Murder: Group of Crows

"I think that they put themselves into the situation, and they need to deal with the mistakes that they may have made. So many girls, go out and sleep around, thinking that there are so many ways to prevent getting pregnant, and if they did, they could just get an abortion and get rid of it. Those girls in my opinion, are being careless."-an excerpt from Murdering, with no punishment?

The author of this article is against abortion. The issue of the legality of abortion is still very provocative in the United States. However, when debating an issue such as this, the language used must be extremely precise, to avoid any misunderstandings. To begin with, abortion can not possibly be declared illegal, because not only can it be induced through pills and drugs, but it can also happen because of complications that are beyond control. So, while several of the phrases in the article can allude to the type of induced abortion, "To get an abortion", it is still not exact enough language.

The next issue I have with Gilman's article is the use of broad statements to describe women who get abortions. "But, there are many women in the United States who are killing humans daily, and they never have any consequences of doing so." When writing an article of this nature, it benefits the writer to use such statements sparingly, if at all, and with factual evidence. This statement does not give the actual statistics of abortions in the U.S, nor does it give evidence to any studies concerning the consequences women who have abortions suffer.

Finally, I take to offense with the tone of the author. I acknowledge that this is an issue that brings out very intense emotional responses. Yet, I feel that the path this argument takes is not based in enough evidence or personal experience. To convince someone in a debate such as this, one should use more than vague wording and horrendous stereotypes.

2 Billion: Not Only Aimed at Those Who Qualify

The Senate has approved another $2 billion for the CARS program, which should last until Labor Day. In 2007, there were 254,403,082 registered vehicles on the highway, including buses and motorcycles. Still the majority, 135,932,930 of these vehicles, were cars. While a quarter million vehicles may pale in comparison to this number, the CARS program is reviving consumer interest in the automobile market. Critics of the program scoff at the governments planning and handling of the funds. However, the popularity of this program was a complete surprise, not something Congress can be held accountable for. Instead they decided to encourage this desire to purchase. This program has encouraged the purchase of more fuel efficient vehicles as well. Our government is doing its best to revive the economy, and the attention this program has received will definitely encourage growth. Now, since I don't have access to the specific data that would help me make an absolute statement, I can only speculate. So while some may believe the amount of vehicles sold under this program would or shall be equal to the amount that would have been sold without the CARS program; what should be taken into consideration is the publicity. Besides providing a rebate for buyers, it encourages more people to take a look at the market. People across the nation are looking at dealerships, and discounts, and other incentives to buy. They are evaluating their vehicles, and comparing the value of buying a newer, fuel-efficient car, with their current method of transportation. They see the amount saved, not only from the rebate, but also on gas. The government is encouraging this thinking, by showing faith in the nation's consumers. The additional 2 billion is an investment aimed not only at those who qualify, but those who don't. If the government is willing to invest in the auto industry, why shouldn't the average consumer; the additional 2 billion is meant to aide those who qualify, and encourage the rest of the nation to consider the potential of the investment as well.

A Liberal Republican's View on Health Care Reform

In Sara Yakin's article, Does Obama really want to kill old people?, she discusses the many misconceptions about the health care bill. She introduces her readers to the topic with a touch of humor, "In this time of uncertainty, when I heard the rumors that buried in the new health care bill was a government conspiracy to kill people, I was all ears," and follows up with her own research. "And to my surprise, not only could I not find any hidden passages, but the word death was only mentioned one time. Part 2, Section B, Paragraph G, Line 2, Insert 1.
'in the case where the deficiency is found to be a direct proximate cause of death of a resident of the facility, an amount not to exceed $100,000;', " from a verifiable source, which is vital to the argument she poses. With her own research, Yakin clearly demonstrates how the credibility of the Republican party has decreased. She suggests that, "Republicans, get out their glass, set down with a lawyer and a cup of coffee, and really read what the bill suggests. Find the real flaws, state the real arguments, and really change people’s minds. Lets mention why some parts of this health care bill, read more like tax laws are Medicare reforms." That Yakin offers her solution to this problem is one of the greatest strengths of this article. Her article is an excellent view point from a Republican stand point, it would be extremely insightful if she were to do a review on the main points of the health care bill herself.

Too Little Cash for Too Many Cars

The Car Allowance Rebate System, or CARS, was recently created by Congress to take off old and inefficient vehicles off the road. Citizens, starting on July 1, were given the opportunity to take their vehicles to dealers, in exchange towards credit for a newer, more fuel efficient car. The Transportation Department only began to begin accepting applications on Monday, however dealers had already accumulated a large volume of applications to submit to the department. There were requirements that had to be met, and 250,000 applicants were accepted. With the allocation of an average of 4,000 per car, the $1 billion allocated to this program was used in about 4 weeks.
This program showed great promise. It was a step toward a better environment, and aid the economy by boosting sales of automobiles. Yet, the mark on the industry appears to be minimal, giving only a small boost up from the projected 10 million vehicles, a far cry from last year's mark of 16 million. This program has obviously been attractive to many people, and it has slightly helped the failing auto industry, but can it be argued that it has made a significant impact. A quarter of a million dollars, that's only a small fraction of a desired outcome nearing 16 million sales. During this recession Congress is trying to do its best to aid the nation, and the economy. Yet, what is the opportunity cost of this program? Was the 1 billion enough of an investment? Or was it to much for a program that made so little an impact? Selling 25% of a million in 4 weeks is no mean feat, and if Congress decides to allocate another 3 billion, maybe a total of 1 million new vehicles will be purchased. However, the program is now suspended because it has already used all of its funds, and there are still many other needs that Congress needs to address, rather than those of an auto industry with so little foresight.

Has the President Misjudged the Nation?

Common Sense May Sink ObamaCare is an article by Peggy Noonan. She discusses the new health bill that has been one of the main points of Obama's administration. She tailors her article not to include components of the bill, but instead negative reactions towards it, "Americans don’t fear the devil’s in the details, they fear hell is. Do they want the same people running health care who gave us the Department of Motor Vehicles, the post office and the invasion of Iraq?" She argues that there are three main flaws with the bill: "People are afraid of losing the parts of the system that sometimes work—the unquantifiable parts, the human parts.", "Second, and this is big, some of the bills being worked on in Congress will allow for or mandate taxpayer funding of abortion.", "We are living in a time in which educated people who are at the top of American life feel they have the right to make very public criticisms of . . . let’s call it the private, pleasurable but health-related choices of others."
Noonan addresses these points with well placed rhetorical questions, and assertions about the mindset of the American people as a whole. She uses her own opinions to construct the view points of citizens who watched the press conference with Obama, "Far more seriously, he didn’t seem to be telling the truth... Who would believe that?"
Noonan brings the reader into her mindset, subtly transitioning from, "I think", to "they are", making herself the authority on all Americans. She ends with another rhetorical question, "Who wants more of that?" for the final finish.
Peggy Noonan ultimately does an excellent job of presenting her opinion in a reasonable manner despite the somewhat assuming assertions. Her article flows cleanly, and presents its arguement in a reasonable light.

Guns Brought to You Courtesy of Alaska

At one time, when ruled by the British Empire, Americans had their freedoms restricted. With the aid of the Constitution and a vital Bill of Rights, the same civil liberties are no longer so abused. However, more often than not, issues get in the way of carrying out these freedoms to the fullest possible extent; one of these being the right to bear arms. On July 22, the Senate is to voting on an ammendment that would "force states with more restrictive standards to accept concealed carry permits from states with less stringent rules — in effect giving the lax rules national reach."
The editorial, Gun Crazy in the Senate is quite against this proposition. It argues that illegal activities concerning the possesion of firearms will be eased in the bill's passage. Citing the Violence Policy Center, " Between May 2007 and April 2009, people holding concealed handgun permits killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens." The central argument of this piece mainly focuses on the issues with this bill, and issues with states' policies, Alaska in particular.
What concerns me, as a reader, is the lack of information on a whole about this bill. Why was it put in place? Who else supports it, and why? From state officials, would it make things easier, or harder? I also would like to have more statistics, because while 'seven police officers and 44 private citizens' may seem like a shocking number, those deaths occured over a period of almost 3 years. That number pales in comparison to 631,636, the number of heart disease related deaths in 2006, according to the CDC. The writer also asserts that, "Other examples of crimes committed by concealed-carry licensees are plentiful." I would like to know where I can find those examples, and how accurate they are, I do not appreciate vague statements when trying to make a decision on whether this new bill is a sound one or not. So with no thanks to the writer, I now know about a new gun law, and don't know whether its worth supporting, or condemning.

Health Care Debate Continues

President Obama is determined to have legislature enacted that will give more Americans access to affordable health care. Chairman Bacus has attempted for months to pass a bipartisan bill. However, the August deadline is rapidly approaching, and interpartisan strife continues to hold up progress towards that goal. Republicans have submitted many "technical" ammendments, which have been passed for the most part, but are still unhappy with the trillion dollar price tag of the bill. Mr. Grassley, a Republican, lauds Mr. Bacus' patience in his effort to pass a bipartisan bill, despite the many frustrations involved, "He is willing to find a middle ground; he’s not an ideologue." Unfortunately, bipartisanship may be sacrificed in order to get this bill passed. Read this article for more information: Health Care Vote Illustrates Partisan Divide