The US National Government

      The U.S. National Government, in my thought, is a very good organization but lacks perfection. I admire the structure government has formed, however I feel as though there is some things the people have no say in. I mean it's weird to see a presidential candidate  tell the nation what they can change but takes years to change and sometimes never gets resolved. However, I do agree on how each state is represented. I feel that electoral votes is very reasonable due to the size of states. The U.S. National Government is very sturdy. It takes a lot to make changes to any policies that are made. We have followed an ancient history of "Founding Father's" documents. 

        In other words, all branches have certain tasks and measures to follow, even the president.                                                                                              

The National Government is made up of an executive, judicial, and legislative branches. Executive deals with the power of the president. Legislative deals with the Senate and House of Representatives. Judicial is appointed by the president and approved by the senate. All branches serves in different purposes. I feel that the National Government may be too powerful at times. Our defense act is sometimes unfair to the community as in whatever the authority says goes, but I find that some authority is handled wrong. In my mind, its many topics that may never be discussed that regular people may never know. It can be a good thing for people who don't want to know, however, it is good for the people to be acknowledged of all tasks the US come into. I believe the US Government has a remarkable amount of knowledge, but there is so many things that questions me in it being completely trustworthy.

Wil We Ever Have High-Speed Trains?- A Measured Approach Can Work

In the opinion article, Robert Puentes argues that millions of dollars should not be invested in any type of transportation. Robert explains that there is no reason in fast attaching cities and metros that are already connected. His argument is very well explained and I agree with his views. I admit that this is not something relatively needed. The government definitely need to think this one through and prioritize the decision of going forward with this idea. Obama wants to put 8 billion dollars up for this? I think the U.S should be worrying more about the issues we have going already other than worrying about fast transportation. Like Robert mentions, the cost of maintenance for the trains would be highly expensive as well. Also, this will take substantial technology to develop and maintain.  Robert has a high credibility by using China's high speed rail as an example,  Barack Obama's view, and is highly anticipated by many others admiring the topic. The intended audience would be the government, and also specifically pointing out the mayors and city officials who may be in thought of the fast rail plan. However, the decision of following up with high speed trains going 200mph, is also controversy because acknowledgments of a train speeding at 100mph is already an issue. I'm sure trains at these speeds could not be compromised in going through towns. Could affect other transportation abilities in the near future and bring disturbance to the society. In other words, I feel that this is a great opinion establishment.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/10/13/will-we-ever-have-high-speed-trains/a-measured-approach-can-work

Obama, the Attack Dog.....

In this opinion article, "Obama, the Attack Dog," Gail Collins and David Brooks are arguing about Obama's approach against the Chamber of Commerce. The topics are about Obama pointing out money going towards ads with elections and how its distributed. The authors see money as being unreasonable in the politic world. However, leadership in Congress is supported by the fundraisers held. Also, they argue about targeting small and big businesses. They argue that businesses shouldn't be targeted for intentions of funding election attack ads. Big business take more hit than small businesses. The intended audience is for the people who agree or interested in President Obama. The authors credibility is very sufficient among Campaign Finance, Barack Obama, and Elections 2010. I don't agree what David Brooks states in the article. He is very self-conscious and seems to disagree with Obama's approach. David thinks Obama is approaching his arguments with insufficient information or proof. Also, he is very opposing with his ideas. David tries to talk too much instead of getting to the point. However, Gail Collins is very reliable on her arguments. I agree with what she states. Gail gets straight to the point and keeps a positive argument by explaining that there is some confusion with controlling money on elections. She also examines the situation by not taking a specific side but clearly shows that there is some unfair thoughts pertaining the situation. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/13/obama-the-attack-dog/?ref=opinion