response to "Yes, Doctor... I am aware of his dysfunction."

                 

           I have not personally heard this story but I am honestly glad I chose to read your blog! What she has proposed is genius, it not only notifies the men of the United States how restricted women reproductive rights are, but even the women against certain reproductive rights are now also becoming aware. I would have to agree with your argument for this law to be heard. This is one giant step in backing the rights of women and should be taken very seriously. I also love how Ms. McLeod uses a substance such as Viagra, commonly used for pleasure purposes and not reproductive just to catch our male audience’s attention. I am glad this is being brought into attention for multiple reasons rather than just in favor of abortion. I think when many people hear “reproductive rights for women” they automatically assume they would be supporting abortion. On the contrary, your blog points out that it is more than that, it’s the constant test, exams, and doctor visits required to obtain contraception that is also a problem at hand. I appreciate this blog for the reasons that it will open many people’s minds up to such a filtered and contained topic that deserves to be heard, GREAT JOB!

Why serve America?

        I found a very interesting article concerning "the longest-held hostage in U.S. history",  Robert Levinson. This article was written by his son, Dan Levinson on April 28th and posted on the Washington Post. Dan has strong concerns about his fathers kidnapping and how it has been handled. He notes that it was not just his father that was taken by people in Iran, but yet when an exchanged was finally set up to free all of the hostages, his father was the only one that would not be coming home. Dan believes this is outrageous considering all that his dad has done for this country. Robert Levinson was a CIA contractor and an EX- FBI agent serving our government for years. Dan Levinson says the Obama Administration should have stuck to its plan and give more effort to get back one of their own!
        
         Honestly, I 100% agree with Dan Levinson's thoughts. It is unbelievable to think after all this time serving his country, Mr. Levinson gets left behind as a hostage in Iran not once but twice now! And for nine years and counting?! This gives no hope to future servers of the government and completely goes against all morals of the U.S. Leaving one of your own as a hostage and not doing anything about it is about the least American thing you can do! I'm not saying we should completely shut the world down and go looking for all missing people but we should at least follow the plans that were made and stick to them until all Americans are back home. In addition, the government have left the Levinson family completely in the dark with the whole situation. The family constantly had to go to the media for answers but have never received a respectful honest answer for the Obama Administration. I just honestly think it's sad that Dan Levinson had to risk his own life and go straight to Iran to try and find valid answers for his fathers whereabouts but have yet to receive a response from Iran or our very own government.

my comment on "we the people" legalization of marijuana

          I can honestly say I agree with this argument. I think when it comes to legalizing marijuana the people still saying its a bad drug that cannot be handled if legal need to get out of the past. My class mate make a very good argument of what good it can do for our country. The economic benefits more than anything should be enough alone to prove we should legalize the use. We constantly see all over the news how much we need funding for highways, new schools, and even houses for flood victims. I agree with my classmate when they say marijuana can benefit us all in many different ways. I don't know much about the medical benefits of the drug but if it is really helping and improving patients, then why should we limit who gets to heal and who doesn't? To me that sounds a little unfair. They say no matter where you live, the color of your skin, or your background, everyone is medically treated the same. well, now we know that's not true. Now because not every state wants to legalize marijuana some American citizens are not receiving equal medical care.

         Overall, I would have to say that this was a good blog that made a very valid point about a current topic. We should all take a second look at the subject and consider if the benefits outweigh the concerns.

friendly exchange or dark secrets?

                   Editors of USA TODAY wrote an article called "Clinton’s email server a hurdle for some voters: Your Say" on March 27, 2016. This is an opinion article concerning the Hilary Clintons email scandal. Writer Carl Helfeldt, started off the opinion article with some strong concerns that Clinton has violated classified laws and rules that are not to be overlooked. Writer Charles Michael Sitero, on the other had, says he can overlook this mishap Clinton had if it will stop Donald Trump from getting a spot in the white house. He believes voting for someone with a small scandal of mistrust is better than voting for someone ready to do more damage to our nation rather than helping it. One of the last major views of this article was made by writer Cornell Davis. He believes the strong attention brought to Clintons email scandal was created by republicans and media to frame Clinton as an untrustworthy candidate. Davis says we should give Clinton some slack, we are all human.

                    Based on the opinions in this article I would have to say I am a little undecided. I do think Clinton has violated laws that need to be upheld especially for a presidential candidate. On the other hand, its hard to make a pick between two bad choices which neither you really trust or have confidence in. In this case, you almost have to pick the lesser evil at this point. This is why I think Sitero has a good point. As of now Clinton may be the lesser evil, but you never really know how well she will handle the white house duties until she is actually in that position. In my opinion, I think Clinton should just had over the server and prove there is nothing to hide and she wouldn't even have this big dilemma of being portrayed as untrustworthy. If she chooses not to, she and her followers can not complain of the lost votes because not handing them over creates suspicion. Overall I think Clinton should be held responsible for her mistakes but it does not necessarily make her completely untrustworthy and does not mean she's not the better candidate.

Two bad choices.

           I read a cometary blog called “American Exceptionalism and the Election Made in Hell (Or Why I’d Vote for Trump Over Hillary)” by William Blum. This piece was posted on the website Counter Punch, March 11, 2016. Blum starts his blog with the idea of having to or being forced to vote for either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. He then continues his argument by quoting statements against Donald Trump and contradicting them. This shows his primary audience is the people thinking Hillary Clinton is the better candidate of the two. Blum’s purpose is to show that Trump is a better choice than Clinton because his “ideology” will always “trump” Clintons so called political knowledge. One of Blum’s main arguments he concentrates on is foreign policy.

              In my opinion, I believe William Blum made a valid argument with the proper evidence to back it up. I like the fact that he took a simple approach of just proving examples of when people have doubted Trump and giving information on how he is actually very capable. After, Blum then gives facts about Hillary Clinton showing his audience why she would be no better than trump. While Blum does use quite a bit of personal opinion, I think it goes hand and hand with the facts he used to back it up. Another strong aspect of this argument is that Blum does not just use criticizing facts about Clinton to make everyone hate her, he actually presents the ideas of why Trump would be better than her. He tells his audience what Trump’s views are compared to Clinton’s which gives the audience a chance to decide for themselves what they actually believe.

              Honestly, I do not have a lot of background information on either of the candidates past ups and downs but this blog actually made me consider Trump over another candidate which to me seems like a pretty good argument! I don’t think it is easy to make someone really think and consider Trump as a real competitor in this year’s election and for that I give Blum props.

Pandora's Box

       USA Today's Editorial Board wrote an article called "The terrorist's iPhone: Our view" written February 20, 2016. This article focused on the argument on weather Apple should cooperate with the national government and use its technology to unlock a private cell phone. This is directed to everyone concerned with the safety of their personal information, but also to the government and Apple. The Editorial Board sat down on video and debated their personal views on the topic. They then only took the concepts they agreed on and made it their final argument.

       Their final argument to weather Apple should or should not comply with the government was that Apple should cooperate, in moderation. The Editorial Board of USA Today collectively stated, "The best outcome to this showdown might be a compromise that keeps a single-use-only key confined to Apple's headquarters, combined with legislation that limits government access to extraordinary scenarios in which lives are at stake." I think this is a relatively good argument showing that there might actually be a way to solve this problem without upsetting the government or Apple.

        I believe they had proper evidence to back up their reasoning as well as their solution. What made this a strong argument was what they said in response to their own solution. They themselves came up with problems and questions that might come along with their solution indicating it can always be altered to fit better with the public opinion. Another strong side to this argument is the fact that they explained how their thoughts may change and there questions may be answered as more information is presented. As far as credibility, the authors are chosen by USA Today one of the biggest new papers established right now. According to my research, USA Today is listed a credible source for all to use. Based upon this information I believe this source would not appoint a group of people who are not credible to represent there newspaper.

Fact or Fiction

     I read a resent article by Glenn Kessler and Michelle Ye Hee Lee concerning the sixth Democratic presidential debate between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. The article focuses on the some of the so called "facts" Sanders and Clinton argued during the debate.

     The article has chosen a few statements from each candidate and then depicts the sources and statistics they use to back their claim up. To start off, Bernie Sanders seems to make all his statements towards helping the middle class and getting the justice they deserve. As much as I would like for his claims to fix these problems to be true, they are just not reliable. The authors of this article found that every use of statistics Sanders used was either unreliable or out of date. Hillary Clinton on the other hand, decided to take a much more aggressive approach and focus on the down falls of Sanders. She was said to have "pushed" some of the content a little too far, but most of her facts and sources were reliable.

     I think this article is worth reading because we are so close to having to make our vote for president and we deserve to see the truth behind each candidate we may or may not support. It is critical for voters to vote on pure facts rather than old data and information that has been stretched out of context. I think there should be an article like this on all presidential debates so that everyone will have equal knowledge behind what the candidates are actually saying.