. 

In this column, Malkin goes into detail about her negative experience with Airbnb that ultimately caused her and her husband to become unable to ever use it. She says that she went to a conference to speak about “Race, Immigration, and Con. Inc: How I Came to See the Light” but how this group she represented was then “deemed a ‘hate group’ by the Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League.” Shortly after this, she received an email saying she was banned from Airbnb since they did not approve of her being associated with this group. She quotes this email when it says, “Due to your promotion and participation in a known white nationalist and white supremacist conference, we have determined that we will remove your account from Airbnb.” She then reflects on this by saying that they banned her because they have “woke” ideas that do not associate with her beliefs.

Malkin then goes on defending herself by saying that she is a woman of color so she should not be accused of being a white supremacist. She then explains how she was not the only one banned when she says, “The Airbnb bullies also banned my equally nonviolent, nonhateful husband — who did not attend the conference and who is not a public figure or activist.” She thinks that this part was especially unacceptable since they do not technically know her husbands beliefs and punished him as well for her behavior. Overall, she expresses in this column that many companies like this are involving more of a political standpoint that is what she believes is left-winged. She thinks that companies like this should not be able to ban someone based on their own personal beliefs. 

Discussion Questions: Do you think that it was acceptable for Malkin and her husband to be banned? Do you think certain companies are involving their political standpoints more than they should be?

Throughout the past few weeks, I have been reading columns written by Larry Elder. Elder is an American right-wing political commentator as well as a radio host for a show named The Larry Elder Show.  Elder’s opinions and views on topics are heavily influenced by his political stance, being conservative. One column that clearly displays is called, “We’ve Got a Country to Save.” This column not only allows us to clearly recognize his conservative thoughts but as well as understand his writing styles and how he uses tone to further emphasize his claim.

Elder’s main focus in this column is to inform the public about the problems the Democratic Party possesses, the idea that the government must prioritize its people and property, as well as stating that fatherlessness is a crisis. Elder begins his column by stating that the Democratic Party pushes Americans into thinking that America is systemically racist and that they do this to make the “blacks feel angry, oppressed and discriminated against” in order to “get a near-monolithic black vote.” Elder’s bias can already be seen through this one idea. He puts down the Democratic Party by stating that they make people feel a negative way in order to gain their vote. He then uses words such as, “It is a lie” and “cannot win” to further display his bias. Next, he talks about how its the government’s number one responsibility is to protect people and property. He stated that the “Soft on crime” George Soros, who is a democrat, along with the district attorneys do neither. Elder, again can be seen having bias due to his political views. He criticizes a man for not doing the government’s main job and he happens to be a democrat. He also states that the Democrats claim to care so much about the black and brown people getting hurt in urban America. Lastly, Elder mentions that incentivized men abandoning their financial and moral responsibility “is not a problem; it is a crisis.” In the many columns I’ve read written by Larry Elder, I’ve noticed that he uses plenty of facts and statistics to prove his claim, which helps indicate his writing style. For example, he mentions that “a kid raised without a father is five times more likely to be poor and commit crime, nine times more likely to drop out of school and 20 times more likely to end up in jail.” Elder’s opinions are influenced by bias and supported with facts and statistics.

Discussion Question: Do you think kids growing up without a father are more likely to be less successful than those that do? If so why? And as Elder stated, do you think this is more than just a problem?

Throughout the summer, I have been studying the work of Chuck Raasch. After reading several of his articles, I came to understand many things about him and the way he carries himself. He is a left-wing Democrat. His syntax is quite simplistic. He often uses diction to enforce his points. These facts, however, do not define him. They do not give us any insight onto his purpose. 

One thing that I have begun to notice over the summer is the fundamental flaws within the concept of “news” Having these programs simply means that the only issues being talked about are the ones that have majorly imploded that day, that week. Never talking about ongoing issues, things that are just as bad. In order for a news sight to have any chance at being successful, it must have flashy, often misleading titles, spoonfeeding the viewers the things that they want to hear to keep them coming. 

This means that issues, issues that have existed long before our lives began, are time and time again ignored. Or, even worse, they are forgotten.

In Raasch’s article titled “Some workers face danger for our convenience,” he discusses how a recent mining incident sparked a conversation about safety, or lack thereof, in certain essential jobs. While he spends the majority of the article discussing this topic, he closes the article with a statement that encapsulates his purpose: “Tragedies like these pique our interest as we watch the familiar scenes of grieving families…Almost all big pushes in mining safety have come in bursts after disasters like this.” People only ever care about something when they are reminded of its existence. Once that big push is over, the issues often go back to silent struggles. 

And this is Raasch’s purpose. To remind us of this and to tell us to do better. To defy what we know about the news by saying “This is not good enough”.

Do you believe that activism is limited? What can we do to combat this? Are there any specific movements that suffer from this phenomenon?

Since the start of the summer, I have been following columns written by Larry Elder, a right-wing political commentator and conservative talk radio host. He often writes about serious and controversial topics involving race, current events, and politicians. Although sometimes he will write about things he doesn’t like or what he believes needs to be said due to a personal experience. Apart from his dislike of Democrats, Elder does not appear to show too much bias in his writing, with the majority of his statements being based on facts and statistics. One column that helps to show how Elder is as a writer is, “Racializing the Death of a Black Man by the Police, Part I.”

Elder starts the column by telling the story of Tyre Nichols, a young black man who was beaten by police at a traffic stop. He later died in the hospital due to the injuries. Elder was clearly annoyed about this, he doesn’t like the idea of what happened to Nichols being racialized by the media. He also appeared to be annoyed by the idea that police brutality is racially motivated. He then states facts about the reality of the problem, and they are surprising. “an average of about 1,000 people annually over the last eight years, 82% of them armed.” “Over the past five years, police have killed 39% more unarmed whites than unarmed blacks.” Elder also shows statistics on crime rates, quoting Heather Mac Donald, who mentions in a book that, “In the 75 largest counties, which is where most of the population resides, blacks constitute around 60 percent of all robbery and murders defendants, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.” Elder uses this to explain why it is common for “disproportionate” police interactions with blacks. Elder also wrote that, “Almost always the young black male’s murderer is a young black male.”

Discussion Questions: Before reading this, what where your initial beliefs on the relation between police brutality and race, and did they change or stay the same after reading this? Why do you think it is common for these situations to be racialized, and how do you think the media influences this?

Lately I have delved into the mind of Michelle Malkin. She is an opinionated American conservative political commentator who has contributed to Fox News and more recently joined Newsmax TV in 2020. She doesn’t try to hide her beliefs, and as an Asian-American woman brings up the topic of race frequently. The topic that she brings up in several of her columns that I decided to focus on, was race and its effect on the legal and political system.

In the latest article I looked at, The American Jihadi Serial Killer No One’s Talking About, she delves into a story where different groups of people started killing others just because of racial and religious differences. She doesn’t even try to hide her view on the topic by saying almost right away “enough with the whitewashing” while talking about how we as a society ignore certain issues that we don’t view as connected to our small bubble of a world and make excuses in order not to connect it to bigger issues. Malkin talks about attacks made against “innocents” as a result of groups of people wanting “vengeance” while these attacks are just passed off as random spurts of violence and the reasoning behind is lost. She states that, ”The admitted killer will be cast as just another “lone wolf” whose familiar grievances and bloodthirsty Islamic invocations mean nothing” while talking about several terrorist style attacks.

One of Malkins main points that she likes to make in several of her articles is that the world is now either too afraid to confront others because of differences and the fear of offending someone, or is willing to kill in order to keep the world the way they wish to view it. Has this affected the way that we view politics? Malkin surely believes so, claiming how we have put labels on people that to some are seen more as a classification but to others are seen as a death sentence. Until the world can put aside their differences and step up to do what is right instead of what looks good we will never know what we can do together because we will destroy each other. 

Discussion Question: Do you believe that people’s opinions and fears affect the way we live with one another? If so, for the better or worse?