November/December W2: CBP Refused to Let Me and Other Doctors Give Migrants Flu Shots for Free

Leila Ettachfini

"CBP Refused to Let Me and Other Doctors Give Migrants Flu Shots for Free"

""We thought, 'How can they deny it if it's not going to cost them anything?'" Dr. Julie Sierra told VICE."

Vice, November 22, 2019

          Leila Ettachfini takes a look at the southern border and the heated controversies that surround it by detailing a personal account of a certain group's attempts in dealing with Customs and Border Protection (CBP). In an interview with Vice, Dr. Julie Sierra from Doctors for Camp Closure gives explanations and context in her communications with CBP regarding vaccination of migrants and asylum seekers. With the article's clear exigence being the recent flu-related deaths of three migrant children while under CBP custody, the author uses the interview with Dr. Sierra and statements from the CBP regarding its policy in order to expose the flaws in the CBP's system and place upon them the blame for the children's deaths. While the interview constitutes a majority of the article's content, the author carefully introduced Doctors for Camp Closure before selecting specific portions of the interview to include, mostly being details about the group's actions and motives. Much of the piece's argument lies entirely within the words of Dr. Sierra rather than the author, but Ettachfini still includes pieces of supporting numerical evidence in order to impact the context with which the audience will interpret the interview. Regardless of the audience's prior knowledge or preconceptions about the "border crisis" (either one of them), the author writes with precision, only presenting facts relevant to her argument while leaving the rest up to the audience's purposefully-influenced interpretation of the interview. 

November/December W1: Freedom of Religion Doesn't Exist If People Are Afraid to Wear Symbols of Their Faith

Leila Ettachfini

"Freedom of Religion Doesn't Exist If People Are Afraid to Wear Symbols of Their Faith"

"A third of Jews in the U.S. have “avoided publicly wearing, carrying, or displaying things that might help people identify” them as Jewish, according to a new poll. What kind of freedom is that?"

Vice, October 23, 2019

          With the release of a recent poll, it was found that roughly a third of the American Jewish population avoids "publicly wearing, carrying, or displaying things that might help people identify" them as Jewish. The poll, released by the American Jewish Committee (AJC), along with the recent one-year anniversary of the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, is the clearest exigence for this piece, as it primarily serves as a response to the new findings. Ettachfini, a Muslim, also details a personal anecdote regarding the Christchurch shootings in New Zealand to support her argument that while the government is primarily no longer involved in the oppression of minority religious groups, "anti-Semitic" and "islamophobic" sentiments in the U.S. have been on the rise, especially since the election of 2016. Despite the words of politicians that condemn international oppression of religious freedoms, the author claims that they do little to stop domestic de facto oppression and violence. Putting aside the historic questionability of the AJC and the ADL, Ettachfini still provides other pieces of hard, reliable evidence, mainly from current events and FBI databases. However, while the author is primarily concerned with minority religious groups, she fails to acknowledge the rising negative sentiments towards more dominant religious groups in America. In addition, she pulls evidence from groups that have actively worked to condemn Christian churches, organizations, and political parties internationally without addressing the fact. It is reasonable, however, to suggest a simple lack of knowledge, and so the benefit of the doubt is fairly given. As such, Ettachfini provides a brief yet still complete argument that effectively combines reason and emotion.

October/November 2019 Monthly Project: Why Progressives Should Choose Anna North

Why You Should Choose Anna North

Have You Been Interested in Social Politics Lately?

Are You Looking For a Distinguished and Consistent Progressive Author?

Do You Appreciate Less Banter and More Substance in Your Media?

If you answered "Yes" to any of these questions, then consider yourself a part of Anna North's target audience.

Ms. North is currently a Senior Reporter at Vox, writing mainly on current events and covering issues of gender and social justice. However, you may also know her from her previous positions at the New York Times or Buzzfeed. Even if you're not an active political reader, you may still have seen her name before if you're a fan of dystopian fiction or Game of Thrones, as she's authored works of fiction such as America Pacifica and The Life and Death of Sophie Stark. Additionally, her next novel, Outlawed, a fictional narrative of a feminist midwife in the Wild West, is slated to release in 2021 and is complete with the same explicitly political undertones of her previous works.

If you're more interested in her nonfictional political writings, though, you should be able to get a feel of her style and ideological leanings from the linked articles that I've analyzed below:

 "“Nervous Nancy” tweet shows his problem with powerful women" - A criticism of President Trump's behaviors and remarks towards women in politics.

"These laws were meant to protect people from HIV. They’ve only increased stigma and abuse." - A detailed look at the history and consequences of HIV laws around the nation.

"“Failed” abortions, a period-tracking spreadsheet, and the last clinic standing: the controversy in Missouri, explained" - A summary of a recent development in the abortion debate.

"A new Trump administration rule could hurt LGBTQ youth in foster care" - A speculative and concerned criticism of the foster care system.

The modern progressive media is lost without writers like North. Her consistent emphasis on facts and hard evidence over excessively emotional argumentation presents her in a light that shines brighter than the rest to most readers in the modern context of journalism. While you'll find the same, familiar stances and views that you see in most new-age American progressives, you may find new ways to look at issues and argue either for or against them. The degree to which you may or may not agree with her arguments is irrelevant. Instead, her confident--yet still unhesitantly polarizing--styles of argument development should catch your interest, for she tends to expose the side of progressive journalists you may not always see.

October/November 2019 W4: A new Trump administration rule could hurt LGBTQ youth in foster care

Anna North

"A new Trump administration rule could hurt LGBTQ youth in foster care"

" The proposal is part of a bigger pattern."

Vox, November 7, 2019

          The White House recently proposed a new rule regarding discrimination against gender identity and sexual orientation in programs funded by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Anna North breaks down the new rule, emphasizing its potential effects on affected foster care programs. The rule removes certain language from the previous administration's policies that would now allow certain HHS-funded programs to be exempt from laws protecting discrimination against gender identities and sexual orientations. As it was praised by many for upholding religious freedoms, North claims that it would have an adverse effect on children in the foster care system, especially those of LGBTQ identities. Her primary reasoning is that certain programs would not allow non-Christian or same-sex couples to adopt, thus keeping kids in poor facilities longer and likely sending more to juvenile correctional institutions. Another potential outcome comes through the absence of protection for LGBTQ kids who are introduced into the system, as North claims that foster care programs under the new rule could legally turn away kids of LGBTQ identity from entering under their jurisdiction. She uses statistical data to support her claims of the disproportionality of adoption for same-sex couples, but much of North's persuasive tactics lie in her emotional detailing of a personal story of a student who grew up in a poor foster care facility. Being of Liberian descent, a Muslim, and a homosexual, North uses her as an example of the potential cruelty that foster care programs could act with regarding children of certain identities. As with much of her work, North relies heavily upon assumption and speculation, and so flaws naturally find themselves standing out in such logical processes. Nevertheless, she effectively and thoroughly compiles many relevant facts to validate her perspective, though she is unable to acknowledge or subsequently refute the stances that may invalidate her reason throughout the piece.

October 2019 W3: “Failed” abortions, a period-tracking spreadsheet, and the last clinic standing: the controversy in Missouri, explained

Anna North

"“Failed” abortions, a period-tracking spreadsheet, and the last clinic standing: the controversy in Missouri, explained"

"Hearings will determine if Missouri will be the first state without an abortion clinic."

Vox, October 31, 2019

          Anna North breaks down the most recent national abortion controversy in this convoluted narrative. In essence, the issue at hand involves health officials in Missouri tracking the menstrual data of abortion patients in order to investigate the possibilities of failed abortion procedures. The controversy comes from several recent actions from abortion opponents across the nation that are similar in vein, as abortion activists and doctors alike perceive the new trend as an attack on women's reproductive rights. North outlines their main concerns by tieing the developments in Missouri to those at the federal level, as pro-life politicians seek to impose more control over and restrictions on abortion clinics. As seen in many of her informative essays, there is a notable amount of reason and statistical data that lies in North's arguments. She effectively supports claims of the relative safeness of the procedure that exists in the majority of licensed abortion clinics through hard evidence, and she is fond of using the words of well-known personalities to her advantage. While it is kept to a minimum, there still naturally exists some form of emotional appeal, as North uses a sort of last-ditch attempt to victimize abortion doctors, implying that they are simply innocent, hard-working members of society. Regardless of the moral truth, North's stances remain clearer than typically seen in her pieces, though that might only further show her understanding of her audience and rhetorical situation.