End of Semester Recap about Net Neutrality

My Topic: The topic I chose was the repeal of the Net Neutrality laws and how we, the public, should fight back into getting our internet freedom back.

My Essays: With my first essay, I wrote a Definition paper which pretty much explains what the Net Neutrality laws are and how it has been helping all of us for the past few years and how taking them away will be a huge loss to the public’s freedom. In the second essay, I wrote a Rebuttal paper which refutes the negative facts and opinions on these laws. And in my last paper, I wrote a Proposal paper in which I gave my 3-step ideas on how we can win back our rights.

My Research Methods: On a daily basis I would look for new articles very frequently because that is where most of my information came from. The closer we got to the actual date the laws were going to be removed was when more information was given out. Some of the more frequent websites were CNN or NBC but I usually went on other people’s blogs and smaller companies blogs. I did not spend a lot of time on databases and I didn’t really talk to others about this topic. web15-siteimages-act-netneutrality-2400x960_0

Sources: http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/22/technology/fcc-net-neutrality-date/index.html     https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/15/16780564/net-neutrality-is-dead-what-happens-next

Final Details/Observation: I learned that the FCC is trying totake away our rights and our internet freedom from us and that it will impact us more than we really think. I found out that we really should worry and prepare for the worst about the repeal of these laws because it will start to impact us negatively on money and power. My perspective was the same throughout this project: the repeal should not happen. I would like to see the laws put back in place in the future.


Pre-Writing Essay #3 – Net Neutrality Laws



For my third and final argumentative essay on the Net Neutrality Laws, I plan on discussing to the audience about what I think is a solution to stop the repeal of the laws. I believe that the only way to repeal the laws is to fight back and make the government hear our voices before it is too late. I think the one aspect I haven’t fully explored yet is the possibility of a future without the help of the Net Neutrality laws and how it will slowly rip our internet freedom away from us. I want to explore the possibility on how we can convince the government to gain these rights because there is always hope to regain the laws that helped us gain our internet privacy and freedom. The only thing that I would like to change in my topic is getting our Net Neutrality laws back to the public. There really isn’t any type of policy that I can implement but I can encourage others to contact their respective government officials to fight for this law.

What’s next? This article I’m reading is helping me gather more details for my next essay.

Visual Argument for Net Neutrality


Net Neutrality Pic            This picture is part of an article that describes what the picture/cartoon is portraying towards the audience. This was from the owner of WeRateDogs, Matt Nelson, and illustrator Karina Farek (https://www.boredpanda.com/world-without-net-neutrality-comics-karina-farek/). The comic here is telling the audience a number of things in order to inform us that the internet is not going to be the same as it once was and that we will not like how the changes will affect us with our day-to-day livelihood. This cartoon is making sure to reach out to all the citizens of the United States of America in order to inform them of what kind of problem is happening.

As we can see on the left side of the picture, the title says “With Net Neutrality”. Underneath that title is a person casually browsing the internet by watching a movie, scrolling through social media, reading the news, etc. So, we, the audience, know that this is how the average American is able to use the internet with the protection of the Net Neutrality laws and that this is helping us do the things we are able to do on the internet without any harm.

As we can see on the right side of the picture, the title says “Without Net Neutrality”. Here is where it gets interesting because we see a pop-up screen with a lot of different payment options. The prices to access these social media websites are way too much and start to have an effect on the person in the cartoon. Before, he was able to surf the internet without paying any extra money to access his favorite sites. But now he is being forced to pay more money per month in order to access these sites. But as he takes out his wallet he realizes that he doesn’t have that much money to pay for Facebook and he accepts the fact that he won’t be able to use Facebook for that month.

This is what the author and illustrator is warning the audience about: the fact that once these Net Neutrality laws are removed, the prices of any service you want to access are going to sky rocket. The design/layout of the cartoon gets to show the audience the before and after effect of how the daily life of one American can change. It also shows the downside of internet freedom and the fact that the person in the cartoon won’t be able to have the right to choose what websites he can look at and which websites he can’t.

Second Essay Plan

My plan for my second essay is to go with a rebuttal argument. Even though a vast majority have said that the repeal of Net Neutrality is a bad thing, there are still many others who do have a problem with it and I want to face those problems and accusations and see what I can counter with and also see what I can refute with as well.



Highways, Medium.com, https://medium.com/@michaelcbrook/the-economic-case-that-net-neutrality-was-always-fundamentally-good-for-the-internet-7e889c985b

My writing process will consist of me doing a little pre-writing to plan out which certain points in the article can I try and refute with and how I can be able to supply with a counterargument. I will first be trying to look for certain points to rebuttal the articles claims and see how I can be able to turn it against them. One thing I hope to avoid repeating on is the use of the same exact facts and style of rebuttal. I want to use different quotes from the article so I can touch base on what all points they talk about.

New Article: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/12/16/ending-net-neutrality-will-save-internet-not-destroy-it.html

Introduction to Net Neutrality

After having some thoughts about what I should write about for this semester, I have chosen a topic that I am very passionate about which is the Net Neutrality laws. The Net Neutrality laws imply that the whole all Americans should have an equal and open internet which allows for equal internet speeds prices from the Internet Service Providers (ISP). This law has allowed us, the users of the internet, to use the internet with fair internet speed and the freedom to roam any website. But recently, on December 14, 2017, the Federal Communications Commission had passed the plan of Arjit Pai to repeal the the Net Neutrality laws. Without these laws, our internet will not be the same as our ISP’s will have the higher control on what websites we will be using and on how fast we will be able to use our internet. The reason I am most interested in this topic is because I can not imagine the internet without the same equality of speed and freedom that we already have. We already have to pay a lot for using the internet but now, we may even have to pay double or even TRIPLE the amount for the same speed of internet we would be using now. All in all, I feel against the fact that the Net Neutrality laws have been repealed and I will have a great time to express my feelings in the upcoming paper.

Read more on what will happen to the internet after the law is taken away.


Blog Post 2 (sorry I’m incapable of keeping these short)

On the early morning of November 9th, nearly every voter in America probably found themselves wondering; “what the hell just happened?”

In the aftermath, everyone seemed to have their theories and reasons as to why Donald Trump was elected president. Jenee Desmond-Harris’s piece “Trump’s win is a reminder of the incredible, unbeatable power of racism” from Vox.com attempts to answer that question by asserting that racism was the driving force that got Donald Trump elected and that the white voters who pulled the lever for him harbor intolerance and racism as well. It’s a popular argument, and has seemed typify the response from some members of the Democratic Party and the political left from November 9th onward. Harris cites multiple studies, previous statements by Trump, and CNN exit polls to reinforce her claims. However, I believe the entire basis of that argument, whether members of the Democratic party and their supporters believe it to be true or not, poses an enormous problem for Democrats moving forward.

Even if Harris’s argument wasn’t flimsy (It’s emotionally based, entirely subjective, and by and large, breaks the cardinal rule of statistics: correlation doesn’t equal causation), I’d still argue that relying on it is hurtful to the Democratic party because of the message it sends a key contingent of its voters. The fact is, yes, Trump did indeed win an enormous number of white voters, but many of them were former Democrats from reliably blue states, in a historically blue geographic region (the rust belt), who switched sides last fall, and attacking them may only alienate them further. If that gives the Republicans the advantage in the rust belt, it would be catastrophic for the Democrats (PA, OH, MI, WI & IA are worth a combined 70 electoral votes), that to me is the issue here. If Harris wants to blast Trump to high heaven, then by all means, she should do it. It’s blasting his voters that I consider to be dangerous, and Harris does that throughout the article. For instance, in one segment, titled “Almost any way you slice it, white people supported Trump on Election Day and nonwhite people didn’t,” Harris opines: “These huge swaths of white voters were willing to overlook the many ways in which Trump was unqualified, temperamentally unfit, and dangerous and represented a massive threat to American democracy.”

“The most generous interpretation is that white voters chose him despite his racism, not because of it. But that’s a very difficult case to make, given his massive weaknesses.” Actually, it’s a very easy case to make. Hillary Clinton was also a historically unpopular candidate, and ran a historically poor campaign. To illustrate that point, after the Democratic National Convention in July Clinton did not make a single campaign stop in Wisconsin, a reliably blue state that was polling tighter in 2016 than it had in the past, but did find time to visit Arizona, and Utah, states that turned blue only once over the last fifty eight years. Clinton would not only become the first Democrat to lose Wisconsin in over a quarter century, but the state’s incumbent Republican Senator, Ron Johnson, was re-elected in a monumental upset victory over his Democratic challenger. Meanwhile, Arizona and Utah went Republican, yet again. In North Carolina, a critical swing state where the average ACA premiums are expected to increase by 40% this year, Clinton sent Lena Dunham to campaign on her behalf. Trump, who promised to repeal the ACA during the campaign and made more visits to the state than Clinton, won it by more than three points, and Richard Burr, North Carolina’s Republican Senator, was re-elected by an even wider margin.

Many of these voters that the Democratic party lost last fall actually voted for Barack Obama not once, but twice. Trump flipped six states, (and one congressional district in northern Maine worth one electoral vote) that went for Obama in 2008 and 2012, and three of those (Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania) last voted Republican before many of us in this class were even born. Harris cites a three year old study, where a political scientist from Harvard gauged the reaction of a small handful of white people after they sat next to a pair of Latino men on a train in Boston as evidence that the hundreds of thousands of voters throughout the rust belt who supported Democrats over the last quarter century somehow turned into racists over the last four years. I believe that other factors, such as healthcare premiums (remember North Carolina where premiums increased by 40%? According to a CBS poll from late October 2016, when asked whether Obamacare hurt or helped people, 53% of North Carolina voters said “hurt” as opposed to only 38% who said “help.”), the condition of our economy (62% of voters rated the condition as “poor” according to CNN exit polls, and Trump won them by 31 points), or our country’s trade deals (according to CNN, the majority of voters in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan believed international trade took away U.S. jobs) played a big role in their decision. The bottom line is that there’s no evidence to suggest that all those people in Wisconsin, who, for the last 32 years voted for Democrats (including the nation’s first black president twice, and Tammy Baldwin, the first openly gay individual to be elected to the U.S. Senate) became racists at some point over the last few hundred days because they decided to support a Republican in the last election cycle. Labeling these voters as racists could potentially estrange them further.

Were there Trump voters who held outright bigoted, intolerant and abhorrent beliefs? Absolutely, and while it’s important that their behavior is unequivocally denounced, they also made up a relatively small fraction of his support. For that reason, I think it’s bad for the Democratic party, and the political left to give them credit for Trump’s victory because it sends one of two messages, and neither bodes well. Either it means that they’re choosing to focus on a few thousand bigoted lunatics from the fringe of society over the millions of Ex-Democratic in the midwest and all throughout the country who abandoned their party last November, or they’re grouping those ex-Democratics into the same bucket along with them. Whichever it is, neither gives off the vibe of John Cusack holding a radio, and at this moment, that’s who the Democratic Party and its supporters need to take a cue from.

Simply put, the Democrats need to carry those voters in order to win the electoral college, and if they want to lure them back, the first step to making that happen would be to try and understand why they left the party in the first place. Dismissing their concerns or angrily fixating on their genetic makeup certainly won’t do the trick. What will? I think Yair Rosenberg, a political commentator who supported Hillary Clinton during the campaign said it best on twitter the morning after the election: “[I t]old [my] students today: key lesson of election is liberal politicians need to deal w[ith] their electorates as they are, not as they wish they were.” The bottom line is that the Democrats need to win back the moderate vote in order to take back control of the government. How can they do that? Taking Rosenberg’s advice would be a pretty good starting point.

Works Cited
Bryan, Bob. “Here’s How Much Obamacare Premiums Are Going up in Every State.” Business Insider. Business Insider, 26 Oct. 2016. Web. 26 Feb. 2017.
“CNN Exit Polls.” CNN.com. CNN, 8 Nov. 2016. Web.
Desmond-Harris, Jenee. “Trump’s Win Is a Reminder of the Incredible, Unbeatable Power of Racism.” Vox. Vox, 09 Nov. 2016. Web. 26 Feb. 2017.
Engel, Pamela. “Clinton Never Set Foot in Wisconsin – Then She Lost It, and It Helped Cost Her the Presidency.” Business Insider. Business Insider, 09 Nov. 2016. Web. 26 Feb. 2017.
Glassbergrglassberg@charlotteobserver.com, Ronnie. “How Many times Have Clinton and Trump Been to North Carolina? Here’s Your Answer.” Charlotteobserver. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Feb. 2017.
Politics, CBS News. “CBS News Battleground Tracker: North Carolina, Oct. 30, 2016.” Scribd. Scribd, n.d. Web. 26 Feb. 2017.
Rosenberg, Yair. “Told Students Today: Key Lesson of Election Is Liberal Politicians Need to Deal W/ Their Electorates as They Are, Not as They Wish They Were.” Twitter. Twitter, 09 Nov. 2016. Web. 26 Feb. 2017.

The 2016 Election: How did this happen, and what comes next?

For a whole host of reasons, the 2016 election was without a doubt one of the most bizarre, chaotic, divisive and in many ways, fascinating presidential races in the history of the United States. We all know what happened by now. Clinton held a huge lead in the polls, and was predicted to win the presidency with ease, when things took a sudden turn on election night. Trump went on to flip six states (and one congressional district in Maine) that Barack Obama carried twice, three of which (Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania) hadn’t been won by a Republican in over a quarter century, and would receive more electoral votes than any nominee from his party since George H.W. Bush in 1988. Furthermore, not only did he win, but the Republicans maintained their majorities in both chambers of congress, giving them control of the executive and legislative branches.

So what I’d like to examine is; how on Earth did this happen? What will the fallout look like? What led to Trump’s rise through the ranks? How did the Republicans gain control of the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives after losing all three in similar fashion just eight years ago, and finally, what do the Democrats need to do in order to win them back?

In the wake of the election, and Trump’s swearing in, many protests have broken out across the country, some of which turned violent. Obviously, our country is quite divided at the moment, and tensions are running high. Since many Americans, regardless of where we stand ideologically, are engaged in the political process, the answers to those questions could be useful to all of us. Hopefully, I can provide them.

Works Cited
Final Electoral College Map. Digital image. Businessinsider.com. Business Insider, n.d. Web.
Mele, Christopher. “2nd Night of Trump Protests Brings 29 Arrests in Oregon.” Nytimes.com. New York Times, 11 Nov. 2016. Web. 12 Feb. 2017.
“Senate Election Results: G.O.P. Keeps Control.” Nytimes.com. New York Times, n.d. Web. 12 Feb. 2017.
“House Election Results: G.O.P. Keeps Control.” Nytimes.com. New York Times, n.d. Web. 12 Feb. 2017.

End of Semester Recap about Gun Laws

gunlawsGun Laws

My Topic: My topic was based on gun control and how this could effect rights to US citizens.

My Essays: My first essay on this topic was an evaluation paper. I started to explain what gun control was and why it was a consideration. I then went on to discuss the different laws of guns briefly in each state and highlighted the importance of the US constitution and why it defends gun-owners. I also covered the political parties thoughts on this issue.

In my second essay, I decided to do a casual/ethical paper. Again, I showed the importance of the US constitution and what could happen if our rights were taken away. I showed many statistics and showed many examples as to why current/ future responsibe gun-owners should not have their rights taken away because of culprits using guns illegaly.

For my proposal paper; my third essay, I really emphasized the constitution and the opinons of others. I felt that the opinons of others were a very important part in getting a proper solution that would be fair to everyone. I collected voices from moms to figherfighters to security guards to Rowan students and it was super fun getting to hear everyone and their explanations as to why they thought what they did.

My writing process was inspired by the constant controversial discussions of this topic. It is a very interesting and opiniated topic and I wanted to see why certain people were aganst this topic. As I continued to research, I grew more with this topic and became stronger to be able to defend my personal opinon.

My Research Methods: I search different key words with my topic. I based all three of my essays from the US constitution and mainly focused on this. I then branched out from that with smaller documents and opinons of others. I noticed most of my searches ended up being opinons of others, so I had to search more scholary articles and find the bases of the gun control that I needed.

Sources: http://www.constitutionparty.com/gun-control/



Final Details/Observations: After researching the same topic for the semester, I became more knowledgeable about rights, the laws, and gun-control in general. I knew what my position was in this argument but did not know how to defend it. Since I did days of research, I realized and learned new key points on this topic and found my voice to defend what I thought about it. I also learned how to pick apart information I really needed and what information I could do without for the essays. Because of all the research and learning I did on my topic, I found a better perspective on why I don’t support gun control and legit reasons on why I don’t. In my research, I learned to understand the opposing side and take into consideration of  their thoughts and opinons and also include that in my essays to give better feedback to my readers.