The Failing Government

    First off, our government is broken. Yeah, it's been around for awhile, which implies it isn't broken, and it'll probably be around for awhile longer, but it should be improved just as it has been for the past 200 years. The system of government follows an archaic piece of paper (yes, the Constitution) that was written in a time when women were second class citizens and African-Americans were slaves - and these "intelligent" individuals that wrote it were just fine with that. That's the writing we've got. The 21st century needs modernization. It's the flow of this decade, and it will continue to be the flow for decades to come. The advancement of technology is overriding incredibly old rules. It is true that some of these rules in the Constitution - fine, laws - are okay to keep, like expressed powers for the President and Congress. But why the random dates and numbers? Why 14? I guess those problems don't matter enough to amend. But something that does really matter is Congress's failing role in government.
    The House of Representatives has a system that is becoming more outdated by each generation, literally. The more people there are, the less effective the House is. The senate is good, but the House is becoming useless, with party affiliation getting in the way of what people actually want. These representatives know their constituency wants a republican or democratic vote, but that's too general. What if some of what people want is republic and some of it democratic? Why not parts of both? Why not another party's idea? Because, in the current system, only democrats and republicans even stand a chance at legislation, because the party affiliation is the main focus of the representatives. They want to be re-elected, so they will vote on whatever fills their party. I guess my main concern is that there's simply too few House members. We need to retain the original 1 : 30,000 ratio, and in the 21st century, we can do that. Before, we were restrained by physical limitation - you can't have 10,000 representatives in one building voting. That's just too unorganized, and truthfully, dangerous. But you can have them all vote from, say, a machine? What if some voted on Mondays and Wednesdays and others voted on Tuesdays and Thursdays? I know nothing of their voting process, but I do know that we could fit a lot more people into the voting process, which would create a much more diverse map of what the people want. That's what they're for anyways, right? To represent the people.

Hewitt's Argument

    I was reading the Hewitt Blog and came across this insane post. Of course, it bashed Obama as conservative blogs do, but I don't think I've seen one as bad as this. He started the blog by telling about how the magazine Newsweek is going out of popularity and demand. Then he paralleled this magazine to Obama, by saying, "It failed. It will go away." First off, what does the President have to do with a magazine? Secondly, he can't say Obama failed. He obviously did succeed in many endeavors as President.
    He goes on to explain that Obama is making jokes about binders when he should be worrying about Libya and gas prices. Really? Of course he's worrying about Libya and gas prices, you twat. Since he apparently needs a lesson on campaign tactics from a left-leaning independent college sophomore like myself, I would say the binder jokes are a jab at Romney's recent fault in the second presidential debate. But that's just right, I guess, because the Romney campaign has been trying to turn the whole "binder" business around on Obama, somehow, which is sort of ridiculous. Truth is, though, the "binder" thing itself is ridiculous, not whether or not which candidate said it, but the fact that they're using it for votes. But then again, what else can they use? Republicans, like Hewitt, can't say who's telling the truth or not. No one knows, because the candidates call each other liars. So bloggers, like Hewitt, look to the things that the people know and have seen and heard with their own senses, like mistakes such as the "binder" fiasco.
    It would then be good argument on Hewitt's part, if he took what Americans actually saw and tried that against Obama, but he didn't. He just picked up on what other Republicans are doing. Hewitt's overall argument was faulty everywhere. But you can't expect much from a conservative blogger, or a liberal one, in regards to fair argument.

Reference: Hugh Hewitt Blog, Hugh Hewitt, "Newsweek, like the President, is Finished at the End of the Year", Written 10/18/12

The Victim or the Problem?

Reference: Washington Post, Michael Gerson, "Romney Forced to Play Defense", Written 10/1/12

Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/michael-gerson-romney-forced-to-play-defense/2012/10/01/4b7cbbba-0bf0-11e2-bb5e-492c0d30bff6_story.html

    I read this editorial, written by Michael Gerson, and while reading I noticed some interesting argumentative tactics. The entire first paragraph is built on Obama's failures. The fallacy seen here is one of character assassination, a character argument used to degrade Obama's integrity and authoritativeness, so that the reader will continue to the rest of the article thinking that Romney is more trustworthy and in charge.

    The arguments about Obama's actions themselves are perhaps accurate, at least logical and not directed personally at him. But there's no opposing argument. Where's one of Obama's many accomplishments? There are none, or so it is implied. "Obama has not done anything good for this country in four years of being  President," is what Mr. Gerson is saying. After which, he describes not how Romney will do well, but how the media is destroying who Romney really is. This puts Romney on a defensive stance, where Obama is obviously on the offensive, as it is aggressively implied by the first paragraph. So now, what the author has done is he has dismissed any accusation against Romney. He has completely destroyed the integrity of the media, saying that "Republicans diagnose a severe case of media bias, and the symptoms are not imaginary." Well, that sure blows the media's opinion out of the water, doesn't it? Which conveniently gives dismisses any previous argument against Romney. The format of this editorial is not by mistake. The author has done two things: 1. Made Obama look like the reason for all our problems, and 2. Made Romney look like a victim.