Ebola Outbreak

 One of the most controversial topics everyone is talking about at the moment is the deadly virus, Ebola. Despite the fact that the place where the virus has spread the most is in Africa, a lot of health workers and volunteers run a high risk of contracting the virus and bringing it back to their home countries. Even though there's only been one confirmed case of death from Ebola here in the United States, the number of deaths in Africa is significantly bigger. The main problem right now in the U.S is the panic that this disease is bringing to our country. Some people may say that our government and media are doing a good job in informing us about the virus and that our hospitals where some victims have been treated are also doing a good job in controlling the disease, but some people think the complete opposite. For example, the panic itself is making people believe that the disease is airborne, which is a complete lie. Also, it makes them doubt about the security in the states, thinking that people from third world countries can use it against us.
  Personally, I think that the U.S is doing a good job of maintaining the risk of contracting the virus at a low level. Between quarantines and health checks at airports the people of this country are becoming aware of the precautions that are being taken. Websites like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show you what Ebola is like, the symptoms and how to prevent it between other things. The government also tries to reassure our citizens by informing us that a vaccine is being experimented at the moment. The media is also doing their part by creating articles about the virus that describes it, shows the precautions you cant take not to "catch" it. For example, BBC did an article that shows you what to do if you ever come in contact or if you're at a place considered high risk. Although the U.S is not currently at high risk, websites and news outlets helps the people understand the virus better and give us a bit of peace of mind to keeps us calm trough one of the biggest national fears at the moment.
 Overall, I believe the United States are keeping the the risk of catching the disease a very small possibility. Every day we see more and more news about the death rate of Ebola infected people in Africa going down and that brings more stability to the panic of spreading it here in the U.S.

Overlooking Problems

The topic that's driving our nation crazy is Ebola. Everyone is scared about how fast it can spread and they're taking many precautions but a recent article I found in the Washington Post argues that this is not the only problem the United States faces at the moment. Written by Ed Rogers, he explains that at this very moment, new sources and media are overlooking the fact that Iran is requesting to build nuclear weapons and the scary part is that without any attention, they might be able to. The United Nations are to vote in just 18 days, weather or not they can reach an agreement with Iran that would make them explain and plan out the building of these weapons with permission to do so if the United Nations say yes to their plan.The consequences can be awful since we wouldn't know how many weapons are going to be made or if an agreement is not made, we're not sure if Iran will go ahead with their plan without consulting the United Nations. In his whole argument, it's hard to see where all these opinions are coming from. His intended audience is definitely the people of the United States. Personally, i'm caught in between his question of "what's more important?" I believe the topic of Ebola is just as important as the future of Iran and the power it can have with nuclear weapons but it's obvious that people reading the article are going to think that Ebola is the most important topic since it's something that's affecting our own country. If the writer were to explain the situation with Iran better, it would be easier to understand and maybe side with him, but he's lacking a lot of credibility and he's absent sources do him no good. His argument about giving attention to both issues is weak and only focuses on one side of the problem, his logic of trying to give attention to the problem with Iran is good but he needs to add more to the editorial where he talks about how bad it can really get here in the U.S if an agreement is not made and how it can effect us. As an American, we focus on the facts that affects us as a country because although it sounds harsh, we're selfish and care about our well being, so if the writer were to really lay everything out and explain in detail the consequences we could have and the effect of allowing Iran to go on with their plans, it would've had a better chance of influencing the view of his readers.

Endless War

   An article in The New York Times recently talked about one of the U.S major political problems that has been ongoing for the last 13 years. The war with Afghanistan is soon to be over as president Obama claimed. The question is, where is all that money the U.S is giving them really going towards? And why keep giving them financial assistance if there's been evidence of misuse and fraud? In this article the author argues all of the points mentioned above and the fact that if we're giving them so much money we should have a stronger safeguard when it comes down to who we should be giving billions of dollars to.
     I personally agree with his opinions but it's hard to believe this article when there's a lot of sources that he's missing. He talks a lot about certain amounts of money, for example, he mentions that the U.S will spend more money helping Afghanistan that the amount we spent rebuilding European nations after WWII but he's missing the links where you can find that credibility. Also, he mentions that the money has been "mismanaged and stolen" but there is no link provided where we can prove this. It's hard for us as readers to agree if we can't find another source where he can back up his arguments. Most of his intended audience seems to be "taxpayers" since he mentions quite often about our taxes. Also, it seems that he tries to get the attention of anyone involved with the military since he mentions the fact that some soldiers will still be in Afghanistan for around two years due to some involvement with the NATO. Overall, he makes a good argument but it's not solid. When you read it, it gets you interested and maybe a bit angry, but readers want to see where we can find these articles so we can look into it and make sure that all the facts and numbers he's throwing around are correct.