Pollution commentary

While there is major controversy about global warming and the climate change, people would fools not to notice the high rising temperatures, pollution in cities, and the melting ice caps. I do agree with you and your concern about pollution, and I want to add that we've been trying to control this dilemma beginning with TDR. Brandon, you do make a very valid point on what the democrats are trying to pass and I see the republican party being an issue. Furthermore, I believe Obama's efforts are pure in trying to save the environment- not just for america, but for the good of other countries.  Lastly with the regulations trying to pass in 2015 IF they go undisturbed by the Republicans, it will hopefully cause an increase in involvement in the US for pollution control and push for more regulations to be passed.

Hypocrisy

In NYT's informative and interesting editorial, secrecy from the CIA is revealed. Under the Bush administration heinous acts were committed against some innocent people and wanted criminals. The Bush administration has already played an underhanded move with the NSA and to have this topic revealed to the public- harms the Republican party reputation. Not only does it harm the party, it destroys another amendment we believe in as set by the bill of rights. Now the public is REALLY questioning the truthfulness of our country. I will say that Bush had a lot to handle, and a lot to take in after 9/11, yet I do not believe it should have gone as far as to ignore amendments and harm people. What really frustrates me is the idea of Bush being a figure head and not realizing what he signed on in regards to the NSA and the torture of many people. According to the article, the CIA and the republican party tried severely hard to not get this information out to the public. The information recovered form the Obama administration is still being investigated, but as of now things do not look good for the republicans, and their chances for the presidency in 2016.

Immigration is a go and a yes

Nicholas Kristof's enlightening post  in the NYT  he truly shines a light on the demeaning and hurtful opinions towards immigrants and immigration. What can truly be seen in Kristof is his admirable claims that defend immigrants. His historical context aim at racist beliefs of the early 1900s that set off many anti-immigrant ideals in America. The flood of Irish immigrants in the 1800s is a prime example of ignorance and hypocrisy at its best. What we as a society do not notice is how minorities gain power until its bluntly obvious JFK was Irish and he became President, Obama is black and he became president. The Anglo Saxon ordeal is receding, and good riddance.
In light of recent events, the executive order passed by Obama has its overall pros. Economically speaking millions of undocumented immigrants have the opportunity to work, and be documented on paper- which in turn is beneficial to the overall economy. Undocumented immigrants pay taxes as well, imagine a society that freely embraces the cultural phenomenon that is unraveling. The economy would shoot off into success. Furthermore, Kristof shows compassion by rebutting claims that are down right insulting and degrading towards undocumented immigrants. Society should accept other cultures freely because the US is made of immigrants (unless you're a pure native) and if it doesn't it makes it hypocrisy. What truly falls in question is how much power Obama has in this order. His emperor like ruling has set the boundaries for any future president, yet many see this beneficial- and many do not.

In Regards to Mail

In Susana Hootman's interesting and informative article "America the Inefficient', she firmly she convinces the audience that mail falls short by pointing out the inefficiency of the US postal service.
Overall the mailing industry cannot compete with the global market of technology. Hootman's initial approach targets the socio-econionic factor for why the mail exists and highlighting the reliability society faces towards it. The US mailing industry is seemingly based off tradition, yet with more reliance on technology the future for the mailing service is in question. Ultimately Hootman asserts the notion of a faster, efficient, and easily reachable way off traditional communication.. While I do agree that technology based mailing is very easy to give into, large leaps of completely cutting mail off would indeed hurt the economy in a slight degree and break away too fast from cultural tradition which in turn would be difficult for public interest.

Gay Acceptance in the Church

In the topic of gay acceptance in church, NYT's editorial morally questions the Pope's decision on letting gay couples be a part of a religious group. While many feel that the church and Christian theology contradict each other (divorce being seen as a sin) a large amount of people believe that if church and god really symbolize unconditional love, why should gay couples be admitted in spiritual ceremony. The authors intended purpose solely relies on backing up a specific group of people, the counter argument presented contradicts acceptance and fiercely rejects the idea of same sex inter relations. In many ways the idea of religion in seen as a guide line, not everything is purely black and white.
In regard to the logic in this editorial, its evident that many people will; have a HUGE say in religion and same sex interrelations. I site this source as resourceful in seeing this topic from a different point of view.

Debt in student loans

According to the New York Times editorial on student loans, the default rate has decreased since 2012, yet with such a decrease- loans still dominate the economic infrastructure of attending college. The audience is mainly focused on students ranging from a simple associates to masters degree's, While this article aims at making an obvious point on how hard debt affects a younger group of people, it does not miss the main question. How do we change or limit the payment plans for students before going into debt? As substantial evidence is present, the evidence can't escape the fact that many loans in the long run ruin any chances of acquiring necessary things in life, such as a home or car and so on (in regards to building credit). The logic presented highlights the cause and effect of students borrowing money, the solution (as the article points out) would be to be more flexible with payment plans. Yet the solution to the big question almost falls short because of profit earning schools manipulating whats written down on paper with regards of economic interest. Furthermore as the article suggests, the government should have a definite say in how schools present themselves on paper when it comes to granting any sort of aid instead if changing how they're presented to the public. While bigger schools maintain an illusion, behind the walls students are ruining their future with debt.
 I site this sources as very strongly opinionated and passionate about student funding and never the less agree with changing the way America deals with college debt.

Comments on the Unemployed

In regards to Huffington Post's article on Boehner's comments about the unemployed- he firmly stands his ground by calling the unemployed "lazy" and unwilling to work seek employment. Ultimately Boehner's conservative ideals are highlighted by his rhetoric and lack of understanding. The unemployed are unemployed due to the economy's downfall and other events that may have occurred. It's not because people are lazy- as the article states, the job market is "fierce". The democrats "bashing Boehner have every correct reason to. The liberals are the ones who are pushing jobs out there for every American, and trying to bring the workforce back into the economy. Boehner's comments are strictly jaded, and down play a very specific social class of America. Overall HuffPost is pretty accurate, and I highly recommend reading the article.