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.