Removing the Unpatriotic Patriot Act

In the past ten years, America has been through turmoil due to the catastrophic event that occurred on September 11, 2001. The government, in the state of vulnerability and panic, quickly passed legislation that permitted their capability to spy and leach on any given American. Ironically, the form of action was nominalized as the “Patriot Act,” even though its main objectives were to deprive and retract the basic fundamental and natural rights of the citizens it governs.

Instead of performing true patriotic acts of enhancing the nation’s integrity and values, the piece of legislation did the contrary. It managed to exploit and destroy the mandated foundations that America was founded upon. Although it is understandable of Congress’s anxieties and fears from such a tragic event, they still had little justification in acting so rashly without reevaluating the bigger picture and the ramifications the Act entails. The government essentially pushed its own citizens to the point where people could no longer trust each other or even the liable government it needed most at the time. The government, with its hasty reactions, did not provide this stable source of reliability and instead flustered under the pressure.

Even the usage of the act in the status quo is being corrupted by government agencies; the deep investigating is no longer based on criminal history but solely on race and ethnicity. This moral injustice by our very own government is the root cause of out severe downfalls as a democracy. The patriot act today gives the authorities rights to stop and interrogate anyone they want without any relevant cause to do so; it is being dangerously abused and is weakening American society holistically. On top of that, the American public has little knowledge of what the government is actually doing; they give no acknowledgement to the people over what is going on behind the curtain of the Patriot Act. With the tenth year of existence coming up for the enactment of the Patriot Act, it is the most auspicious and critical time to reevaluate the legislation and remove it. The Act is a menace to society and does little good to any of the people that it is supposed to serve. It is either this or the next and only alternative; reconstruct the act to focus solely on crime with a colorblind eye to whom they are investigating. More and more of the citizens are bringing the harmful Act to their attention and deeply detest what it is doing to America’s image. As this compelling protest is developing, it is a serious time for the lawmakers in Washington to finally put an end to the corruption. 

Occupy Wall Street: Obama's Job Bill

In a dynamic article from author, Stephen Schlesinger, at the Huffington Post, he alludes to the recent “occupy wall street” phenomena in emphasizing his point of a true progressive movement. He gives his personal experience and observation of the protesting taking place on the grounds of Zuccotti Park. Schlesinger elaborates on the diversity of the people and the wide expanse of backgrounds and jobs they originate from when detailing the scene of the protests. Examples of the broad types of people categorized range from “Socialists Worker Party” members to New York “policemen” and “media people.” The prefacing of the scene leads the author to his point of interests which is jobs, “jobs, jobs, jobs,” in the words of the author. He inferences criticism about how the Wall Street protestors are unsuccessfully and unproductively making their point. Schlesinger emphasizes how the main issue at hand of job opportunities is going neglected by the rebellious protestors. The author makes a strong point on how the picketers are refuting an institution without having a solution to the problem themselves. The inherent problem with this specific situation of protesting is that no fix is presented or even being searched for by the group. This problem exploited by the author gives a different perspective on the issue of how the protest is truly doing nothing effective in terms of what they are fighting for. Schlesinger then offers a pragmatic alternative for the protestors which is to support and fight for the new Jobs Bill by Obama which is actually making an attempt at mending the job market unlike the livid activists. The root problem revealed in the article is that the protestors are too stubborn and close-minded to give the Bill a chance of being enacted. He does not deny the potential effectiveness of Occupy Wall Street but he logically inputs his views on how it should and could be utilized to get their desires. The author’s intended audience that is implicitly conveyed in the article is to the protestors themselves. He avoids bashfulness in attempting to aid the cause of fighting for more and better jobs for America. The author’s credibility is mostly reliable in with exclusive evaluation of the article. He offers well suited evidence and logical arguments with regard to the issue at hand and how to achieve a lasting repair. The author’s uses of claims and warrant are very effective throughout the article but his evidence in terms of data lacks a bit. He does not give enough background information on the Jobs bill of Obama to receive full credibility and influential potential. Although the claims were very logical, I cannot completely agree with his full intent due to the absence of information concerning the job bill that he is promoting. 

GOP Candidate Chris Christie drops

With the new presidential election around the corner, the race is heating up and many issues and debates are becoming quite relevant to the civic community today. An editorial from USA today comments on and gives significance to the recent drop of the GOP candidate, Chris Christie from the Republican Party race. The author of the editorial gives empirical evidence to how previous candidates attempted to do exactly what Christie did but eventually failed pitifully. The argument was prefaced on the fact that candidates who enter the race tardy as an impromptu decision consistently struggle to gain any competitiveness such as Wesley Clark, Fred Thompson and even Rick Perry, which is as recent as this year. The author then logically justifies this assertion with explanation of the complexity of issues that come about in the presidential race as well as the raising of money and organization that is mandated to have any chance. Based off of this argument exclusively, I agree with the author of how difficult it is to develop any chance when entering late in any election but especially one as important as the presidential race. I believe that a decision to enter the election must be made years before the designated date to give respect to preparation, money, and gaining popularity. The author then attacks the republican’s historical decisions of choosing candidates solely based on electability and experience and this has been detrimental to finding the most worthy individuals. The argument encompasses the criticism of the stubborn mindset of republicans who lack compromising desire or consensus. Although I do somewhat agree with the inherent problems of the republicans, I feel that the argument is a bit extreme and lacks complete impartiality to assessing the issue. Lastly, the author gives doubtful hope to the republican side in the upcoming election by refuting both leading candidates: Rick Perry and Mitt Romney. He pragmatically indicates how both have made very questionable positions on very significant issues such as social security and health care. He specifically exemplifies how they have either made unrealistic platforms or spinelessly changed their position on controversial issues such as abortion. Concerning this argument against the republicans, I do agree that the outlook does look bleak in the status quo in finding a promising candidate. The logic and evidence of candidate popularity as of recently aids in upholding this opinion and makes sense. The targeted audience of the editorial is clearly towards the delight of the Democratic Party or the disdain of the Republican Party. The credibility of the author based on the article is mostly reliable. The author offers very strong evidence, both empirical and statistical; to support his assertions even though at times they are a bit extreme.  

Obama and Republicans work together in trade pacts

In the harsh economic times America faces today, our government and president are desperately looking for solutions. According to a Reuters source, a preexisting and pragmatic solution has finally flowered in the form of trade. The attempted relief consists of a trade pact with three different countries: South Korea, Columbia and Panama. The trade pact was previously pushed back in 2009 but denied by the majority of democrats in Congress at the time. Recently, the deal has been negotiated between the Republicans and an amenable Obama and is not submitted to Congress for an official approval. The expectations and hopes of the pact is for it to spur new and growing jobs in order to relieve the economy as well as to build good international relations overseas. The article offers ample information concerning the pact and what its predicted benefits on the United States will be. What is interesting about the piece is that it gives both sides of the story, including both the Republicans’ and the Democrats’ perspective and how they are finally meshing to yield a productive result. The article is relevant to society and me personally on many facets but especially in terms of economic aid and effectiveness. The greatest detrimental impact effecting not only peoples my age but from all spans of citizenry is the recession. This particular article stuck out to me and reached into my zone of interest due to its inherent importance and uniqueness. The article provides a solution to a bleeding wound and does it in a logical and realistic fashion.