Global Warming

Global warming is a subject the government has ignored for many years. Why? Because there is always something more pressing. Every time we get an alarming and scary update on this situation that is observed to happen the subject is brought up, but then it automatically fades away and we go back to focusing on absurd things. Global warming is a serious issue we should all take into consideration. It would be very helpful if the idea would be considered and well discussed by presidential candidates, to come up with a possible solution, because there is several solutions to decrease global warming such as cleaning up America's dirtiest power plants, reducing carbon dioxide, and other greenhouse gas emissions and many more solutions. One of the reasons why the government denies the idea of fighting global warming is because they will spend a lot of money doing this, but the government is already spending money on things that are less important. And what is more important spending billions of dollars on such things as building a bigger wall or fence to keep out illegal migrants or our health? and finding a way to protect our children's future? Global warming possesses a real threat and enforcing a movement as soon as possible is better than waiting, because the longer we wait to do something the less change we will see. The fact that the government avoids this subject is why it is up to us to take action in order to have a healthier atmosphere.When the public leads, our leaders will, eventually follow.

 

Substansial commentary or criticism #2

In the article Let Citizens, Not Celebrity Journalists, Ask the Questions at Debates, from the New York Times Fredrick C. Harris a professor of political science at Columbia University argues that citizens should be the ones asking the questions directly at debates in order to improve and make presidential debates more considerable. I disagree with him, yes it would benefit a lot of citizens and I am sure a lot of them would also agree with this idea. Their advantage would be that they will be able to ask their own questions at debates to get a direct answer instead of having an established journalist asking their question in a completely different way and not getting the exact answer they want. But deciding on who to choose out of all the desperate citizens with the urge of asking questions and getting answers would probably be the problem. Fredrick C. Harris does not mention how this process would be done other than just having the candidates field questions from certain people he is not specific such as saying they will randomly pick someone from the crowd. Fredrick also says that we should think of presidential debates as public forums with ordinary people meaning citizens with no special or distinctive features, but in the past we have had debates where citizens have been able to give their opinion and ask question which haven't resulted in a good outcome. So that would be another problem a lot of citizens would want someone knowledgeable on the topic to come up with good questions and ask the questions in a adequate way. And that's why we have professional journalists with that being said in my opinion in order to enhance the quality of presidential debates journalists would be the ones that would have to improve their ways of providing and requesting questions and answers to the candidates and the people, they are the ones that would have to focus on doing their job decently.

I read an article in the New York Times by The Editorial Board titled President Obama and the Power Of Mercy the article was published on Wednesday October, 1st. The person who wrote this article is talking about the power to permit mercy and compassion to someone who is unfairly serving a long sentence in jail. In the article it is mentioned that this is one of the most important constitutional powers, and a president needs to do opposing action of the repeated excesses of the federal criminal justice system. It also talks about the clemency process being removed from the Justice Department and being moved to the White House itself so it can be done right and taken more seriously. At the end of this article it is mentioned that if president Obama wants to make a difference in his final year in office, offering a fast track commutation process for this group would be a good idea. I definitely agree with this editorial because this would benefit only prisoners who don't have a criminal history, have demonstrated good conduct in prison, have no history of violence, and who have been unfairly serving a long sentence for many years. And of course only if this process is done adequately and operated effectively.