Guantanamo? More like GuantanaNO!

On November 29th, 2015 Veronica Sigler published a post on her blog in which she makes an argument against detention camps, or more specifically a single camp:  Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp.  Sigler argues that Guantanamo Bay and the cruel acts that occur there are immoral and illegal. Sigler makes great points for her argument by establishing credibility by using Lawrence Wilkerson’s (a member of George W. Bush's Cabinet as the Secretary of States Chief of Staff” words on how Bush and his staff claimed knowledge that most of the inmates are innocent. In addition having multiple imbedded articles to further support her arguments throughout the post helped established ethos. Sigler also makes great use of pathos by giving examples of the cruel treatment inmates have to endure in addition to paralleling Guantanamo Bay to that of Hitler’s concentration camps, Native American reservations, and so forth.

All in all Sigler got her point across on how corrupt Guantanamo is and how we cannot let such immorality continue, but to make a stronger argument, perhaps some suggestions on how to release the inmates without facing international backlash would be helpful.

Banning the healthy alternative?

On October 30th, 2015 my colleague Michael published a post on his blog in which he argues that the FDA’s plans to ban 99% of vapor products should be reconsidered. His main point about vaporizers being safer for one’s health is enough sway me , but may not convince everyone. This point could be strengthened with the help of implementing past research done on the subject to establish logos. His other point about how the ban would affect the nation economically is an excellent inclusion to help persuade those who may not see any pathos appeal in people having a healthy alternative to cigarettes. Overall the author of this post gets the point across of how this planned ban by the FDA can only produce negative results.

Is Scientific Consensus Enough for an Argument?

On April 22, 2015 David Hemenway published There's scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won't like it through the Los Angeles Times. In this Op-Ed Hemenway used a combination of ethos and logos to aid in his argument that strong gun laws reduce homicide rates. Hemenway achieved this through polling to determine objectively whether there was scientific consensus on firearms.

Hemenway's first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists that may only qualify should they have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal within the last four years.  Through this criteria he was able to gather more than 280 contactable authors. While I appreciate Hemenway's devotion to finding relevant polling subjects I am hardly convinced that a sample size of 280 is enough to come to a clear consensus as his article's title would imply-- especially when only about half of that sample size actually returns with a response.

Through this survey method Hemenway accumulated that data of many scientific opinions on the subject of the accessibility of guns in the home in correlation to homicides and suicides. Though I understand that if any opinion on the subject were to matter it would be that of this particular sample size, at the end of the day an opinion is still just an opinion. Hemenway remedies this issue after he notes that the results of the surveys did not surprise him"because the scientific evidence is overwhelming". This is when he brings in data found by other researchers.

I would argue that Hemenway is credible as he has written over 130 articles and five books in the fields of economics and public health. And I do agree with Hemenway that while scientific consensus isn't always right, it does provide some backbone to a view on an argument.

Is Wealth Enough to Get Trump a Nomination?

In a recent the New York Times article possible presidential candidate Donald Trump expresses his confidence in that what he lacks in specifics he makes up for in with his enormous wealth and celebrity status. Trump claims that he is prepared to spend $100 million or more (just last month he boasted that he would spend $1 billion if need be) to achieve status as the Republican nominee for the 2016 presidential election. But even after months of surging in the Republican polls, Trump has faced increasingly combative opponents in recent debates and drew in some rough attention for his vague and blustery answers. Trump  said he did not give specific answers because he believe most people cared more about viewing his pugnacious leadership style than listening to detailed policy plans.

But what does this say about American politics if all a top presidential candidate has to rely on is his wealth to get a nomination?

Greetings!

Hello colleagues!