Senators push nationwide ban on texting while driving: Response

I agree with this proposed bill completely. I am usually glued to my phone texting at all points of the day though I usually don't text back while driving, it's almost impossible for me to resist looking at any new messages that I get while driving. I recently was driving and received a really long text message and was trying to read it while making periodic glances at the road, and failed to notice an up coming traffic light changing from green to yellow. When the rest of the traffic started to slow down, I continued at the same pace and if I hadn't looked up at the last second to slam on my breaks, I would have been in a big mess wrecking my car, the car in front of me, and possibly the car in front of him.

Although I cannot sympathize with those that support this bill from the standpoint that has been the car in front or behind the person consumed in their text and multimedia messaging, I can vouch from the participators point of view, that this new bill is not only a good idea, it is necessary. The almost accident I had probably has happened to many other texters out there, not to mention the accidents that actually do happen as a result to texting. And this bill could eliminate most, if not all, of those almost and actual accidents, making the roads and highways a much safer place to drive.

Blog Stage Five: Original editorial or commentary #1

The United States national government is a centralized federal form of government over the people of America. There are many aspects of the government that are stronger than others, and some that are weaker than others. There are many different policies and views on these policies, from the different parties' perspectives, which have an impact on domestic and foreign affairs pertaining to the US. These policies shape the issues that create the platforms for candidates. Some of the most debatable issues include gay marriage rights, and abortion rights. These issues can be seen in two extremely different lights. The Democratic light takes a stronger stance in letting individuals decide for themselves, whereas the Republican light holds strongly that the government should play a bigger part in regulating these different issues. I believe that neither of these extremes are correct or should be taken into account at all. There is a huge difference between an individuals rights that should be given to them by nature, such as deciding whether or not to get married to either sex, or to get an abortion under whatever circumstances. I believe that the government should regulate these issues to an extent, but not to such an extreme as to outlaw them both entirely.

These issues have caused quite a ruckus among the presidential candidates, especially, while campaigning and running for office. It seems kind of silly, in my eyes, to pick a candidate solely on their stance on these issues. If these issues are not harming anyone, then I see them as alright. Besides, you can't base how someone is going to rule a country on whether or not they believe an individual should be able to get an abortion. I think the more important issues that should be looked at more closely and discussed to a fuller extent include foreign policy, war tactics, and tax stance: things that will affect the nation as a whole. I believe that the smaller issues should be taken care of by the local governments.

Blog Stage Four: Substantial commentary or criticism #2

In the article "Reid says Senate health care vote in September" in the blog section of the USA today Newspaper states that "despite President Obama's effort to gin up support for the [new health care plan] measure," the Senate will not take a vote on a massive health care overhaul proposal before lawmakers return in September." This is important because obviously such a huge health care overhaul will create a lot of debate amongst the different parties, therefore it can be deduced that since the bill is being pushed back to be addressed, people are hesitant to stir up such a ruckus, even those that have the same stance as what the new health care plan will contain.

The reporter in this article, John Fritze, wrote this article with the intent to entertain and inform the younger population, who will be the most severely effected by the new health care plan. The credibility of the reporter can only be assumed to be reliable. Since the post is in the blog section of the newspaper it can be seen as strongly opinionated and not necessarily entirely true. However, the fact that it is in the newspaper at all gives it more credibility than a blog on the internet, elsewhere. The author's stance on this issue is quite obviously against the healthcare being passed, or even voted on since he states "that a pre-recess vote will not be likely." Since a pre-recess vote to confirm the plan would represent a majority in favor of the bill, it can be deduced that the bill is approved popularly but not backed up by political favorability.

Blog Stage Three: Substantial commentary or criticism #1

In the opinion section of the Dallas Morning News, the article "Health-Care Reform: Why Not Try Ownership?" displays Deroy Murdock's insider opinion to Obama's new Health-care plan, known more commonly as "Obamacare." The author's intended audience is quite obviously the middle-class and upper middle-class who will not be helped by this new health-care plan, but hurt the most out of all classes due to Obama's "stealing from the rich and giving to the poor" way of going about things. The author points out that the extremes that Obama is going to is much too "big a solution" for "too small a problem." Murdock enforces his opinion with substantial evidence, such as the Census Bureau statistic that 45.7 million Americans lack health insurance along with the actual statistic of "8 million Americans [who] are uninsured due to chronic illness or working-poor status," which Pacific Research Institute president Sally Pipes deduced, thus his opinion is credible due to the supporting evidence. Murdock's claim is that if the actual number of people who were in need of health-care were taken into account, the problem could still be solved but at a much smaller cost than the $1.5 trillion estimate made by the Congressional Budget Office. I completely agree with Murdock's claim and believe that it is ridiculous that the middle- and upper-middle classes are having to forfeit monies that they have made themselves to pay for health-care for not only the people that need it, but for the 14 million people who are "eligible for, yet have not enrolled in, the Medicaid and S-CHIP programs" as well as the "10 million uninsured which may be illegal aliens." 

"Ethics rules alter travel by Congress"

In the USA today article "Ethics rules alter travel by Congress," the stance on trips taken by lawmakers funded by interest groups is portrayed. The new Ethics rules that were passed in 2007 now prevent lawmakers from taking trips that exceed two nights at the expense of corporations, unions and others that employ lobbyists. This is important because it describes how things have changed since the new Ethics rules were incorporated and how things are monitored and regulated according to these rules. 

This article is very enlightening to how campaigns and other travels made by lawmakers are regulated so that they don't exceed an excessive limit. This article is worth reading because it informs as well as entertains the reader. The article can be found at the following link: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-07-15-privatetrips_N.htm