The film Apollo 11 details the story in which Americans persevered in the space race and meticulously engineered a scientific path to put men on the moon. Locked in intense competition and fearful of the recent Russian satellite put into orbit, the Americans and John F. Kennedy were desperate to show their scientific prominence in the Cold War and send a man to the moon. By painstakingly crunching the numbers and knowing that one misstep could result in a failure of massive proportions, the NASA engineers pushed on and astronauts were chosen for the perilous task. The lives of astronauts Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins were detailed both before and after their trek into space. After initial qualms about the mission and a series of on-board difficulties that at first seemed disastrous and insurmountable, the fearless spacemen were able to succeed in their mission, be the first to set foot on the moon, and return safely without harm. Additionally, the tremendous step for man kind was broadcasted live on television to the entirety of the world back home, effectively shouting the American’s victory in the space race from the rooftops. This sparked an overwhelming amount of patriotism and nationalism that brought together the people of the United States in a seemingly endless struggle that was the Cold War. The movie featured never before seen, cinematic film of the actual footage from the mission and was masterfully combined into a coherent film. The actors and stakes that are presented are very real. Without the efforts of the astronauts and the mission’s success, morale could have caused the outcome of the Cold War to be very different.
Author: Michael Ritardi
In chapter two of Hanson’s The Case for Trump, he discusses some of the politics and positions that he promised in order to get elected. He also details Trump’s policies that were controversial and some that he was not fully able to live up to or enforce. For instance, Hanson explains that Trump advertised that he wanted to fight in wars, but that America never “wins” anymore. Trump claimed that he wants to only enter conflicts that the United States can knowingly win. He also wants a big military budget, but only if the money is not used on ungrateful Iraqis, Afghans, or Libyans. While this statement appeased many Americans and Trump supporters, it became far more difficult to actually put into practice over the course of Trump’s tenure, as picking and choosing “winnable” conflicts proved to be no easy task. Additionally in regards to military endeavors, Trump assured that he would always protect allies if attacked but would not seek out optional interventions to become involved in. He later reneged on many of his ideas, having his advisors make statements that it was in the nation’s best interest to adhere to “principles of realism.” Trump’s other big selling point, which he has satisfied to an extent, was his trade policies. Trump wanted to recalibrate American trade and change its approach to globalization. To attain this goal, he was not afraid to start trade wars to obtain the trade concessions that he wanted. Once starting these trade wars, Trump was rarely apologetic and instead promised further restrictions and threatened tariffs to those who stood in his way. Lastly while Trump’s wall was largely unsuccessful to the extent that it was promised, he undoubtedly cracked down on illegal immigration. His policies regarding putting “America first” in regards to spending budgeted money on the American poor, not on Mexico’s or South America’s, ultimately proved to be very successful in gaining him support.
In Chapter 2 of Cheap Sex, Regenerus discusses Cheap Sex and how it has increased exponentially over recent years. With the invention of various contraceptives and a generally more lenient attitude towards sex, it is happening much more in society with far fewer consequences. Over the past several decades, the stigmas associated with cheap sex have decreased exponentially. No longer is the act seen as an extreme act of commitment, but rather it can be had more casually and not necessarily with any true forms of attachment. No longer is the primary use of sex for conceiving children, but rather contraceptives have allowed for decreased pregnancy risk and an increase in acts strictly for pleasure. These factors combined have all led to an increase in casual sexual encounters.
In recent years, this heightened sexual nature has been taken even a step further with the young generation. With the existence of apps solely designed to result in quick dates, many more first meetings are resulting in sexual encounters with today’s youth. Regenerus does not necessarily take a stance on whether this is a positive or negative change, but rather just states that the nature of casual sexual interactions has significantly heightened. This has a variety of implications like causing gender roles to be altered. Men, with traditionally high sexual appetites, are looking to have more sex, whereas women have more access to the act, allowing them to be more selecting in their choice of partners. Additionally, people on average have far more sexual partners in their lifetimes than others because the commitment requires much less dedication than it has in the past. Today, most relationships, particularly those in college and young environments, begin with sexual encounters and result in more deep commitments. Just a few decades ago, this stereotype was completely flipped and most sexual encounters only came after extensive dating and sometimes not even until marriage. Overall, Regenerus is suggesting that sex as a whole is seen as less binding and more acceptable in today’s society.
Categories
Short Essay #5
The issue regarding what type of person is entitled to preferential treatment in America is undoubtedly a complex and deeply controversial one. In economic terms, the “harm” being dealt to certain groups in the population cannot be fully understood without also examining the distribution of money from the welfare state. The very existence of a welfare state is an attractive proposition for immigrants, as most low-income foreigners looks towards the United States and see that no matter what, they will be compensated for food and shelter at the very least. If they decide to venture to America and reap the welfare however, it directly takes away the potential benefits for existing American citizens. Borjas argues that not only do immigrants take away benefits from natives, but they also use welfare much more on average than citizens born in the United States (Borjas 1777). In addition to taking a monetary hit from accepting immigrants, the acceptance of foreigners into the country also has potential to take away jobs and dilute existing American culture.
Of course there is another side to this argument with equal relevance and validity. Immigrants wanting to enter the country would likely have a strong work ethic and be willing to take lower paying, labor intensive jobs. The addition of culture and diversification of a population also brings many strengths and opportunities to a country. An argument can also be made that the impoverished existing American citizens may just be deadweight and not offer much to society. The immigrants receiving welfare might be more beneficial in comparison to where it would be going if it just went to the existing American poor. This becomes tricky, however, when topics like immigrants skillsets and levels of immigration are brought up and found to be generally lower than native populations (Borjas 181). The statistics often cloud the theoretical arguments that people try and construct, further concealing any one distinct truth about the matter. This claim could also be countered, however, with an argument that foreign immigrants are not more educated due to a lack of schooling opportunities compared to native United States citizens. This may be true, but does not change the fact that on average, immigrants on average have lower education levels than American citizens. Whether an immigrant has a better work ethic or not, it would be difficult for a high end employer to view the two on a level playing field.
Regardless of individual stance on this issue, it is clear that there can be no one definitive answer. From an economic and more objective standpoint, immigration poses an issue. More low-income and impoverished people entering the United States will ultimately drain the pool of American welfare, driving taxes up, and potentially even further harming the economy. For the benefit of the country strictly economically, the negative effects of immigration might outweigh the positives. A cultured country has many benefits, but when it starts effecting the economic health and stability of a nation, a line in the sand needs to be drawn. Overall, despite the upsides of immigration, the needs of native American citizens should be prioritized. While immigrants may work harder or be more willing to take low-wage jobs, a country that turns its back on its own citizens to offer foreigners aid is not much of a country at all.
Immigration is a recurring issue for the modern United States. Immigrants themselves are welcome, but is seems that this open invitation is only to a certain extent. Legal immigration has always been the preferred method for people to enter the United States, but it is certainly not the only way that people find themselves living within America’s borders. Borjas goes into depth about the United States’ legal immigration process, the lottery system, and history of American immigration. He goes onto mention the family preference system, where close relatives of adult U.S. citizen can enter the country legally. Unfortunately, this is not the only method in which people enter the United States and many choose an illegal route. For instance, with the termination of the Bracero program, many Mexican laborers were marooned in the United States without any sort of legal paperwork to give them access to their jobs. Since American growers wanted to maintain a source of cheap labor, it was obvious that they would continue to pay the workers if they were available. This sparked what would become a longstanding trend of illegal Mexican immigrants coming across the border to work for U.S. jobs. This is not to put the blame of the entire some 12 million immigrants on Mexican laborers, but it is just the example that Borjas uses due to its relevance in today’s political sphere. The United States is open to immigrants, but should they really be allowing people to live illegally within their borders? Granted, this question gets a little more complicated when illegals have built their entire lives and families in the United States. When they have worked there all their lives and become a part of the backbone of American society, it almost feels wrong just to deport them, even though they first entered the country through illegal means. The last issue Borjas discusses is the sheer quantity of immigrants today in the United States. It is estimated that 13.3% of the population today is made up of immigrants. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this number, as nearly all citizens of the modern United States were immigrants at one point, but is this massive intake of immigrants problematic for America? How will the economy and citizens adapt to this new presence? Will the United States hold strong in its stereotypical values, or will the melting pot theory prove true once again and result in a shift of the American identity?