Commentary on "American Food Waste: An Epidemic" (Blog Stage Eight)

Alex Milliron, author of the blog titled We The People, makes a very convincing and extremely important argument on the current status of food waste in America in her post "American Food Waste: An Epidemic." Food waste could be remedied not by an increase in food production, but by an ameliorated system of food distribution world wide.  The issue also endangers the environment, with methane produced by decaying food leaking into the atmosphere.

Hunger is a global issue made more serious by food waste in developed countries.  However, the actions of the fortunate affect those much closer to home as well, with an estimated 1 in 7 Americans struggling with food insecurity.  This problem cannot be disregarded as a distant difficulty when it is occurring in our own neighborhoods.  But with a large portion of Americans living in ignorance of the global hunger crisis, education and awareness must improve before any changes can occur.

If human lives are not enough to convince a person that food waste may be a problem, the environmental dangers posed by food waste add to the tolls of destruction, as explained by Milliron.  Methane production is high with food waste, and is "20 times more lethal a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide." What is shocking to me is the fact that per capita, the U.S. has greater greenhouse emissions than China (while China is branded a pollution capital).  I lived in Shanghai the past three years, and the effects of pollution and food waste (a problem faced by China as well) are extremely apparent in the water they drink, the air they breathe. The absence of thick clouds of brown smog hanging over American cities does not negate the fact that our emissions, from food waste or otherwise, are of dangerous magnitude and must be addressed as seriously as anywhere else.

Milliron concludes her blog with a call for the government to focus on legislations that would improve the efficiency of food distribution and lower our greenhouse gas emissions. This, along with the education of the public on these affairs, appears to be the most certain way of ensuring a healthier, cleaner, and more fruitful future.

Islamic Opinion in the Media: Changing Perceptions (Blog Stage Seven)

As stated in a previous blog, Islamophobia stems from American's general ignorance (and intolerance) of other cultures and beliefs. The Orlando shooting just 16 days past, Istanbul airport bombings hot on the press--violence begs to be confronted with blame. We have expanded the blame from a sick, vindictive terrorist organization to an entire religion, an entire culture.  How do we change the perceptions of Muslims in an entire nation?

The answer is representation.  Individual Muslim identities must be expressed in the media, in journals and on blogs and on television.  An increase in Muslim journalists could provide first-hand insight to racial discrimination and social problems that the general public could not begin to understand on its own. Such instances of Islamic representation in the media are explained in this article from Religion News Service. The author, Lauren Markoe (not Muslim), states that journalism should be an equally important career for Muslims who wish to change the deep-rooted biases American culture has today. Demographic changes in journalism are occurring, but not nearly as quickly or greatly enough as is needed to alter an entire country's bias.  Advertising journalism as a preferable career to medicine or law is not an easy task, and it is not one that will make itself clear to thousands without national consensus or effort.

In the end, I do not know what it will take to improve cultural relations.  The greatest failure would be to ignore the issue completely, to pretend it is not a problem and to add fuel to a fear that has long been charring relations.  Perhaps this is one of those instances where a million individual thoughts will eventually come together to induce improvement.  One thing is certain: in light of tragedies, existing journalists must seek the opinions of those who are wrongfully given the blame.

Commentary on "Our Part in the Syrian Refugee Crisis" (Blog Stage 6)

The author of "Our Part in the Syrian Refugee Crisis," from the USFG: One Vote One Voice blog, questions the actions (or lack thereof) of the United States regarding the welcoming of refugees. As stated, the U.S. has only accepted 1500 of 4 million refugees, a fraction of the number it could support. This fact harrows anyone who believes human life, regardless of where it comes from, should be valued, supported, and cherished. People are fleeing their homes and families, seeking sanctuary in foreign countries only to be greeted by closed doors and prejudice. Where is the justice in that?

The author also argues that the U.S. has more abundant resources to take in refugees than the European and Middle Eastern countries currently carrying the bulk of the 4 million.  Once again, as I mentioned in a previous post, the inhibition shown by the U.S. is founded in fear established by a criticizing media. Refugees are portrayed as burdens to a country, as dangerous criminals and terrorists seeking to further advance the destruction they left behind. It is illogical and inhumane to condemn their search for asylum. As mentioned by the author, taking in refugees would be a political win for the U.S., who would gain the favor of the countries pressuring it to do so and procure what is called “soft power.” Isolation is not going to help the U.S. thrive. Success comes from the communal support of allied countries and people.

Stories of refugees I have found online reveal the struggles they must undergo, their desire to work hard and assimilate into countries that restrict their advancement. If terrorism is what the U.S. fears, what better way to stop it than to show their support for refugees fleeing it as well? We are all on the same side. The narrow-minded prejudice of people who fear foreign influence is the barricade preventing the unity needed to overcome a common enemy.

Islamophobia and Social Thought (Blog Stage Five)

As President Barack Obama's term comes to an end, he is still struggling to gain liberties from the court system that would allow him to protect established immigrants with American-born children from deportation.  The success of this proposal would, presumably, give the president greater authority regarding who to deport and why deport them.  As a result, concerns arise in lieu of the presidential campaign and Republican nominee Donald Trump's harsh immigration stance. 

If executive authority were increased, the fate of immigrants and refugees would depend greatly on the views of the incumbent president. What happens to those who left the destruction of war in the Middle East to establish a safer future for their children in Western countries? How could refugees expect to be treated fairly among U.S. citizens while a widespread case of "Islamophobia" is sweeping the country, leaving boils oozing hate and discrimination?

Tensions between cultures find themselves clashing in the remains of the American melting pot as Islamophobia increases, especially following radical Islam-rooted tragedies (such as last week's Orlando shooting).  Media coverage of these events has the exact opposite effect of uniting a country to counter terroristic ideals.  The large majority of Muslims are peaceful people who condemn the behaviors of the extremists; however, protest events are not covered by the media.  The media wishes to instill fear and anti-Islam sentiment in order to attract more readers and gain subscriptions.  The general welfare of entire societies is not their priority or concern.

If American Muslim individuals and communities were given a voice in the media, much of the Islamophobic sentiment would diminish. Fear stems from mystery, a lack of information or understanding.  Americans are quick to draw conclusions about an entire religion based on the actions of the few.  The land of religious freedom has quickly turned intolerant.  Threats are real. Actions must be taken to prevent further attacks. However, progress will fail to occur without the mutual support of native and foreign peoples living in the United States.  

Is Clinton a Criminal? (Blog Stage Four)

On June 13, Dan Wright wrote an opinion article for Shadowproof (sourced from Firedoglake)with a title blaring accusation and discontent: “HILLARY CLINTON BROKE LAWS OBAMA HAS BEEN PROSECUTING PEOPLE FOR BREAKING.” The subject, as plainly stated, is that Clinton sent classified information regarding drone strikes and other issues using her private e-mail account. Wright also claims that Clinton was in violation of two federal laws--the Federal Records Act and the Freedom of Information Act.  This, as admitted by Wright, is speculation and has yet to be proven or disproven by fact. 

Wright may not be the most qualified author to give such grave accusations.  His bio reads simply, "Daniel Wright is a longtime blogger and currently writes for Shadowproof. He lives in New Jersey, by choice." It would appear all opinions and declarations are the result of personal experience as a citizen of the United States, and may not have been formed from careful study with unbiased guidance. On the other hand, a liberal blog such as Shadowproof is meant to be a source of left-winged discussion and opinion, which also implies that Wright's intended audience is his fellow liberal internet readers and potential voters.

To support the idea that Clinton should be punished for her anti-law-abiding actions, Wright brings forward accounts of the Obama Administration acting against individuals who have sought to expose classified information, known as whistleblowers. Had Clinton been "a low-level state department official," Wright writes, she would have already faced consequences for her actions. Her power, however, brings her immunity to any political harm.  

This article recalls a blog I wrote earlier, "Obama's Clinton Endorsement," in which, as plainly titled, I discussed Obama's official endorsement of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. Could Obama's reluctance to punish Clinton for her supposed illegal actions be influenced by his preference for Clinton over Trump? His desire to keep Democrats in the White House? Such an instance would not be surprising, considering the high costs of presidency.  The Clinton situation as a whole, however, leads me to wonder whether or not Americans can trust the government that promises to act rightfully and justly on their behalf. Wright jumps forcefully to conclusions that have not been proven or tried, failing to convince me of any criminal action on Clinton's behalf, but nevertheless forcing me to contemplate the intentions of our political leaders.

The First Gay President? (Blog Stage Three)

When it comes to sexual preference and radical politics, Americans as a whole nation are far from accepting.  Recent years, however, have shown a shift towards left-wing politics and a rise of "firsts" in the federal government: the first black president, the first female presidential nominee. Who, then, is to say that Frank Bruni's claims that a gay man may soon be extremely relevant in politics is far-fetched?  In his article in the New York Times, Bruni introduces curious citizens to small-city mayor Pete Buttigieg as an up-and-coming VIP of federal government, with achievements and ideologies combatting those of current office holders in Washington, D.C. 

Considering a topic as controversial as gay rights, it is important to note that the author, Bruni, is himself an openly gay man. While this provides a sense of empathy in his descriptions of mayor Buttigieg's struggles, it is undoubtedly accompanied by bias in favor of Buttigieg's success.  This does not prove in any way that the article is inaccurate or unreliable, although one may note the possibility that tarnishing facts might not be presented with equal prevalence as praise.

The language of the article seems to appeal to patriotic Democrats.  The Democratic party is associated with more liberal thoughts on almost all issues in American politics, and Bruni's mentions of Buttigieg's familiarity with Arabic and his sexual orientation indicate praise for unorthodox skills and characteristics. Bruni also appeals to the nationalism citizens may feel by describing Buttigieg's activities at the baseball game as "all-American" and his explicit commentary on "freedom" in politics.

Bruni's claims that Buttigieg is on his way to becoming a prominent leader in politics is supported by many examples of the mayor's successes.  Two distinctions (J.F.K. New Frontier Award and J.F.K. Profile in Courage Essay Contest) are mentioned for his achievements in public service and a nationwide political essay contest. When asked about problems within the Democratic party, Buttigieg answers by acknowledging the ability of Republicans to openly discuss their thoughts on freedom, whereas Democrats shy away from the term. He emphasizes the importance of negotiating a "deep, personal freedom" that has yet to be discussed accurately in politics. This demonstrates his open-mindedness and political savvy.  He is a Harvard-educated man who served in the Navy Reserve, and played piano for the city's symphony orchestra.  He is portrayed as a well-rounded, level-headed and powerful individual while maintaining a genuine face through his personal struggles.  

The argument Bruni makes suggesting Buttigieg's rise to the top of political importance is supported by the facts and anecdotes that compose the article. Bruni's favor for Buttigieg is obvious; however, the article is still a reliable and well-argued source for citizens to read and ponder.