This has been on the back burner for a long time. China or America. Which one is better. China is more populated, has better economics and is higher in political stand points. So the real question is, on the world stand point who is on top? America or China? Americans like to think that their country is on top of the world but its coming to light that we might be slipping off that pedestal.
i agree with asia. there's always been this little competition between china and america. although america has its perks. we have alot of flaws flowing in our country, as well as china has their perks and flaws. what i find interesting is what china and the rest of world thinks of the US during this time with the whole situation with the ebola virus. not to forget either on the fact that we're still bombing cities in the islamic state of syeria and iraq. although china is a very big and powerful, they are not big on expansion of its population. while the US is open to recieve a wide spread of immagrants, and not putting a limit of children per family. which is, again, and perk and a flaw in the US.
I'm stuck in between, America is holding the world up. We are not falling off the pedestul, we support other countries fundamentally, and other wise. When America falls, the world will have issues economically, with trading, and every aspect. This happened before the Great Depression. I do agree that we are always in competition with China. We trade with them, however we do have a better governing system and more freedom, putting us again above them, in the sense of would you rather live somewhere you're allowed one child, or somewhere you have ultimate freedom?
Obama is still playing election time even though he can not run again for office. But he can have a big weigh in on other elections. Whether its a election for senate or for the next president. Whoever supports gay marriage and believes that they should be able to wed is going to have a upper hand if Obama is behind that person. It could be a very game changer for the political and election world.
I think this article shows that Cuba is trying its hardest to find a cure for Ebola. This should restore American diplomatic relations with Cuba. The quicker that a cure is found the less worrying the world will be in. When looking at Ebola now, it has came to a life or death situation. With Cuba being so close to West African nations, its a very good idea for them to be looking for a cure. A lot of people in these nations will be traveling to Cuba, because of their outstanding medical system. The Cubans should be recognized for their great effort.
I don't think Ireland should be able to let their company's not pay taxes anymore.They're leaving groups of businesses that are not fortunate enough to make money with the help of patented products to just have a disadvantage. I don't think it should be fair for them to higher tax levy's on individuals. It's not like they're choosing for the government to do this. The government needs to start thinking of everyone that this could affect poorly, not only the good it could potentially do to some businesses.
i find it quite scary to think that certain terrorist the US were keeping their eyes on have gone underground and just decided to go low key. i find the whole edward snowden situation very interesting. by his efforts to leak government secrets he, unintentionally, gave some sort of "encourage" if you call it, to the islamic state to go underground after feeling the sense that their information and calls were being intercepted by the US. the article really interested me because it shows all these people leaking and giving info to other governments. the thing is that theyre willing to do it. it also makes it dangerous for the US because it can potentially become a blind spot and it in position for maybe even an attack.
I agree with you that the Snowden revelations could cause terrorist groups such as ISIS to develop more sophisticated ways of conducting their business, shying away from tactics that they know could be detected by the U.S. government. However, the United States should be technically sophisticated enough to match anything any militant group is able to do. If anything, I think that the Snowden revelations could make terrorist groups think twice about attacking, knowing that the logistics behind an attack are now that much harder.
I agree with both of you that this is a clear danger and concern but can it really be helped? ISIS like most other terrorist groups are Extremists who will stop at nothing to get what they want. So if they have planned an attack where as we are more sophisticated are we truly prepared? It's hard to say I think. Because if you cut one off another will take its place until someone gives in.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/22/opinion/would-stronger-parties-mean-less-polarization.html?ref=opinion&_r=0 In this article, the author writes that stronger political parties could actually lessen polarization on political issues, leading to more compromise on all levels of politics. I disagree with this claim. The extreme polarization in Congress stems from the fact that the political elites in Congress are extremely confident and passionate about their political beliefs. Stronger political parties would only make these beliefs stronger, leading to even less compromise. Compromise is going to come from people who are willing to give in slightly in regards to their political beliefs. Politicians coming from strong political parties would be less likely to do so.
I also disagree with the article. When these parties have severely different standpoints and views, they often face gridlock. If these political parties have such a strong view, compromise is far from near.
Often not a tiny bit more than half of all Americans believe that gang violence and child abductions have increased over the past twenty years but in reality they have decreased over that time. Along with those fears many Americans fear things such as identity theft, walking alone at night and speaking in public. But a shocking result was that many were afraid natural disasters but few of those actually had emergency supplies or a kit ready. The research team plans on taking these surveys of the people annually and that it would show people that America has improved drastically.
Dozens of suspected Nazi war criminals have collected millions in social security benefits. A team of journalists who found that the justice department allowed the suspected Nazis to keep the benefits if they agreed to leave the country. However the investigations led by the justice department have not made it clear who these people are exactly due to the confidentiality of records.
The Nazis shouldn't be able to "bargain" to keep the benefits. In fact, that's not even a bargain they're literally getting away so easily! Also they were suspected war criminals so why were they only told to leave with no punishment? This "solution" is the easy way out for both the country and the suspected war criminals. More should be done!
That's crazy! I've never heard of this before. Since they are war criminals, they should be held accountable for their actions. They also shouldn't be able to bargain for their social security. These people are getting away with murder! I don't know how the legal part works in these situations but that seems bazaar.
This Opinion Editorial is about how much China has changed since the author grew up there. He grew up in poverty after natural disasters occured in China. He had to eat certain kinds of clay and bark just to survive. China has grown so much over the years and now theyre a striving country. Yan Liane writes "Death was as frequent and inevitable as the setting sun." That seems strange to because of the generation that I grew up in.
This is very true he writes how much society had changed since he had lived there when so many people had died. He writes that we all wait for death and this is true because death is inevitable, which is how I related to the setting sun, and how now that the people of his town weren't dying of starvation, but of H.I.V., and even though the society had grown so much, there will always be a new reason for large numbers of death.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/10/23/opinion/nicholas-kristof-how-to-defeat-ebola.html How to defeat ebola I thought that this article made some interesting points. It talked about how ebola isn't really threatening to countries that have better health care. Countries it would be really dangerous to are countries like India with a very dense population and not as good of health care.
It makes a lot of sense. There are sooo many diseases that people in this country ignore or overlook. It's crazy how many people die from not knowing they have something.. It seems like each year there's a new disease or problem that makes everyone freak out for a couple months and then it's over and you hear about it maybe once or twice more. I don't think countries like the US should worry too much about things like this (Ebola) because every time someone freaks out about it, it eventually goes away. Happens almost every year.
i like this article because it tells you how it is. People are freaking out about ebola becoming a big thing in american ,but the truth is it won't effect us that much. Any out breaks will be quickly contained. The countries that need to worry are those who don't have advanced health care like we do in the united states. One thing that people might argue over is weather ebola patients should be put down. As there number grows it will be to difficult to contain and the chance if it breaking quarantine increases. They should be given time to find a cure ,but if they can't we need to eliminate ebola the old fashioned way.
In this article, the author discusses something similar to what we are currently learning in class. Texas has set a law in which a person can vote using a concealed weapon ID, but someone with a four year college ID cannot. This is much like the literacy tests that were once in place because it's putting restrictions on a certain group of people. Back then, it was set in place in hopes that it would restrict more (blacks) from voting. The article is rightfully called "The Disgust Election" for this specific reason. This law is unconstitutional, and needs to be repealed as quickly as possible.
I would agree, I also think that this law would send the wrong message to young people. This law is basically saying that there are more privileges associated with buying a gun than associated with attending college for four years. It's also not surprising that Texas, of all places would pass a law like this.
I also agree with your opinion, Texas is making it seem that each amendment ratifying the Texan citizens rights have been banned. Politicians are just worried about getting the right votes from the right people, and they feel with the old or the poor citizens that they won't get their support. This is unconstitutional and discriminating.
Might as well hop on the bandwagon and agree here too. While I have no problem with pro-gun legislation, making it easier for gun owners to vote has the potential to seriously affect the outcome of any vote related to guns. No politician should have such direct control over how a vote turns out.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/22/opinion/the-upside-of-lower-oil-prices.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0 This article talks about the up and down side of the lower oil prices as well as who does and doesn't benefit from it. It's bad for members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) who now have a reduced income and other countries who rely on their oil exports. It's also bad for the environment because it's cheaper to get oil and therefore less incentive to find alternate energy sources. The cheaper prices are good for the U.S. because we've been producing our own shale oil. Lower prices could mean we wouldn't have to produce as much shale oil which is more costly. There are more pros and cons, but which out-weighs the other? Are the lowered prices actually better for everyone?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/24/opinion/the-disgust-election.html?ref=opinion The title of the article speaks for itself. "The Disgust Elections". The fact that people are paying to keep representatives in their place is a threat to liberty for all citizens. Voting is one sure thing for those eligible and what kind of place will America be at if citizens can't even do that. The talk of not allowing old or poor citizens in Texas vote is not only unconstitutional, but discrimination at its finest. Statistically, most voters are the older ones, so if you take out a huge factor that contributes to the voting process, then that creates a whole mess of things. These elections are getting really sticky and from most articles I have read over the current elections it seems that representatives are doing everything they can to win or to keep their place.
We don't like to admit it ,but there are some areas that democracy fails in our country. The rich will always have the power to influence the elections. Media can make or break an election and those with money control the media. However people at the end of the day forget one simple fact. They don't have to be suppressed my the rich. At the end of the day there vote counts equally. If people just got involved in politics more and had opinions then we could bring that grey area of democracy closer to what our founders wanted.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/10/24/opinion/a-betrayal-of-migrant-children-and-the-law.html this article was about how immigrant children sent to Long Island New York and other places with relatives aren't getting the education they are required by LAW to recieve. They are shoved into annexes miles away from schools and sent home because there "isn't enough room".... If they let them in then why don't they get an education? Either way, by law, schools are required to give education and seats in the classroom to kids and young adults that immigrate over from other countries. I think the whole problem is stupid and should have been resolved rather quickly
I agree with this article because when kids are being sent away almost every month. There is no way they are getting a good education. All those children will know is traveling which isn't a bad thing but they need some education. With the education they can know about the world instead of never knowing. I personal think they need to stop sending kids away an transporting then. They are to young and they can't learn anything.
This block is very eye opening because now that the fourth Ebola case has been filed, people are now getting more serious about it and are realizing thats its not all fun and games anymore there is a serious virus spreading and killing people. I think that people should of taken more serious when it first cane out. Maybe that would of caused less spreading. I don't know for sure but I think we could of found a cure. No one deserves to die from a deadly virus. No one even deserves to have to and to know that they are dying slowly and there is no cure.
In this article two things happened, a ten year old boy with anger and mental issues murdered a 90-year-old woman with her can, and by punching her. The second crime committed was by a group of 15-17 year olds that were charged with sexual assault. In both crimes the question asked is should they be punished as adults? My answer would be no, they are not adults, they are minors, and that is why we have the juvenile delinquent centers and programs, where many times these children receive the opportunity to get help where it is needed, and then if needed they spend a few years in prison. The studies have shown that 10% of delinquents that received guidance through a juvenile hall were still criminals once removed from there, I do agree that for the most part these children just need guidance, but some already know their path. I also think that sending children into an adult prison would harden them up making their future worse than it would have been, because they would be around full grown criminal men/women. Although we should look at more studies and data to know for sure.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/25/nyregion/new-york-ebola-case-craig-spencer.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=LedeSum&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news This article informs us that a doctor in New York has tested positive for Ebola. Now New Jersey and New York have placed strict quarantines on all people entering the country who have had direct contact with Ebola patients. I don't know why we haven't been doing this already. Three out of the four people in the US with Ebola are doctors who treated Ebola patients.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/25/us/shooting-reported-at-high-school-north-of-seattle.html?ref=us&gwh=D8628B3AAA974BC5B1E2C3C5E71EF163&gwt=pay&assetType=nyt_now Another school shooting has happened; this time it was in Washington. The shooter was a popular freshman football player, which turned some heads because most of the other school shooters were social outcasts. This surely will be used as another argument in why guns should be banned. Two people were killed this time, but that's two to many.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/25/opinion/ebolas-information-paradox.html?ref=opinion The whole Ebola scare just doesn't make sense to me. Yeah it's a horrible disease but you also have the fact that there's something like a 3 day window when it's actually contagious. Adding to that, the death rate is only so high in Africa due to substandard medical access and lack of proper drugs for treatment. Yes it makes sense to be scared a little but not for as long as we have been. Only a few people have died in America due to Ebola. It's about as deadly as walking across a neighborhood street without looking both ways.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/10/25/opinion/no-progress-on-marijuana-arrests.html I think this who thing with Marijuana is really kinda dumb. I don't think it should matter if someone smokes it wither it be small or large is it much more different than smoking regular cigarettes? I saw let anyone smoke anything they want because in the end if it's legal or not people will find a way to get it. So why not legalize it and tax it a lot. That's my thoughts on that.
I agree with you on this. We can't make anyone stop smoking, exspecially if they are addicted to it already. For example, my grandpa, he smokes all the time, everyday and i try to get him to stop but he refuses. If smoking is legal then its up to that person to deside if they want to smoke or not. Its there decison, not ours. We can tell them all about what could happen and whats happening to their body if they have smoked along time, but we cant control their life. All we can do is say to ourselves is "I tried."
This is kind of like the states versus national government on who has jurisdiction on certain issues. Like whether regulating commerce is up to the states or the national government . That is the same issue now on whether or not its in the locals power to set up quarantines for people coming from Ebola stricken countries. And it by saying it is not allowed they are giving more power to the national government.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/29/opinion/nothing-in-moderation.html?ref=opinion&_r=0 In the article, the author writes that a recent study shows that the belief that the majority of the American electorate is moderate may not be accurate. The study shows that the typical belief of a moderate majority stems from inconsistencies in many Americans’ political ideologies. If someone has a very liberal view on one issues, but a very conservative view on another issue, he would average out as a moderate. The study concluded that this method is flawed. Instead, many Americans actually hold extreme views on issues such as taxes and social security, meaning that they should not be labeled as moderate. While the results of this study make sense, the author does not say what these people should be labeled as. Since they were unlikely to be political elites, I think it is still safe to call them moderates, as their inconsistencies in political ideology do not allow them to fall on either end of the political spectrum.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/27/opinion/zelizer-six-senate-races-to-watch/index.html?hpt=op_bn6 This article is about the midterm elections next week and how their are six compainers racing to win. In my opinion everyone races to win but this is something completely different then the normal races we hear about. EX: Foot race, work out racing and etc. but I have never heard of six campaniers racing. The article has to say this, "In each of these states Republicans are holding their ground by connecting their opponent to President Obama while Democrats strike back by reminding voters of extremism in the GOP." In my response to this quote i think that to many things are happening at one time. I think that we neeed to worry about one thing at a time so that way we dont fall behind or forget. With the Democrats trying to strike back on Obama while the Republicans are trying to Obama's best friend to take out the Democrats. I feel that we should worry about one thing at a time.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/29/opinion/secretary-arne-duncan-offers-states-guidance-on-equality.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0 This article talks about the inequality in school systems and how schools that primarily educate minorities don't have as many opportunities/resources, such as advanced-placement classes. Arne Duncan, the secretary of education, sent out letters that he referred to as "guidance," to school districts to remind them of their obligation to provide all students, regardless of race, with equal resources. I think it's good to see someone on a national level finally making a difference. But, the way the letter is set up, it sounds like it's teaching southern states in the 1960's how to treat non-white children. It's sad that were still having to deal with things like this.
I think its true that all students should be provided with the same opportunities. Being that America is a melting pot and none of us are really really the "original race", everyone should be treated and educated fairly. Like you said, It's really nice to see the national level step up and make a difference in the education world. I hope to see more of this happen in the US because I do feel as if some students dont get the same opportunities as others.
I think it's horrible that this is even an issue at this time in the world. I don't know why people would think that depending on race it should decide how the child gets treated in school. Every single child no matter what race should have an equal education. There shouldn't be any difference in education. I am glad someone has made sure this stops because it needs to. America is the land of opportunity. So that being said everybody should have the same opportunities no matter race or gender. I hope that schools don't ever decide things based off of race.
I think all students in all areas of this world should have equality. Jonatan is right. it is horrible that this is even an issue in todays society. Everyone on earth is born equal and they don't get to choose their race or anything. I'm glad that our school treats everyone equal like they should be treated . its so sad to think that people arrest ill judging others for something that they had no say in.
"Choose families over politics" this chant I think should be taken greatly into consideration. This article is about people from the United We Dream association that stood up and started to rally at Clinton's speech. I think it's good that people are attempting to see what she is going to do for immigrants if she gets to office. While she said she was going to talk about it I think that those 20 people who went and did that really did ensure that she did. I like that she says she is a pro supporter for the Dream Act and a Reform. These things both hold opportunity for illegal immigrants. I think people who come from other countries should get the opportunity to have some sort of permission to be here. There are many reason as to why I think that. One being that most people come here for an opportunity for a better life. So I think we should give them that. In other countries of the world the economy isn't as good as here in America. So I think people who come here for that reason should at least get some sort of permission to be here. Another is all the violence that goes on here. While some may say those people will bring the violence here it isn't true since they are looking for escape from the violence it doesn't make sense they would come here to cause more violence. I do think there should be some requirements because it makes sense for a great opportunity such as that to have certain requirements. Hopefully if Clinton does go into office she will take some action into this. But I think we should "Choose families over politics".
The fact that she would put a gun in a child's bag in the first place is bad enough. But the reason she did it for gets me angry she did it just to get him in trouble. She thought he hurt his two younger siblings so she placed it in his bag. She then called the school and told on the boy. Although they traced the call back to her. She got three years in prison. I feel that may be a bit extreme but she does deserve some what of a punishment for it. This in a way reminded me of the U.S. vs. Lopez case. They both involved guns at school. In that case lopez brought a gun to school to sell it to another person. The court ruled against him and he got sent to jail.
I think this woman deserves to be in prison for three years. If she has enough nerve to blame an innocent child for something he didn't do is very immature. Personally I do not think that she should have the right to be around children. If another child seen this and thought that this was ok, the world would be in a lot of trouble. This very well does remind me of the U.S. vs. Lopez case.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/opinion/the-prospect-of-a-republican-senate.html?ref=opinion&_r=0 I definitely think this article is biased because throughout the writing the author talks about how obstructive the new ideas of the Republican party is. I believe one of the ideas of a repeal on the Obamacare may not be as negative as it is made to be, it could give the more wealthier Americans a bigger chance of better healthcare, and it could also save money. I wouldn't go as far as turning around all of Obamas agenda, and I don't think that is the Republicans idea. It is more of a stereotype to say the Republicans will take advantage of their majority party and ban abortion and same sex marriage because that is what the liberals expect.
I think we as American's should be allowed to have guns. When it comes to gun safety I think everyone should know how to use gun safety before buying a gun. Gun safety is very important especially when it comes to children and young adults. the article says "The stakes go far beyond Washington. Politicians elsewhere will be watching to see whether the concerted, well-financed campaign to pass 594 can overcome the powerful National Rifle Association." I think this choice should go world wide to be processed through everything .
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/31/politics/election-turnout/index.html?hpt=po_c1 The Republican Party could win the Senate for the first time in nearly a decade. The Republican Party already has control of the majority of the Senate, but they need a net gain of ten seats to take control of the Senate. The Democratic Party needs the help of the majority of the woman and African-American population to keep control of the Senate.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/11/01/opinion/the-peoples-choice-on-gun-safety.html I think congress and the whole national government should not be allowed to do anything with the people's guns. It is written in the Constitution that we have the right to bear arms and the background checks are discriminating. Even if they are "safety" measures if someone wants to kill someone that person will do it. So background checks don't really do anything.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/21/opinion/roger-cohen-china-versus-america.html?ref=opinion
ReplyDeleteThis has been on the back burner for a long time. China or America. Which one is better. China is more populated, has better economics and is higher in political stand points. So the real question is, on the world stand point who is on top? America or China? Americans like to think that their country is on top of the world but its coming to light that we might be slipping off that pedestal.
i agree with asia. there's always been this little competition between china and america. although america has its perks. we have alot of flaws flowing in our country, as well as china has their perks and flaws. what i find interesting is what china and the rest of world thinks of the US during this time with the whole situation with the ebola virus. not to forget either on the fact that we're still bombing cities in the islamic state of syeria and iraq. although china is a very big and powerful, they are not big on expansion of its population. while the US is open to recieve a wide spread of immagrants, and not putting a limit of children per family. which is, again, and perk and a flaw in the US.
DeleteI'm stuck in between, America is holding the world up. We are not falling off the pedestul, we support other countries fundamentally, and other wise. When America falls, the world will have issues economically, with trading, and every aspect. This happened before the Great Depression. I do agree that we are always in competition with China. We trade with them, however we do have a better governing system and more freedom, putting us again above them, in the sense of would you rather live somewhere you're allowed one child, or somewhere you have ultimate freedom?
Deletehttp://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/20/president-obama-evolves-on-gay-marriage-again/?_php=true&_type=blogs&rref=opinion&module=Ribbon&version=origin®ion=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&pgtype=article&_r=0
ReplyDeleteObama is still playing election time even though he can not run again for office. But he can have a big weigh in on other elections. Whether its a election for senate or for the next president. Whoever supports gay marriage and believes that they should be able to wed is going to have a upper hand if Obama is behind that person. It could be a very game changer for the political and election world.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/20/opinion/cubas-impressive-role-on-ebola.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0
ReplyDeleteI think this article shows that Cuba is trying its hardest to find a cure for Ebola. This should restore American diplomatic relations with Cuba. The quicker that a cure is found the less worrying the world will be in. When looking at Ebola now, it has came to a life or death situation. With Cuba being so close to West African nations, its a very good idea for them to be looking for a cure. A lot of people in these nations will be traveling to Cuba, because of their outstanding medical system. The Cubans should be recognized for their great effort.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/20/opinion/ireland-still-addicted-to-tax-breaks.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
ReplyDeleteI don't think Ireland should be able to let their company's not pay taxes anymore.They're leaving groups of businesses that are not fortunate enough to make money with the help of patented products to just have a disadvantage. I don't think it should be fair for them to higher tax levy's on individuals. It's not like they're choosing for the government to do this. The government needs to start thinking of everyone that this could affect poorly, not only the good it could potentially do to some businesses.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/21/politics/olsen-nsa/index.html?hpt=po_c2
ReplyDeletei find it quite scary to think that certain terrorist the US were keeping their eyes on have gone underground and just decided to go low key. i find the whole edward snowden situation very interesting. by his efforts to leak government secrets he, unintentionally, gave some sort of "encourage" if you call it, to the islamic state to go underground after feeling the sense that their information and calls were being intercepted by the US. the article really interested me because it shows all these people leaking and giving info to other governments. the thing is that theyre willing to do it. it also makes it dangerous for the US because it can potentially become a blind spot and it in position for maybe even an attack.
I agree with you that the Snowden revelations could cause terrorist groups such as ISIS to develop more sophisticated ways of conducting their business, shying away from tactics that they know could be detected by the U.S. government. However, the United States should be technically sophisticated enough to match anything any militant group is able to do. If anything, I think that the Snowden revelations could make terrorist groups think twice about attacking, knowing that the logistics behind an attack are now that much harder.
DeleteI agree with both of you that this is a clear danger and concern but can it really be helped? ISIS like most other terrorist groups are Extremists who will stop at nothing to get what they want. So if they have planned an attack where as we are more sophisticated are we truly prepared? It's hard to say I think. Because if you cut one off another will take its place until someone gives in.
Deletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/22/opinion/would-stronger-parties-mean-less-polarization.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
ReplyDeleteIn this article, the author writes that stronger political parties could actually lessen polarization on political issues, leading to more compromise on all levels of politics. I disagree with this claim. The extreme polarization in Congress stems from the fact that the political elites in Congress are extremely confident and passionate about their political beliefs. Stronger political parties would only make these beliefs stronger, leading to even less compromise. Compromise is going to come from people who are willing to give in slightly in regards to their political beliefs. Politicians coming from strong political parties would be less likely to do so.
I also disagree with the article. When these parties have severely different standpoints and views, they often face gridlock. If these political parties have such a strong view, compromise is far from near.
DeleteOften not a tiny bit more than half of all Americans believe that gang violence and child abductions have increased over the past twenty years but in reality they have decreased over that time. Along with those fears many Americans fear things such as identity theft, walking alone at night and speaking in public. But a shocking result was that many were afraid natural disasters but few of those actually had emergency supplies or a kit ready. The research team plans on taking these surveys of the people annually and that it would show people that America has improved drastically.
ReplyDeletehttp://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/op-talk/2014/10/22/what-are-you-afraid-of/
Dozens of suspected Nazi war criminals have collected millions in social security benefits. A team of journalists who found that the justice department allowed the suspected Nazis to keep the benefits if they agreed to leave the country. However the investigations led by the justice department have not made it clear who these people are exactly due to the confidentiality of records.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1LM8Eq5Ijs&list=UUZaT_X_mc0BI-djXOlfhqWQ
The Nazis shouldn't be able to "bargain" to keep the benefits. In fact, that's not even a bargain they're literally getting away so easily! Also they were suspected war criminals so why were they only told to leave with no punishment? This "solution" is the easy way out for both the country and the suspected war criminals. More should be done!
DeleteThat's crazy! I've never heard of this before. Since they are war criminals, they should be held accountable for their actions. They also shouldn't be able to bargain for their social security. These people are getting away with murder! I don't know how the legal part works in these situations but that seems bazaar.
Deletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/23/opinion/Yan-Lianke-finding-light-in-chinas-darkness.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
ReplyDeleteThis Opinion Editorial is about how much China has changed since the author grew up there. He grew up in poverty after natural disasters occured in China. He had to eat certain kinds of clay and bark just to survive. China has grown so much over the years and now theyre a striving country. Yan Liane writes "Death was as frequent and inevitable as the setting sun." That seems strange to because of the generation that I grew up in.
This is very true he writes how much society had changed since he had lived there when so many people had died. He writes that we all wait for death and this is true because death is inevitable, which is how I related to the setting sun, and how now that the people of his town weren't dying of starvation, but of H.I.V., and even though the society had grown so much, there will always be a new reason for large numbers of death.
Deletehttp://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/10/23/opinion/nicholas-kristof-how-to-defeat-ebola.html
ReplyDeleteHow to defeat ebola
I thought that this article made some interesting points. It talked about how ebola isn't really threatening to countries that have better health care. Countries it would be really dangerous to are countries like India with a very dense population and not as good of health care.
It makes a lot of sense. There are sooo many diseases that people in this country ignore or overlook. It's crazy how many people die from not knowing they have something.. It seems like each year there's a new disease or problem that makes everyone freak out for a couple months and then it's over and you hear about it maybe once or twice more. I don't think countries like the US should worry too much about things like this (Ebola) because every time someone freaks out about it, it eventually goes away. Happens almost every year.
Deletei like this article because it tells you how it is. People are freaking out about ebola becoming a big thing in american ,but the truth is it won't effect us that much. Any out breaks will be quickly contained. The countries that need to worry are those who don't have advanced health care like we do in the united states. One thing that people might argue over is weather ebola patients should be put down. As there number grows it will be to difficult to contain and the chance if it breaking quarantine increases. They should be given time to find a cure ,but if they can't we need to eliminate ebola the old fashioned way.
Deletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/24/opinion/the-disgust-election.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
ReplyDeleteIn this article, the author discusses something similar to what we are currently learning in class. Texas has set a law in which a person can vote using a concealed weapon ID, but someone with a four year college ID cannot. This is much like the literacy tests that were once in place because it's putting restrictions on a certain group of people. Back then, it was set in place in hopes that it would restrict more (blacks) from voting. The article is rightfully called "The Disgust Election" for this specific reason. This law is unconstitutional, and needs to be repealed as quickly as possible.
I would agree, I also think that this law would send the wrong message to young people. This law is basically saying that there are more privileges associated with buying a gun than associated with attending college for four years. It's also not surprising that Texas, of all places would pass a law like this.
DeleteI also agree with your opinion, Texas is making it seem that each amendment ratifying the Texan citizens rights have been banned. Politicians are just worried about getting the right votes from the right people, and they feel with the old or the poor citizens that they won't get their support. This is unconstitutional and discriminating.
DeleteMight as well hop on the bandwagon and agree here too. While I have no problem with pro-gun legislation, making it easier for gun owners to vote has the potential to seriously affect the outcome of any vote related to guns. No politician should have such direct control over how a vote turns out.
Deletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/22/opinion/the-upside-of-lower-oil-prices.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0
ReplyDeleteThis article talks about the up and down side of the lower oil prices as well as who does and doesn't benefit from it. It's bad for members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) who now have a reduced income and other countries who rely on their oil exports. It's also bad for the environment because it's cheaper to get oil and therefore less incentive to find alternate energy sources. The cheaper prices are good for the U.S. because we've been producing our own shale oil. Lower prices could mean we wouldn't have to produce as much shale oil which is more costly. There are more pros and cons, but which out-weighs the other? Are the lowered prices actually better for everyone?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/24/opinion/the-disgust-election.html?ref=opinion
ReplyDeleteThe title of the article speaks for itself. "The Disgust Elections". The fact that people are paying to keep representatives in their place is a threat to liberty for all citizens. Voting is one sure thing for those eligible and what kind of place will America be at if citizens can't even do that. The talk of not allowing old or poor citizens in Texas vote is not only unconstitutional, but discrimination at its finest. Statistically, most voters are the older ones, so if you take out a huge factor that contributes to the voting process, then that creates a whole mess of things. These elections are getting really sticky and from most articles I have read over the current elections it seems that representatives are doing everything they can to win or to keep their place.
We don't like to admit it ,but there are some areas that democracy fails in our country. The rich will always have the power to influence the elections. Media can make or break an election and those with money control the media. However people at the end of the day forget one simple fact. They don't have to be suppressed my the rich. At the end of the day there vote counts equally. If people just got involved in politics more and had opinions then we could bring that grey area of democracy closer to what our founders wanted.
Deletehttp://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/10/24/opinion/a-betrayal-of-migrant-children-and-the-law.html this article was about how immigrant children sent to Long Island New York and other places with relatives aren't getting the education they are required by LAW to recieve. They are shoved into annexes miles away from schools and sent home because there "isn't enough room".... If they let them in then why don't they get an education? Either way, by law, schools are required to give education and seats in the classroom to kids and young adults that immigrate over from other countries. I think the whole problem is stupid and should have been resolved rather quickly
ReplyDeleteI agree with this article because when kids are being sent away almost every month. There is no way they are getting a good education. All those children will know is traveling which isn't a bad thing but they need some education. With the education they can know about the world instead of never knowing. I personal think they need to stop sending kids away an transporting then. They are to young and they can't learn anything.
Deletehttp://www.cnn.com/2014/10/24/politics/house-ebola-hearing/index.html?c=politics
ReplyDeleteThis block is very eye opening because now that the fourth Ebola case has been filed, people are now getting more serious about it and are realizing thats its not all fun and games anymore there is a serious virus spreading and killing people. I think that people should of taken more serious when it first cane out. Maybe that would of caused less spreading. I don't know for sure but I think we could of found a cure. No one deserves to die from a deadly virus. No one even deserves to have to and to know that they are dying slowly and there is no cure.
http://op-talk.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/24/should-a-child-offender-be-treated-as-an-adult/?_php=true&_type=blogs&ref=opinion&_r=0
ReplyDeleteIn this article two things happened, a ten year old boy with anger and mental issues murdered a 90-year-old woman with her can, and by punching her. The second crime committed was by a group of 15-17 year olds that were charged with sexual assault. In both crimes the question asked is should they be punished as adults? My answer would be no, they are not adults, they are minors, and that is why we have the juvenile delinquent centers and programs, where many times these children receive the opportunity to get help where it is needed, and then if needed they spend a few years in prison. The studies have shown that 10% of delinquents that received guidance through a juvenile hall were still criminals once removed from there, I do agree that for the most part these children just need guidance, but some already know their path. I also think that sending children into an adult prison would harden them up making their future worse than it would have been, because they would be around full grown criminal men/women. Although we should look at more studies and data to know for sure.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/25/nyregion/new-york-ebola-case-craig-spencer.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=LedeSum&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
ReplyDeleteThis article informs us that a doctor in New York has tested positive for Ebola. Now New Jersey and New York have placed strict quarantines on all people entering the country who have had direct contact with Ebola patients. I don't know why we haven't been doing this already. Three out of the four people in the US with Ebola are doctors who treated Ebola patients.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/25/us/shooting-reported-at-high-school-north-of-seattle.html?ref=us&gwh=D8628B3AAA974BC5B1E2C3C5E71EF163&gwt=pay&assetType=nyt_now
ReplyDeleteAnother school shooting has happened; this time it was in Washington. The shooter was a popular freshman football player, which turned some heads because most of the other school shooters were social outcasts. This surely will be used as another argument in why guns should be banned. Two people were killed this time, but that's two to many.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/25/opinion/ebolas-information-paradox.html?ref=opinion
ReplyDeleteThe whole Ebola scare just doesn't make sense to me. Yeah it's a horrible disease but you also have the fact that there's something like a 3 day window when it's actually contagious. Adding to that, the death rate is only so high in Africa due to substandard medical access and lack of proper drugs for treatment. Yes it makes sense to be scared a little but not for as long as we have been. Only a few people have died in America due to Ebola. It's about as deadly as walking across a neighborhood street without looking both ways.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/10/25/opinion/no-progress-on-marijuana-arrests.html
ReplyDeleteI think this who thing with Marijuana is really kinda dumb. I don't think it should matter if someone smokes it wither it be small or large is it much more different than smoking regular cigarettes? I saw let anyone smoke anything they want because in the end if it's legal or not people will find a way to get it. So why not legalize it and tax it a lot. That's my thoughts on that.
I agree with you on this. We can't make anyone stop smoking, exspecially if they are addicted to it already. For example, my grandpa, he smokes all the time, everyday and i try to get him to stop but he refuses. If smoking is legal then its up to that person to deside if they want to smoke or not. Its there decison, not ours. We can tell them all about what could happen and whats happening to their body if they have smoked along time, but we cant control their life. All we can do is say to ourselves is "I tried."
Deletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/opinion/ebola-policies-made-in-panic-cause-more-damage.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region®ion=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0
ReplyDeleteThis is kind of like the states versus national government on who has jurisdiction on certain issues. Like whether regulating commerce is up to the states or the national government . That is the same issue now on whether or not its in the locals power to set up quarantines for people coming from Ebola stricken countries. And it by saying it is not allowed they are giving more power to the national government.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/29/opinion/nothing-in-moderation.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
ReplyDeleteIn the article, the author writes that a recent study shows that the belief that the majority of the American electorate is moderate may not be accurate. The study shows that the typical belief of a moderate majority stems from inconsistencies in many Americans’ political ideologies. If someone has a very liberal view on one issues, but a very conservative view on another issue, he would average out as a moderate. The study concluded that this method is flawed. Instead, many Americans actually hold extreme views on issues such as taxes and social security, meaning that they should not be labeled as moderate. While the results of this study make sense, the author does not say what these people should be labeled as. Since they were unlikely to be political elites, I think it is still safe to call them moderates, as their inconsistencies in political ideology do not allow them to fall on either end of the political spectrum.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/27/opinion/zelizer-six-senate-races-to-watch/index.html?hpt=op_bn6
ReplyDeleteThis article is about the midterm elections next week and how their are six compainers racing to win. In my opinion everyone races to win but this is something completely different then the normal races we hear about. EX: Foot race, work out racing and etc. but I have never heard of six campaniers racing. The article has to say this, "In each of these states Republicans are holding their ground by connecting their opponent to President Obama while Democrats strike back by reminding voters of extremism in the GOP." In my response to this quote i think that to many things are happening at one time. I think that we neeed to worry about one thing at a time so that way we dont fall behind or forget. With the Democrats trying to strike back on Obama while the Republicans are trying to Obama's best friend to take out the Democrats. I feel that we should worry about one thing at a time.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/29/opinion/secretary-arne-duncan-offers-states-guidance-on-equality.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0
ReplyDeleteThis article talks about the inequality in school systems and how schools that primarily educate minorities don't have as many opportunities/resources, such as advanced-placement classes. Arne Duncan, the secretary of education, sent out letters that he referred to as "guidance," to school districts to remind them of their obligation to provide all students, regardless of race, with equal resources. I think it's good to see someone on a national level finally making a difference. But, the way the letter is set up, it sounds like it's teaching southern states in the 1960's how to treat non-white children. It's sad that were still having to deal with things like this.
I think its true that all students should be provided with the same opportunities. Being that America is a melting pot and none of us are really really the "original race", everyone should be treated and educated fairly. Like you said, It's really nice to see the national level step up and make a difference in the education world. I hope to see more of this happen in the US because I do feel as if some students dont get the same opportunities as others.
DeleteI think it's horrible that this is even an issue at this time in the world. I don't know why people would think that depending on race it should decide how the child gets treated in school. Every single child no matter what race should have an equal education. There shouldn't be any difference in education. I am glad someone has made sure this stops because it needs to. America is the land of opportunity. So that being said everybody should have the same opportunities no matter race or gender. I hope that schools don't ever decide things based off of race.
DeleteI think all students in all areas of this world should have equality. Jonatan is right. it is horrible that this is even an issue in todays society. Everyone on earth is born equal and they don't get to choose their race or anything. I'm glad that our school treats everyone equal like they should be treated . its so sad to think that people arrest ill judging others for something that they had no say in.
Deletehttp://www.cnn.com/2014/10/30/politics/clinton-protesters/index.html?c=plitics
ReplyDelete"Choose families over politics" this chant I think should be taken greatly into consideration. This article is about people from the United We Dream association that stood up and started to rally at Clinton's speech. I think it's good that people are attempting to see what she is going to do for immigrants if she gets to office. While she said she was going to talk about it I think that those 20 people who went and did that really did ensure that she did. I like that she says she is a pro supporter for the Dream Act and a Reform. These things both hold opportunity for illegal immigrants. I think people who come from other countries should get the opportunity to have some sort of permission to be here. There are many reason as to why I think that. One being that most people come here for an opportunity for a better life. So I think we should give them that. In other countries of the world the economy isn't as good as here in America. So I think people who come here for that reason should at least get some sort of permission to be here. Another is all the violence that goes on here. While some may say those people will bring the violence here it isn't true since they are looking for escape from the violence it doesn't make sense they would come here to cause more violence. I do think there should be some requirements because it makes sense for a great opportunity such as that to have certain requirements. Hopefully if Clinton does go into office she will take some action into this. But I think we should "Choose families over politics".
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/10/31/texas-woman-gets-3-years-for-putting-gun-in-son-backpack/
ReplyDeleteThe fact that she would put a gun in a child's bag in the first place is bad enough. But the reason she did it for gets me angry she did it just to get him in trouble. She thought he hurt his two younger siblings so she placed it in his bag. She then called the school and told on the boy. Although they traced the call back to her. She got three years in prison. I feel that may be a bit extreme but she does deserve some what of a punishment for it. This in a way reminded me of the U.S. vs. Lopez case. They both involved guns at school. In that case lopez brought a gun to school to sell it to another person. The court ruled against him and he got sent to jail.
I think this woman deserves to be in prison for three years. If she has enough nerve to blame an innocent child for something he didn't do is very immature. Personally I do not think that she should have the right to be around children. If another child seen this and thought that this was ok, the world would be in a lot of trouble. This very well does remind me of the U.S. vs. Lopez case.
Deletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/opinion/the-prospect-of-a-republican-senate.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
ReplyDeleteI definitely think this article is biased because throughout the writing the author talks about how obstructive the new ideas of the Republican party is. I believe one of the ideas of a repeal on the Obamacare may not be as negative as it is made to be, it could give the more wealthier Americans a bigger chance of better healthcare, and it could also save money. I wouldn't go as far as turning around all of Obamas agenda, and I don't think that is the Republicans idea. It is more of a stereotype to say the Republicans will take advantage of their majority party and ban abortion and same sex marriage because that is what the liberals expect.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/01/opinion/the-peoples-choice-on-gun-safety.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0
ReplyDeleteI think we as American's should be allowed to have guns. When it comes to gun safety I think everyone should know how to use gun safety before buying a gun. Gun safety is very important especially when it comes to children and young adults. the article says "The stakes go far beyond Washington. Politicians elsewhere will be watching to see whether the concerted, well-financed campaign to pass 594 can overcome the powerful National Rifle Association." I think this choice should go world wide to be processed through everything .
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/31/politics/election-turnout/index.html?hpt=po_c1
ReplyDeleteThe Republican Party could win the Senate for the first time in nearly a decade. The Republican Party already has control of the majority of the Senate, but they need a net gain of ten seats to take control of the Senate. The Democratic Party needs the help of the majority of the woman and African-American population to keep control of the Senate.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/11/01/opinion/the-peoples-choice-on-gun-safety.html
ReplyDeleteI think congress and the whole national government should not be allowed to do anything with the people's guns. It is written in the Constitution that we have the right to bear arms and the background checks are discriminating. Even if they are "safety" measures if someone wants to kill someone that person will do it. So background checks don't really do anything.