|
Personal opinion based ranking (1 meaning burn the man, 5 being complete indifference, 10 being still awful but could be a lot worse):
4. Yes, that’s right, I don’t like John Adams. I hear a lot of people praising him because he didn’t own slaves and he wanted America to break free from Great Britain, but in my opinion his bad traits outweigh the good. He wasn’t an abolitionist. His presidency can be compared to Trump’s in a lot of ways, if that tells you anything. He had quite the superiority complex and wanted to make it so people treated the president as a king; he wanted anyone who spoke bad about the president to be criminally charged. He also had a history of slandering his political opponents. Granted, they weren't exactly the peak of professionalism either, but it wasn’t good from either side.
0 Comments
Personal opinion based ranking (1 meaning burn the man, 5 being complete indifference, 10 being still awful but could be a lot worse):
5, I would be lying if I said I had many opinions on Washington. I’m not a fan of him as a person, I would not like to know him, and his politics were fine about 42% of the time which isn’t as bad as it could be. He just isn’t all that interesting to me. The Green New Deal (GND) has been talked about within the past couple of years at a rapidly increasing rate. The Sunrise Movement held over 200 town hall meetings just to promote the GND. But, what is it? Who created it? And most importantly, can we afford it?. Corporations such as BP and ExxonMobile are destroying our earth. At this point, we can’t afford not to implement this. In fact, in the past we have implemented it. The New Deal was introduced by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933. This created lots of new jobs and arguably ended the Great Depression.
In December, 2019-nCov broke out in China, the second-largest economy of the world. Now, it’s affecting people everywhere.
To the Writers and Editors at the Berkshire Eagle:
The Affinity groups of color, in collaboration with the community at Simon’s Rock, demand that you issue a full retraction of your article—“Police: Alleged Attack on Simon’s Rock Campus not Racially Motivated”. The title of this article perpetuates narratives that survivors of incidents should not be believed. We do not believe that the content of your article, in which you essentially claim that the investigation is ongoing and that there are no definite conclusions, matches the title of your article which implies that the incident is definitely not a hate crime. This title willfully misinforms and is a gross malpractice in journalism. When people see the headline of this article, they may not read the rest of the article. They may assume the title as conclusive and complete proof that this was not a hate crime. We would also like to highlight the manners by which this article, in its verbiage, could create a sense of safety and comfort in the local community that may not be justified. Members of the community should not be encouraged to disregard any concern for the safety of themselves and those around them. The first quote from the article demonstrates how journalistically irresponsible the article is in conveying factual information to the public. First, you cite Chief William Walsh’s claim that, “Investigators have not discovered anything that would lead them to conclude that this was a racially motivated incident”, which insinuates that the police have concluded that there is not a basis for the incidents at Simon’s Rock to be considered a hate crime. This quote also indicates that information could still be acquired, but this possibility was not mentioned. The writer follows the quote with citing Berkshire State Police Detective Unit who says, “We're talking to people, chasing down leads” which implies that the investigation has not progressed to the point where a conclusion on whether or not this is a hate crime could be, which is the antithesis of the title. For these reasons, we demand that this article be retracted in full by the Berkshire Eagle. On September 20th, people everywhere walked out of their homes, their workplaces, and their schools in a globalized climate strike. Why? Because we have now entered into a climate crisis.
 Photo Creds: Getty Images
At the end of the 2019 season, it appeared Houston Texans star linebacker Jadeveon Clowney was going to break the bank wherever he ended up in free agency. That is, until the Texans placed the franchise tag on him, which allowed Houston to keep his rights for one more year on a fully guaranteed contract. After a heated few weeks in which the Texans and Clowney’s agent argued over whether to tag him as an outside linebacker or defensive end, as being tagged as a defensive end guaranteed him more money, Clowney stated he wanted a new contract. Now, when an NFL player has been hit with the franchise tag, there is a window, that ends on July 15, which allows teams and players to negotiate a long-term deal. Otherwise, the player is forced to stay on the franchise tag for the year and cannot negotiate a new contract until they enter free agency. |
Proudly powered by Weebly