Obesity in America

        My colleague, Jennifer wrote an article pertaining to America's ignorance of obesity. She strongly opens her article informing that obesity both in adults and children are in increasing rates. And even though it is so high in population, these numbers can easily be prevented. However, her article itself clearly shows why Americans are not aware or involved in preventing obesity.

        She begins to give statistics such as, "nationwide there is a 61% obesity rate, making the rate immensely more higher than ever. More than one-third of the United States population has been declared obsessed or overweight," which are great for people who understand numbers. Most individuals who are in the dark about obesity are not going to pay attention to statistics. As I read her article she backs up her thesis that obesity has "deathful consequences," but all I see supported are statistics- numbers similar to the ignored nutrition labels.

        Jennifer is correct that obesity is overlooked and needs to be taken seriously, but she fails to show why. Not one sentence does she say something like, "Obesity is the leading cause to heart strokes, diabetes 2, and other health problems." So as her readers look at her argument, there isn't any pathos which is the main method of getting peoples attention. She could argue that children who are obese live harder lifestyles of balanced nutrition, depression, and sometimes lack of confidence due to bullying. Instead she again, throws out numbers that have no value.

        I also disagree that obesity should become a national problem. Yes obesity is overwhelming and taking effect in most of our population, but it should not be burden to our government. America has already taken effect in controlling healthy lifestyles through required nutrition labels and physical education. The government can not sit at the dinner table and baby feed themselves; its just not realistic. Obesity has been controlled by policies and that's a great advancement in controlling American health. However, the rest lies solely in the individuals because how they eat on their own can not be controlled by anyone else.


        If we do decide as she puts it, "We are talking about a great part of the population, families, friends, neighbors and even ourselves who have been exposed to obesity and overweight," to help reduce obesity, that's supportive, because a smaller concentrated community can have better effects than a government policy over many. However, the call for "rapid and effective responses" are not existent in Jennifer's article. 

        She quickly ends her argument with, "Obesity reduction requires changes to not only improve the food but to also improve physical activity not just for certain individuals, because the overall health of the United States is depending on it! Not only does she quickly end her article, she also lightly fits in about physical activity. This closing statement makes the readers confused about what exactly the reading was for. They leave knowing what they already know; obesity is bad and we need to be more fit." I would say she failed to argue that obesity is bad, but here is how exactly we can go around and fix it. American's have heard about obesity, and until we stop repeating the obvious that obesity is unhealthy, no one is going to pay attention- just like the numbers we choose to be ignorant towards.

Presidents in The Visual Media

     

        After Donald Trump hosted "Saturday Night Live" this month, other Republican rivals were demanding equal air time. Since the presidential election of 1960, the presidential candidates have used all kinds of media to help them advance in their campaigns. Even though many citizens saw the great impact of having the debates held through visual media, they have ignored the faults in watching our candidates compete. John F. Kennedy was favored on television, unlike Richard Nixon no matter what the debate topic was. Visual media can be a favorable and useful tool to inform the public, however it can cause a great deed of bias during the presidential elections.

        For instance, Donald Trump is famously known for his "clown" face and ability to make a sales pitch. With opportunities to visually show the public his face, the public is becoming more supportive for he's a great entertainer. Like John F. Kennedy, the television has become manipulative and advantageous way to win over people. This was great for Kennedy, but not for Nixon. Nixon hated makeup and the idea of making his campaign a "show". He was dedicated to his campaigns, and didn't rely on his appearance to win the people- just his actions. However, no matter how he represented himself, without the "T-V Star" look, he was "trumped."

        Nixon even comments in his memoir, "It is a devastating commentary on the nature of television as a political medium that what hurt me the most in the first debate was not the substance of the encounter between Kennedy and me, but the disadvantageous contrast in our physical appearances."

Today visual media is a crucial part to how the public gets their knowledge. It can be a helpful method of informing the public on events such as a presidential election, but shouldn't depend on it. 

        I can't imagine getting rid of visual media during presidential elections, but the public should be mindful of its effects on our decisions. Trump has the right to host an SNL show if he chooses to, but as citizens who are expected to vote for our president in hopes of effective and knowledgeable decisions, we should keep in mind that the visual media is bias and not exactly a good path for our future presidential elections.

Bernie Sanders -- The New Hoover

    My fellow colleague, Abigail Clark, wrote an article titled: Bernie Sanders for President? She is a proud liberal who wants Bernie Sanders as President. Her article strongly focuses on Sanders' honest appeal, and that if he is the President that will make the United States great again. I agree with her argument that Sanders is genuine and has great qualities that the American people are looking for. However, there are things that I disagree on, making Bernie Sanders no more than a rock stuck in a wheel.

    Firstly, her depiction of Sanders genuine honesty is undermined by his ideas that are not popular, such as raising taxes, being a socialists, and hating capitalism. Sanders is an "ideological purist", states Allen Clifton from Forward Progressives. Sanders is a man who dreams of solving big problems with simple solutions, but in ways that aren't effective. Sanders may be a man of his word, but he is not alone in this fight. Congress, much like the one during Hoover's presidency, will grid lock Sanders' proposals. A simple solution will become a major conflict, and Sanders should know that.

    Clark uses an interview, "Real Time with Bill Maher: Interview with Senator Bernie Sanders, to support that Sanders "isn't just all talk". However, we don't need a interview to show that Sanders is not that productive. We can look at Senator Sanders' current record and compare it to Senator Warren's, and reveal that during the 16+ years he's served in Congress, Warren has accomplished far more in her two years as senator. Bernie Sanders "isn't just all talk" image is not so credible as Clark describes him to be. 

    Bernie Sanders is considered favorable among the younger generations. Even though he is 74 years old, his self-described socialism is costing him votes. Many younger individuals favor Sanders socialism, however when it comes to the majority of older voters, expectations differ from reality. If the young supporters for Sanders actually voted, then maybe they could actually effect Sanders polls. But they don't often vote, and the voters who liked Sanders before he stated he was a socialists, are threatening to vote for another Democrat, or even worse, a Republican. 

    Abigail Clark wants Bernie Sanders to be the next President because of his genuine honesty. However, much like President Hoover, he is liked by a group of people who won't vote, and is hated by a Congress who won't agree. Bernie Sanders may be a good person, but not a successful President to make America great again. 

Refusing Justice

In 2014 according to a news report, 125 people were exonerated after being falsely convicted of crimes. The year before that, the record was 91. Exoneration's are sky rocketing, and courts all over the nation are refusing to acknowledge the mistakes.

Our justice department is constantly evolving. As new technology and methods are introduced we expect our system to become closer to flawless. However, it is not, and some of the main factors come down to the court and its officials. The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI have admitted that a lot of convictions based on forensic evidence is faulty; for instance hair analysis. Unlike the famous CSI TV series, scientific studies are more complex than matching hair samples into a speedy fast machine. Or another mistakenly assumption that fire arms can be exactly compared to a unique bullet mark. Forensic evidence is advancing, but it gives no right to cheat out cases. And it certainly shouldn't allow the courts and its officials to ignore past and present questionable cases.

The DOJ not only refuses to take responsibility for convicting the innocent, but make it extremely hard for them to prove their innocence. For instance, in Alabama, a defendant has to be able to prove there is no evidence connecting he/she to the crime. Even if the suspect is innocent, but evidence proves some connection, they have no opportunity to even suggest their case to be re-looked at. So instead of having hope in the justice system, many wrongfully accused are depending on outside organizations such as the Innocence Project to gain their case an attention.

With newly exoneration's such as former death row inmate, Beniah Dandridge, we are looking for a call to fix the DOJ before its too late. Not only evaluating forensic evidence, but also overlooking our courts decisions and processes for making sure we put the right criminals in jail. After all, it is our nations job to protect the people and serve justice.

Jon Green Against Ted Cruz

Jon Green from AMERICAblog specializes in political science and political cognition and has experience as a regional field director for President Obama's reelection campaign and 2012. From past posts such as 'Paul Ryan isn't conservative enough to be Speaker' and 'Ben Carson Kaylee has no gay rights' Green emphasizes on more Democratic views.  

He recently issued an article today titled: Ted Cruz: black lives matter "embracing and celebrating the murder of police". As he opens up the article with "well I guess someone wasn't getting enough attention", we assume Green's primary audience are those who support Black Lives Matter and or either disapprove of Ted Cruz's plans as President.

Jon Green includes ThinkProgress reporter Kira Lerner, and statements from Black Lives Matter to imply Ted Cruz's idea of 'anti-death movement is actually encouraging murder' are absurd. Even though John Green has provided multiple statements it is disappointing that he couldn't or didn't choose to find more statistical or concrete evidence. Green quoted Lerner's statement on how Cruz uses a popular conservative rhetoric to support that "crime rates of spiked across the 10 country because police officers are afraid of protesters". However he didn't include evidence that this 'popular conservative rhetoric' is false, which leaves the audience thinking if this point is true or not and if Green's credibility is legitimate. I have been informed with evidence that crime rates have rather declined but to those who read this and are not prior informed, Jon Green's use of Leonard statement is not so credible. So the readers are now just hanging off of Greens mere statements rather than true evidence. Which can be argued that today's audience prefer a more patho or ethological argument rather than meaningless numbers spurting.

After presenting ThinkProgress's interview, Green grows on his argument that 'Cruz has positioned himself to be the "Trump but with an actual campaign infant structure" candidate in the race. Again with very little evidence but plenty of personal statements Green quickly closes his article with the idea that Cruise is "going to have to start peeling off the racist vote from the fields to front runners. And what better way to start that bind plying then the city anti-death movement is actually encouraging murder?" 

Green brings up a controversial point about Cruz's opinion on Black Lives Matter. Using his strong but minimal evidence the general uninformed public may start believing Green's opinion on Cruz. However his article lacks the concrete evidence for those who want to be more informed with concrete evidence rather than simple speculations. 

New News!

Question of the Day: Should the public be concerned that tradition news is disappearing, or is this new age of information guiding America on the right path? 

Original Source

Putin is Not Bluffing

The Economist issued an article today titled: Putin dares, Obama dithers, today after hearing news of Russia's leader, Vladimir Putin, interfering in Syria on what Obama thought was a bluff. On September 30th, the first day of bombing from Russia in Syria, the world is beginning to see a; "leader of a new global war on terrorism."

A leader that is making Obama rethink his poker skills, Putin is at the end of his bluffing. We thought Russia wouldn't invade Ukraine, but now they are all over the Middle East, even in our domain. So we come to question, is Obama going to be like George Bush in Iraq and intervene, or is he going to hide behind his white picket fence in fear that he will cause more trouble? Either way, America is in a tough situation that is causing our people to feel not 'so great' anymore.

I have been satisfied with Obama's decisions on our homeland, but when it comes to foreign affairs his premature withdraws are causing more deaths, and chaos. Obama is a very smart individual who I understand his thought process of being cautious and wary on America's intervention. However, now is not time to sit and wait when we clearly have been out bluffed by rising leader Vladimir Putin. Soon our absence in this new global war will cause extremism to, "fester and force the superpower to intervene."

Hopefully with Putin's end to his bluffing, Obama will realize he needs to have a, "bit more of Mr Putin’s taste for daring. With little time Obama has in office, I hope he takes action. If not, Russia will be the new super power of the world on terrorism.

Original Article