RE: Alex Hao's Global Warming Commentary

I am blown away by the thoughtful, articulate insight that Alex provides in his commentary. I found his writing to be excellent in quality and quantity.  While I may still be in high school, I have a better understanding of what a college student should strive to achieve.

I agree that global warming is a major issue that many (including the government) are overlooking. If global warming is left unchecked, the entire world could change dramatically like Alex pointed out. Alex does a fantastic job of showing how absurd the US is by pulling out of the Paris climate accord when there are currently only two countries are not in it with one (Nicaragua) believing it to be too lenient. 

Ending his commentary with a call to action is a great way to make the reader remember the article. It gives them a cause that they can quickly join and a clear path to help that cause. Many believe in climate change, and this action helps them work towards their beliefs. More importantly, it makes a persuasive argument to the uniformed and those in denial that we all must work to help lessen the impact of climate change.

Blog Stage 5

The US government is as divided as we have had in a long time, probably since the civil war, with one of the most controversial presidents we may have ever had. With both sides firmly entrenched on opposite sides of the aisle, it looks like there will be four years of deadlock. Even though Trump is a republican, his unusual actions seem to fracture his party which only creates more uncertainty. Every day it seems like some new scandal or controversy pops up like we are living in a real life version of House of Cards. 

The most recent issue to pop up is the Senate healthcare “repeal and replace” voting. With two of the three options already down and a third option, narrow repeal, losing some republican support, it looks like it will go down as well. These three plans were the republicans attempt to get rid of Obamacare completely or replace it with something else. The Republicans cite various reasons for wanting to get rid of Obamacare, but one of the unspoken and fairly obvious motivations is to undo Obama's legacy. Many Republicans hated him so much that they want to get rid of everything he accomplished to diminish his historical impact.

Another recent controversy that arose was the Trump's plan of banning transgenders from the military. Although Trump claims to have consulted various high up military generals and officials, much top military brass, such as the chairman of the Joint Chief of staffs were blindsided. Currently, this plan is not active as the Joint Chiefs will not implement it until they receive a full policy, not just tweets. I think that this action is uncalled for and does not seem to be that logical. I would imagine that you want the best soldiers no matter who they are, regardless of their beliefs, race, gender or any other characteristic.

Blog Stage 4

An article in USA Today's opinion section titled "Let transgender troops serve" offers some worthy criticism of Trump's ban on transgenders in the military. This article would be geared towards those who do not approve of Trump and those who are more interested in the recent ban. This is made apparent by the language and tone in the article. Very aggressive words are used that sets the tone that states the Trump is in the wrong. This article is not written by one person publicly but published by the USA Today Editorial Board. Considering that they are in charge of a large section of the website and release tons of articles a day I consider them a trustworthy news outlet. The article claim that Trump is in the wrong is backed up using facts like "Total medical costs for all transgender troops amount to about one-tenth of 1% of the military's health care budget, and about one-fifth of what the Pentagon spends on Viagra." This backs up their claim that the monetary "burden" is insignificant. Another piece of evidence that is used to back up the claim is that every time integration has been pushed for the military, it has been met with "integration destroys military readiness and unit cohesion" which has been dis-proven after every time. The article follows a logical path by first explaining the central issue and how the issue became such a big deal, then talking about their argument and finishing up by backing up their claims and central arguments.

Blog Stage 3

California is leading the country in climate change, but according to Bjorn Lomborg of the Los Angeles Times, the actual process is being handled poorly. Lomborg claims that the cost to implement these new changes, estimated to be $13 to 22.5 billion dollars a year, do next to nothing for actually helping the environment as a whole.  Because Trump pulled the US out of the Paris Accord, no state is obligated to meet those regulations so California could be considered a testing ground for the next decade of climate control in the US.


Lomborg himself is an accomplished writer with his best selling book The Skeptical Environmentalist released in 2001. Business Insider also cited him as one of "The 10 Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics" in 2009. Personally, he believes that too much money is spent on climate change and thinks that some of that money should be sent towards "more pressing" matters such as AIDS, malaria, and malnutrition. He believes that climate change is an actual thing, but doesn't consider it "our main environmental threat." My own beliefs are a slightly more balanced version of his with me putting more emphasis on global warming than he does. I believe that he is a more than qualified author to be considered credible for this article.


This article is meant to connect with climate skeptics and those who are on the fence. Lomborg uses multiple studies to back up his argument that the cost is not worth the benefit of California's climate change program. He starts off with the monetary cost and works his way to the inefficient aspects by detailing how up to 40% of carbon savings can be lost to leakage. In his second to the last paragraph, Lomborg suggests that instead of implementing green technology now, that money should be put towards researching tech for the future to make it cheaper, a very valid statement that often works out better in the long run for any technology.

Blog Stage 2

On July 17th, 2017, the Wall Street Journal published an article (to get around the pay wall just search for the title and alternative websites will appear) detailing the state of the world wide drone market and how US politics have affected it. Currently, the United States is the biggest arms dealer in the world, but two of its most fearsome weapons, the Predator and Reaper drone have only been sold to one other country, the UK. Because the US has held back drones from many countries, China has become one of the leading exporters of drones and the third biggest arms dealer after the US and Russia.

Specifically in the Middle East, where both Israel and the US have refused to sell, China has capitalized. With deals to countries such as Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iraq China is responsible for the rise in non-US drone strikes in the region. The US is losing the battle against drone proliferation with 22 members of Congress asking the Trump administration to bypass the regulations set forth by the Obama administration and sell some drones to Jordan and the UAE.

I would recommend this article because it addresses a pressing issue in world politics that could affect everyone's lives in the coming future. The issue of drone availability is one that will change warfare for decades to come. It could be the difference in going off to war yourself or sending off an unmanned drone.

Hello! Welcome to my blog.