Reasoned Criticism of Classmate's Commentary #2 (Herdeman's Political Page)

I agree with what you’re saying with respect to the whole upcoming presidential election becoming extremely saturated and repetitive. I’ve already become fatigued by all of it, and I am becoming more resistant to hearing about potential presidential candidates and what they will supposedly do.

But I do believe that once all the speculation is drained, and we finally see who the true winner is. That person will have either a direct or indirect affect on our lives. I’ll try to give a good example of this. Try to imagine Bush being president, for say another 2-3 years. Our present situation would almost completely be the same (maybe worse), and this would only continue until new leaders take control of our government. When Bush is absolved of his duty, the individual replacing him will be in a unique position to guide us into a new chapter of history.

Also, when I think about this subject, thoughts of other presidents come to mind: Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin D Roosevelt. What would our history be like if these individuals weren’t elected and their electoral competitors were? It’s hard to decipher that, but our history would be dramatically different than what it is today. The average American’s life will change from whoever is elected president in the future.

http://cherdeman.blogspot.com/

The Environment and the Future

It’s becoming more and more apparent that human life is and will always be connected through the environment. We all rely on the earth’s resources to survive, and sustainability is the only way for the human species to survive currently. There has been progress made toward protecting the environment, but we are still in an early learning stage about how to solve irrevocable damage that we cause to the environment. Knowledge, education, and appropriate resources all must be applied if we are to succeed in confronting this issue. I think that education about the environment is critical not only to ourselves, but to our younger generations and the ones who haven’t been born yet. A cohesive group of citizens all working together with one common goal will achieve success where others have failed. If there’s anything that dissolves that unity we seek, then it is ourselves and our unwillingness to cooperate with each other. Our posterity deserves what we have the benefit of in this world, and it would be tragic for us to offer anything substantially less than what we have today.

The government needs to be allocating more resources into insightful research studies involving the environment. I know this will be a challenging task because of their only a fixed amount of money available, and we have many other issues that need appropriate funding also. Yet it’s vital to remember that any funds distributed to this environmental field would be beneficial because it’s a safe investment that will offer benefits in the future including more knowledge and understanding of the world we live in.

We also need to raise the awareness of the public by increasing the pay of those whose careers are involved specifically with the environment. This would help attract more college students and individuals to choose this career as their choice of study. This in turn, would spread more knowledge out into our society as a whole.

Reasoned Criticism of Classmate's Commentary (Political Propaganda Free Press)

I agree with you on many things you mentioned, but to offer some constructive criticism, a number of words and statements written in this commentary are unclear and need to be clarified.

You mention that Bush “miraculously granted himself the right to detain any person that was considered an enemy combatant of the United States.” But that isn’t necessarily the entire truth because Congress indirectly granted the president this power through S. J. RES. 23 also known as Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) which in general states

“That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/terrorism/sjres23.es.html

This in turn gave President Bush all the control and authorization he needed to issue a Military Order on November 13, 2001 which entails the “Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/print/20011113-27.html

This power didn’t just happen to fall in Bush’s lap, but it was the result of a sequence of events that led to what is occurring today.

Also, in your second paragraph, you write “President Bush can and has detained two people on the American mainland.” The way this topic sentence is worded hurts your case of persuasion on this issue because you make it sound like two and only two people have been detained by the United States. When in fact we know that hundreds of people have been detained, including those whose names have not been released to the public.

In addition, one of the detainees you mention is Jose Padilla. Yet Padilla was found guilty by a federal jury on conspiracy to commit many terrorist acts. It’s unwise to place his name in your commentary from the simple fact that this guy was not innocent, and one can counterattack your argument by saying that it was significant that we caught him before any harm was done. Ali Al-Mari was a perfect example to mention in this commentary, but you forgot to point out that he was held at Guantanamo Bay which could of aided your argument by including how the negative aura of Guantanamo Bay has damaged people’s trust in government domestically and hurt our reputation abroad.

In conclusion, your last statement, “Wow what is going on with our government these days?” This statement diminishes your stance on the issue because the reader can interpret that statement in many ways. Is he confused…? Baffled…? Unaware…?
Now this doesn’t mean its true, but this will leave your opinion defenseless against an academic audience.

Transparent knowledge for the Public

With another election deadline looming, the citizens of the United States are in the path of selecting another leader to represent our country. During this crucial time our choices can be limited, and we can’t entirely understand the candidates other than what others tell us or what the media informs us about them. After the election process, we sometimes become painfully aware that the person we voted for has misled us. They mention things prior to the election to influence us and suddenly their agenda shifts. How do we know specifically if potential candidates have strong values that can’t be easily swayed or tempted? Do we really have to believe the hype-machine of the potential candidates and his/her allies? Is it really the whole truth that they are telling us or just fragments of facts? I propose a test that will uncover the fundamental behavior, attitudes of these future office holders. Since acronyms triggers peoples memory well, I’ll call it NBTT (Nothing But the Truth Test)

When people are being recorded visually they are habitually careful with their words and actions. They essentially alter their behavior to imitate what others expect them to be, or they pose to be something that they really are not. But if we take away the obvious camera lens glaring down at them and replace it with concealed camera that is unknown to the interviewer. We would take away that persons (in this case politicians) ability to cover their tracks and reveal their true intentions and their fundamental character. This method of “hidden camera” is used extensively for law enforcement or reporters against suspected proprietors. It’s a powerful tool that releases indisputable evidence for proving a point and strengthening a prosecutor’s case. If this tactic is so effective for these organizations, then why is it that these tactics can’t be used against the ones who are representing our country local, state, and national alike?

The test itself will of course be surveillance of the subject, and like many hidden camera operations the subject must not know that he/she is being filmed. This means that the mission will have to be performed by someone who is usually in close proximity to the incumbent/aspiring politician. Perhaps the individual(s) could be an aide, bodyguard, or a maid of some sorts. It’s also critical that these individual’s (aka testers) attitudes be neutral, and they personally can’t be in the politician’s pocket already. The ideas that can be used on NBTT are limitless but here are a couple I’ve thought of.

1). Words- Are they consistent with what they say on camera and in the public? In related terminology, do they rehearse their words for the public, but say something completely different in private? Have the tester ask them casually about questions regarding certain policies. Example: Do you really mean that you will raise taxes, cut funding for this group, help with healthcare, etc... They will think their answer(s) will be “off the record” but in reality the public will be able to monitor his/her response(s) and know precisely what was said. All citizens deserve to know the absolute intentions and truth behind any future candidate, and I believe this method will reveal that.

2). Money- Can they be bribed with money? (An inherent downfall and handicap to our system). A tactic to use is to straight up bribe them either with money or some other tangible asset (car, home, stocks) If they accept any of these forms, then that is a blatant form of abuse and an indication of what will occur in the future when they hold office. Another scenario is to have the tester accidentally drop money in front of the politician. Then have the tester proceed to go about their business and act like they didn’t realize that they had dropped any money on the ground. Was the politician’s eye keen enough to observe what happened and if so how did they respond afterward? If the politician returns the money promptly to the tester, then this would be an encouraging sign and would determine that individual’s responsibility level. In a different situation though, the politician would do the exact opposite and pocket the money for themselves which would be a definite warning sign to all.

There are of course other methods to test incumbent/aspiring candidates, but I hope this gives you a grasp of how NBTT will work. This test will essentially make or break a candidate. If they pass the test with flying colors, then that is a great thing and we can feel comfortable about our voting decision. If they don’t pass the test, then positively thinking we sidestepped any negativity that might have occurred with electing the wrong person. It is my intention for this test to increase awareness and rebuild people’s trust by revealing proper candidates. The evidence resulting from the test will optimistically change their hearts and minds.

Special Method

The assistant to the President for counterterrorism and homeland security recently released an editorial in the USA Today in which he briefed about the way the CIA uses “special methods” to extract information from suspected terrorist. Throughout the article, the author, Fran Townshed, intentionally tries to persuade the reader to trust the way our government performs this operation.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/10/opposing-view-1.html#more

The article starts off by mentioning Sept. 11, 2001 which really has affected all citizens of the United States whether directly or indirectly. The author plays an emotional factor to everyone when talking about 9/11 because we can all internally relate to that day in our history. But one can not help but be reminded about how that day galvanized the responsible members of our country’s administration to lead a war against terror. This irrational decision used up nearly all the energy that was created after 9/11, and the thought of someone bringing up 9/11 to influence us again is predictable and misleading. So by stating what happened on that day, the author’s view mirrors that of the presidents’. This in turn fuses the author to the president’s back generating a creature with two heads with both mouths speaking the same language of propaganda in unison.

Going into the article itself, the author is content on leading the reader to believe that the program enforced by the CIA is both effective and humane. But nowhere in the article does he mention specifically what those “special methods” are. Since this program is directed by the CIA, its given secrecy can’t be tested by any outside sources to see if the program is really producing any positive results that the author claims. He also doesn’t reproduce any hard facts as to how this method has helped us “locate terrorist, disrupt plots and save lives.” It seems that the author is just speculating and wishing that the program is a success.

In addition to that, who is to say that this program doesn’t include any aspect of torture? After all, we are taking the word of those who are administering this so called “special method.” The only way to really know if the program doesn’t involve any torture is to ask those who went through the interrogation program, the suspects themselves. But we aren’t allowed to hear this open discussion because the detainee’s voices are silenced, and I’m convinced that the government goes to great lengths to make sure that these individuals aren’t allowed to be forthcoming in their experiences. It’s exceedingly difficult to comprehend anything involved in this program without knowing the entire truth behind it.

Critical analysis

An editorial written by Mike Leavitt, the secretary of Health and Human services, in the USA Today shows the conflicting views on how to handle the problems associated with health insurance especially uninsured children in America. He offers his advice and personal opinion on the subject matter and makes his support of the President’s proposal very clear. A brief summary of the contrasting arguments in this argument are: Congress’ proposal of expanding the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and Bush’s $15,000 tax break offered to families for purchasing Health insurance.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/09/opposing-view-7.html#more

Now in the article itself, the author, Mr. Leavitt is specifically attacking Congress’ alternate view by saying that under Congress’ plan SCHIP would be “extended to families earning $83,000 a year.” This implies that Congress’ plan is being created for the middle class and not for low income families who need healthcare the most. So, overall the article itself would be directed towards impoverished citizens. This statement is tactically written to persuade certain individuals to accept his point of view right away. Interesting enough, Mr. Leavitt initially says it is Congress’ proposal that has bad intentions, but later in the article he reveals that it’s the Democrats who are the ones with the seemingly wasteful and inefficient plan. By explicitly bringing up the Democrats into his argument, the secretary of Health and Human Services becomes partisan and “blinded” to only those supporting his views. This does not make Mike Leavitt open-minded about the issue at all. He is not willing enough to be responsible and cooperative with others on the best solution to this growing problem.

With all the support the author directs toward the President’s proposal, he does not go into much detail about the plan itself. The editorial basically shows it as a one-dimensional plan. Describing the plan in the author’s own words, “every American family receives a $15,000 tax break for purchasing healthcare.” This statement appears to be beneficial on the outside, but it doesn’t solve the problem of the sky-rocketing cost of healthcare .The author goes on by saying, “nearly 20 million more Americans would have heath insurance [under this plan].” This also seems like a helpful effect, but isn’t the primary goal for all Americans to be insured? By just being a percentage of the whole population, the President’s proposal would not be universal for every citizen.

Who is this Mike Leavitt guy anyways, the secretary of Health and Human services right? So how does someone get selected to that position? Well, the secretary of Human services is nominated by the president then voted in through the Senate. So basically that means Mike Leavitt was brought into power and position from President Bush selecting him instead of other prospects. This is a definite sign of how Mr. Leavitt’s views are already influenced and obscured. In addition to this recent nomination, Mike Leavitt was previously nominated as the administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency in 2003 again by President Bush. These facts make Mike Leavitt’s views predictable, and he no doubt feels obligated to complete the exchange of receiving power to supporting his ally’s public policy.

In conclusion, this article dramatically loses its appeal to the reader because of a critical flaw contained in the title. “The President’s Plan is better.” That statement in and of itself is a very bold one indeed, and it’s just asking to be antagonized. Right off the bat the title successfully makes the article ineffective.

2nd stage

It’s hard to always believe what you hear, but nonetheless we take plenty of information, facts, or ideas and initially predict that they are the absolute truth. Correlating to this natural effect is how certain points of views are passed unto us from our peers, family, or even the media, and we don’t always realize that subtly our ideas are being influenced. Instead of accepting others values so easily. We should challenge ourselves to become critical thinkers. To pay more close attention to details, dig deep and search through the vast amount of information available to us. It’s important for us to evaluate both sides of the story, and then without external influences choose wisely to the best appropriate answer. Sure it’s easy for me to say this, and by no means have I always done things this way. But I take comfort in knowing that critical thinking is a skill, and by being a skill we can all get better at it with practice.

I’m describing all of this because of what happening in my government class recently. A young lady did a presentation that indirectly involved former mayor Rudy Giuliani. I don’t remember exactly the formal conversation that followed, but someone mentioned that Rudy Giuliani was a good person. It seemed that many shared this individual’s point of view. I was initially reluctant to agree to this because of what I scarcely overhead about New York Firefighters and the aftermath of 9/11. I couldn’t remember precisely what it was about, so I decided to do some research. What I later found is what I would like to share with you. The link I am going to provide will send you to a video documentary. I believe that this form of information is the future and more in tune with the 21^st century. Also, this type of media represents a change in our times and in my opinion how the internet will revolutionize politics. Please be patient with the short video (it is about 13 minutes in length total). I assure you it is both revealing and interesting.

http://therealrudy.org/blog/5400-rudy-s-9-11-failures-of-leadership-exposed-by-fire-fighters?play=1