The blog "of tortillas and Government", although very well written, makes some extreme and brash assumptions. I do agree that the disappearance of one of Trump's opposing reporters is suspicious, but I think it is a leap to assume the Trump had something to do with it and even that he had someone murdered him. The blog says "The Trump Administration has one less annoying reporter to worry about in the disappearance and most-likely brutal killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi." This was the first sentence in this blog. There was no evidence to back this up. As you keep reading through the blog there is no evidence, most likely becuase cmthe media doesnt have an evidence either. I also agree that it is suspicious that Khashoggi happened to be a very hatd-hitting reporter, especially against Trump, but again, it seems like quite a jump to say that this is why he disappeared. I think stating these opinions once is fine, it is an opinion after all, but saying this so boldly and outright seems a but premature. 

     However, I do agree with their stance on Trump's administration. The author uses strong language towards the administration and even give and shockingly stupid quote said by Trump in the blog. 

     Recently the FDA approved a new, highly potent, opioid called Dsuvia. This medication was invented for the use of people with acute pain disorders that persist despite the use of other pain medications. The medicine is in a pre-filled, single use, syringe applicator to reduce the chance of overuse or misuse of the drug. 

     The controversy surrounding this new drug is in part because of the large opioid crisis throughout the world. Many people abuse opiods because of their addictive, pain-killing nature and people often overdose on this highly effective drug. This is a big concern for the U.S. public and why the drug is under such scrutiny in the FDA. I believe that regardless of the drug, opioid or otherwise, drugs will always be abused. People will find a way, but that doesn't mean that this helpful drug should be automatically disregarded. According to the New York Times "opioid overdose deaths surged to more than 40,000 last year, including more than 30,000 from fentanyl and other synthetic opioids", like the new synthetic Dsuvia. These statistics along with the fact that the FDA chairmen (despite voting for the drug) said, “I predict that we will encounter diversion, abuse and death within the early months of its availability on the market.” This statement is confusing to me, why would the president of a U.S. national administration send mixed messages? This is neither sincere nor forthcoming, which is what citizens need when it comes such a controversial debate. 

     I believe that if the FDA is as persistent about their vigilance with accordance to this drug as they claim to be, that the effects can be managed. The FDA promised that the drug would only be administered directly to hospitals and not to pharmacies or other risky middle-men. If this is true then a majority of the risk of the drug getting out to the public can be controlled. The FDA also say that they will audit any and all selling or distribution of the drug in order to track Dsuvia. This is a very important step in the FDA's process, this will shut down and possible trafficking of the drug from hospitals or war-zones. I believe that this medication could be extremely helpful to someone with extreme acute pain disorders or medical facilities, like army bases, that have little access to a variety of medicine. As long as all these protocols are followed to a "T" then this drug will help more than it can hurt.

New Opioid: Miracle or Disaster?

     Recently the FDA approved a new, highly potent, opioid called Dsuvia. This medication was invented for the use of people with acute pain disorders that persist despite the use of other pain medications. The medicine is in a refilled, single use, syringe applicator to reduce the chance of overuse or misuse of the drug. 

     The controversy surrounding this new drug is in part because of the large opioid crisis throughout the world. Many people abuse opiods because of their addictive, pain-killing nature and people often overdose on this highly effective drug. According to the New York Times "opioid overdose deaths surged to more than 40,000 last year, including more than 30,000 from fentanyl and other synthetic opioids", like the new synthetic Dsuvia. These statistics along with the fact that the FDA chairmen (despite voting for the drug) said, “I predict that we will encounter diversion, abuse and death within the early months of its availability on the market.”

     I believe that if the FDA is as persistent about their vigilance with accordance to this drug that the effects will managed. The FDA promised that the drug would only be administered directly to hospitals and not to pharmacies or other risky middle-men. They also say that they will audit any and all selling or distribution of the drug in order to track Dsuvia. I believe that this medication could be extremely helpful to someone with extreme acute pain disorders or medical facilities, like army bases, that have little access to a variety of medicine. As long as all these protocols are followed to a "T" then this drug will help more than it can hurt.

In the Article What If The Republican Win Everything Again? posted by The New York Times, author David Leonhardt, the audience is given a hypothetical of the Republicans having a majority in Washington as a whole, and what that might look like for citizens.

The authors intended audience is Democrats because of his clear bias and emotional language towards the Republican party. This is clear because of his rash remarks like, "New laws that make it harder to vote. More tax cuts for the rich. More damage to the environment. A Republican Party molded even more in the image of President Trump." Leonhardt goes on to paint a picture of a world with less health insurance, less voting diversity due to restrictions, and a every increasing threat of climate change with no thoughts given by the Republicans. This is clearly skewed towards a Democratic audience.

The author is credible not only because he is employed by The New York Times but also because he won a Pulitzer prize for commentary on his columns in 2011. He also worked as an unbiased data analyzer. 

Leonhardt claims that if the Republicans with Washington, which isn't 100% likely but still possible, that that will allow Trump to become more confident and self-assured while also allowing the Republicans to move forward with plans such as cutting tax for the rich, disabling or even completely cutting health care (like Medicaid and Medicare), making voting standards more difficult, effectively making the voting population less diverse, and ignoring the climate change disaster. Leonhardt ends his article with a perfect summary, "In [A Republican] America, congenital liars and sexual harassers don’t get punished. They can become president. In that America, people with dark skin aren’t guaranteed the same rights as people with white skin, and a violently warming planet is less important than corporate profits."

On October 2nd, 2018 The New York Times posted an article entitled Donald Trump and the Self-Made Sham.

The author of this editorial was only described by "The Editorial Board" for The New York Times and remained nameless. This is credible because not only is this author from the New York Times, a well-known, well-established news conglomerate, but it is also written by many people on the board and is edited thoroughly by many people. I believe the authors intended source was people against Trump (probably a majority Left-leaning Democrats) that wanted more information to fuel their dislike/ hatred or people that wanted clarification on these ideas Trump has been spewing about his life since his election.

This articles claim is that Donald Trump not only lied about how he "built" his multi-million dollar life, but the he continues to lie about it now. The article says, "As an in-depth investigation by The Times has revealed, Mr. Trump is only self-made if you don’t count the massive financial rewards he received from his father’s business... (By age 3, [Trump] was pulling in an annual income of ... $200,000 a year.)" The article goes on to say that not only was the claimed $1 million loan in accurate, that overall he received upwards of " $413 million." The article describes how this influenced his life and helped shape the egotistical, proud, vain, business-man that he is today. The article even dug up form Trump's memoir, "People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular. I call it truthful hyperbole. It’s an innocent form of exaggeration — and a very effective form of promotion.”

After reading this article and substantial evidence that the Times drudged up I do believe that Trump lied about how he was brought up and what means he had to build his empire. I am not surprised either by Trump's 'truthful hyperbole', he has never been completely forthcoming, morally upstanding, or respectful of others. I appreciate the Times' work in bringing out the truth and agree with the author that "[Trump's] myth looks less like innocent exaggeration than malicious deception, with a dollop of corruption tossed in for good measure."

On September 4th, 2018 The New York Times posted an article entitled Letter Claims Attempted Assault by a Teenage Brett Kavanaugh.

For those who don't know, Brett Kavanaugh is Trump's Supreme Court nominee, and according to this article a letter was released by an anonymous source claiming that he assaulted a woman in highschool. Many people, including women from his former school, say that he is a stand up guy and he was a '“brilliant student,” who was very into sports, and was not “into anything crazy or illegal.”'

This article is important because of the modern surge of sexual assault awareness and accountability of harassment brought up through the #MeTooMovement. The implications of this letter need to be taken with all the seriousness and intensity that any other, non-sexual or non-assault related accusation would be. Many people claim that because this claim cannot be definitively proven it shouldn't be held against the nominee, but just because a person decides to not identify themselves is not important. They may be choosing this route for safety or for personal and mental purposes. This accusation still needs to be looked into by many sources.

This is also important because we as a society should not be allowing men and women with a past of assault or any implication of foul-play to be in charge of us. They should not be able to hold power in this democracy unless they are unequivocally proven innocent. The young side of the political spectrum is staring to push this movement but the whole of the voting community needs to become more aware of the people we are putting into office.

Hello

Hello everyone!