October 2019 W2: These laws were meant to protect people from HIV. They’ve only increased stigma and abuse.

Anna North

"These laws were meant to protect people from HIV. They’ve only increased stigma and abuse."

"Laws in many states make it a crime to have sex without disclosing your HIV status. Advocates say they may actually worsen the spread of the virus."

Vox, October 10, 2019

          In this informative piece, Anna North details the history of HIV laws around the country, beginning with their inception in the '80s and tracking their effects since then that have extended into the present day. North primarily highlights the consequences of said laws and covers negative reactions to them. While she fails to present a clear argument or line of reasoning, she still weaves elements of persuasion into her continuing development of the narrative, a theme common to many of her columns. Nevertheless, she is unafraid to reveal her biases, as she describes claims and pieces of evidence that are exclusive to a single stance. Such aspects take the form of legal history, statistical studies, and personal stories of those affected by HIV laws. In essence, her "argument" is that the current commonplace HIV laws, that were created out of fear and stigmatization of those with the disease, have accomplished little to prevent its spread, and they may have even fueled it. However, North looks through a narrow lens, as she irrationally makes the assumption that her audience holds the same beliefs as she does about how promiscuity impacts society and cultural values. Additionally, she makes several smaller claims that aren't elaborated on and therefore cannot be argued for effectively, including the notion that certain groups experience worse social oppression for their medical condition than others, or that there aren't scientific reasons to explain why certain sexualities have disproportionate levels of HIV compared to others. Admittedly, however, North is able to forcefully emulate emotions of compassion and empathy that contribute significantly to the success of her persuasive strategies. While there are more than a few flaws in her lines of reasoning, this article should remain a point of intrigue and discussion among readers. 

October 2019 W1: Trump’s “Nervous Nancy” tweet shows his problem with powerful women

Anna North

"Trump’s “Nervous Nancy” tweet shows his problem with powerful women"

"Trump tried to shame Nancy Pelosi by tweeting a photo of their meeting. It backfired."

Vox, October 17, 2019

          President Trump recently made a tweet that contained an ad hominem attack on the current Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, including a picture of her standing up and "chastising" the President during a foreign policy meeting. Unexpectedly, however, many took to Twitter to defend Pelosi and spread the image to fire back at the President. Anna North commentates on this new, yet unsurprising, Twitter drama among the most powerful people in the country. North expands on the retaliation against President Trump by arguing for his consistent "misogynistic" behavior, utilizing examples from his past business and political careers, as well as much of his internet rhetoric. She criticizes his frequent and childish personal attacks on political opponents, especially women, claiming that his experience in male-dominated careers leaves him with a strong personality of "toxic masculinity." 

          North's own criticisms, however, ironically closely resemble the very kind that she is demeaning in this article. While name-calling, jokes about physicality, and other such insults used by the men and women in this laughable and increasingly-childish political climate (with much credit owed to the culture of the digital age), are absent from her language, North doesn't hesitate to call out the President's past remarks as cowardly and to classify him as a "bully" of sorts. Her approach is one that further fuels the adolescent style of social interaction and civil discussion among politicians and journalists in the modern era. The merit in her arguments are seemingly valid at face-value, but her strategy of antagonizing the President whilst glorifying Pelosi and other female politicians by similarly-irrelevant reasons model a less-appealing form of journalism. 

September 2019 Monthly Project: A Reader's Guide to Kevin D. Williamson

Your Complete Guide to Kevin D. Williamson

Cred. Pete Marovich

Kevin Daniel Williamson is an active conservative political commentator and journalist from Texas. He's worked for several newspapers, including The Bulletin, National Review (where he now serves as its roving correspondent), and even The Atlantic briefly. He's contributed to institutions such as The King's College and the Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University and is the author of seven books, the most recent of which is The Smallest Minority: Independent Thinking in the Age of Mob Politics, published in July of this year. Below are links to reviews and analyses of a few of his most recent opinion articles as seen in National Review.

"Playing God" - An analysis of the "religious progressivist" movement in America.
"Back Off from the ‘Resist’ Nonsense" - A critique of the immoderate voices that cry wolf.
"The Divine Right of the Democratic Party" - An insight into elitest-fueled polarization.
"What’s Behind the Democrats’ Impeachment Gambit?" - An opinion piece on the modern contexts of presidential impeachment.

Cred Reddit user u/slavjanskimapperars

As you might have guessed from the pieces detailed above, Williamson is best described as a right-wing fusionist. Through both his implicit and explicit expressions of opinion, it is often difficult for the reader to discern whether he is more of a libertarian or a conservative thinker; in actuality, he is a little of both. He is firmly pro-life, pro-2A, anti-centralized government, and wildly pro-markets. While he is moderately right-leaning on the social spectrum, he is expressly anti-interventionist and pro-free trade, distasteful of government regulations and "nationalist economics," distancing himself from traditional conservatives. At the same time, however, he is not afraid to disagree with his libertarian colleagues, and it can often appear that he is even more critical of his more closely-related ideologues than his more distanced ones.

Williamson is a seasoned veteran of the world of journalism. His notable experience in the media, involvement in modern political literature, and national recognition (mostly by his journalist counterparts) should make it clear to anyone, regardless of political preference, that his sphere of influence is hard to ignore.