Not Surprised

   In a recent article by Tijuana she argued that the United States has made a mistake by releasing a CIA interrogation report. She stated that the release of the report seemed to be a political stunt meant to shake up the already fragile state of our nation. She also deemed the reports delivery wrong and stated that it seemed exaggerated in a since. She concluded that all the release did was put United States troops on high alert, and admit she thought it was a mistake to release as well. I do agree with Tijuana in most of her opinions of the United States.

   The United States is famous for releasing information and reports that rattle the public. They give us this “jaw dropping” information as a way to instill fear in American citizens. Fear is a wonderful political strategy to use because it allows for, and in some cases demands change. So I do believe that the CIA interrogation report could have been released and handled differently , but I am not surprised.

2nd Chance???

    In a recent article by Heidi she discussed the amount of money that the United States is spending on educating inmates. She used a lot of numerical data to give the reader exact figures to digest. She also used comparative methods which involved an average college students cost and a inmates education cost. She then stated the source of the money we are spending for the inmates educates which is American tax dollars. I do agree with Heidi in her opinion that we should be spending a lot less money in educating inmates.

    One of the main reasons I agree with her argument is because she is absolutely right that the cost of educating an inmate is extremely too expensive. Another reason is because in some cases their education can be considered pointless. I say depending on an inmates crime they will not be able too, or be extremely difficult for them to find a job. With that being said I agree that the budget for inmate education should be greatly reduced.

Its been decided

     

   Currently in Texas there is a man convicted of murder and sentenced to die by lethal injection. The mans defense team argues that the man is mentally unstable, and is not conscious of the acts that he has committed. I do not care to argue whether or not the man was cognitive of his decision when murdering or how he should be sentenced for the crime he has committed. My issue on the other hand is with the consistency of the United Sates with our decision making. We have chosen to elect nine supreme court justices to interpret our constitution. The Supreme court Justices have already decided in a similar case in 2002 Atkins v. Virginia that it is unconstitutional and violates the eighth amendment to execute someone that has an intellectual disability.

    I think that the real issue here is that our Constitution is to vague and open for interpretation, which doesn't sound great but can be beneficial, because it allows for change to suit our evolving society.  So, I believe that we have to uphold their decision to not execute people with mental disorders or we have to put the case in  their hands to change their interpretation of the Constitution again.

Let The Truth Be Told

   Have no fear my fellow Americans don’t believe your hype, we are not in any danger of an Ebola epidemic. It is sad to see how the US government is using fear as a tactic to win votes in an election. It is ridiculous to think that we could scoop to such extreme measures to win a vote. The United states has failed to truly inform Americans about the facts regarding Ebola.

   The truth is that Ebola is a virus that only becomes highly contagious after it has been within its host for an extended period of time. also that by the time the virus becomes contagious it has weakened its host so much so that they are either hospitalized or bed bound. Which is the reason why the people at greatest risk of contracting ebola are hospital workers and immediate family members.

   These facts are known by the US but are withheld to instill fear in Americans. Politicians know that once fear is established it will cause us to panic. After we panic we then have to find someone to blame for the problem. Lastly, after the person is blamed, they have to be replaced with someone who either has a proposed solution to the problem or sells us the idea they can prevent the problem from ever reoccurring again. The person will most likely boost research funding to find a cure, and indeed a cure probably will be found. This will happen not because researchers have the extra funds, but because now there is a lot of money to be made by the vaccine. Money and the profits you can make off certain cures plays an important role in research, which another fact that will not be mentioned to the public.

    The reality is that out of over three hundred and sixteen million people in America there has only been six confirmed cases. Which alone should let us know we are doing a good job containing the virus and we are not in any immanent danger.

Polotics of Ebola

In a recent article by a Washington's Post opinion writer Dana Milbank stated that the recent ebola outbreak is serving as basis of a political fight. He stated how many argued that the Us government should have been more prepared for the recent Ebola outbreaks. The basis of their arguments was the point that if the National Institute of Healths budget was not being cut, we could have developed a vaccine or cure for the virus. To build theie arguments they gave examples that included quotes and numerical figures of some of the cuts that have been made, to the research department on ebola specifically in the past four years.
     I agree with Milbank's, and I think they are blowing thie issue of Ebola up for the upcoming elections. I personally think that the United States is doing a decent job of controlling the virus , we just need to work on making sure Healthcare workers are properly trained before treating individuals with the virus, which isn't a federal issue. Just as stated in the article the National Institute of Health (NH)  has money but chooses to use it on different types of research , and I think if their should be a concern is should be on monitoring what the NH is spending the funds on.

Campaign Tactics

There was an article published recently on the Washington Post about president Obama's economy pitch for the upcoming elections . The author (chairman of the lobbying and communications firm BGR Group) is trying to persuade readers that Obama is misleading the people on our current economic conditions. I believe that his target audience is actually all people eligible to vote in the coming election, and his goal is to get his audience to vote republican. To build his argument he uses a lot of statistics from certain parts of the economy that reflect very little or no change at all. For example he states “real median household income is down almost 4 percent from where it was when the recovery started in June 2009. … During the recession itself, household income dropped only 2.6 percent.” Stats like that would cause any reader o question the state of the economy, which according to recent polls is a key concern for both democratic and republican parties. I personally think that the author is doing the exact thing he is accusing president Obama of doing with this article. They are both pulling out different parts of the economy, be it good or bad and trying to sell the reader on the nations economic state with that fact. You have to look at each sector of the economy in order to gain a true understanding of its state you just can not single out one. Examining the economy in such a way however brings forth problems for all politicians and political parties. The reason being is because over the past six years some sectors of the economy have indeed improved and some have declined.

We Can Fight for Ourselves

It isn't wise to train and arm what could potentially be our future enemies is the argument many are making against the new bill passed by congress. While I am opposed to putting US troops in danger, I do not agree that we should aid the Syrian rebels too defeat ISIS. We have to look at the negative effects of arming Syrian rebels could have, like our own weapons one day being used against us. A recent article stated that" its not a good idea to arm people we hardly know." I think that the simplest tactic, which is to fight our own battle, may the best.