Comparing the Great Recession and the Great Depression By: Louis Jacobson Politifact.com

When Obama was elected in 2009, he was asked whether the economy he took over was as bad as the Great Depression of the 1920s and 1930s. Louis Jacobson does a great job of detailing “where Obama has a point” and “where Obama is wrong”. When comparing both eras stock price patterns were similar, and the rate of decline. Although the banking situation was much worse in the 30s, the modern financial system and technology allowed the crisis to “spread further and faster”.  Although Obama is wrong when it comes to recovery rate. The statistics showed that “mid 2009 also recovered more quickly than they did during the Great Depression”. Beyond that, the statistics were worse during the Great Depression “no matter what time frame you look at”. Unemployment was terribly worse during the Great Depression, even though the method of calculating has changed. The statement is similar to many other presidential statements, “certainly not true in any important way”.

Sean Anisi

I'm Just a Free Spirit Who is Entirely Financially Dependent on Others

http://www.theonion.com/articles/im-just-a-free-spirit-who-is-entirely-financially,33905/?ref=auto

I thought this was funny, to an extent. So this guy pretty much does what a lot of people do but to an extreme. Showing no remorse for actually mooching anyone he can mooch from, whether it be their food their shelter or even their luxury items. He does a great job at saying all that he can do and get away with, even by saying that the people he is living off of would not kick him out because of past experiences with him.

I believe this is an over exaggeration but an accurate one. Some countries, people and pets do this. Although pets genuinely are our choice. People do this to their parents a lot, thinking that their parents will pay for everything and not being thankful for it at all. That is the only thing I find quite interesting about this fake article. Realistically, people would go about thanking people through actions. For example, if my parents paid for everything such as school, food, clothes, etc. I would in return make the best use out of them. Get good grades, be frugal with the food, take really good care of the clothes and so forth. This would be the case if they said that they did not want anything in return or for me to pay them back.

However, in this case, the by-the-seat-of-my-pants kind of guy deliberately states that people would never kick him out or show him the door because its awkward and they feel bad for him. Those are very gullible/ weak willed people that are getting used, I should say, can and should kick the "free-spirit" out. Not only for their well-being but for his as well. For this I'd like to say it is both parties responsibility to move forward and be more productive.  

Would US strike on Syria be legal? (Politifact)

For the past few weeks the hot topic of discussion on all news channels was Syria's use of chemical warfare and the question whether the US should get involved. President Obama has vowed vengeance for the death of hundreds of children, claiming he is justifiable because Syria broke international law using chemical weapons. His speech given on September 10 stated he has the authority to strike with permission from congress or not. But the interesting part is that in this article the United Nations security council claims that if Obama strikes on Syria, he would be in direct violation of International laws of war himself. He has no backing for a self defense rule as the US was threatened in no way. But since the US is a powerful sovereign nation we could strike without authority to protect our "interests". The author of the article was clearly against the attack because he made every effort to put Obama in the wrong.

Starbucks Asks Customers Not To Carry Guns

I read the article "Starbucks Asks Customers Not To Carry Guns" from the American voices. The issue is about Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz said the coffee giant is not going to ban guns in its stores. Absolutely, due to this controversial topic, people will give different feedback about this propose. 
Some people think "Sounds like some coward CEO is just trying to avoid a mass shooting at his stores." and some people will agree with the CEO's suggest. Schultz said customers who bring in guns will still be served and won’t be asked to leave. Starbucks isn’t imposing a ban on firearms because “we don’t want to put our people in the position of having to confront somebody who’s carrying a weapon,”he said.
The CEO said "We believe that gun policy should be addressed by government and law enforcement -- not by Starbucks and our store partners." It's their right as a private business to set whatever policy they want. Several American states allow people to carry licensed guns freely despite the country's epidemic of school and mass shootings." If more people had guns that were legally owned, those nut cases would have been stopped right away. Some people said. 
Let’s see, opponents of guns in Starbucks don’t want legal, licensed, law-abiding gun owners to be there when an illegal, criminal robber breaks in and starts shooting? Makes sense to me! I’d rather have the place filled with legal guns than having some jacked-up nitwit come in blazing away. When are these crybaby anti-gun people going to stand up and defend themselves against crime instead of blaming everyone else for what one deranged person does?

Discrimination by big name condom manufacturers??
Whenever I go to the store, I spend a lot of time in the condom aisle, just as I'm sure all of you do. During the course of these excursions, I have come to realize a few things. First, I was a bit taken aback by the sheer variety of choices available, from extra large to extra thin, to condoms with ribs or bumps, to condoms that appeared to be literally charged with orgasms. There were even condoms designated as "his&hers" to improve the experience of both sexes, an idea I'm sure is completely novel and unprecedented (everybody knows men don't enjoy sex). However, there were relatively few condoms of the non latex variety, and the ones that do exist are  boring and uninspired (none were charged with orgasms, that's for sure). Trojan, the largest condom manufacturer in the US, produces 8 times as many varieties of latex condoms as polyurethane ones. As many as 8.2% of people in the US may have a latex sensitivity issue, and this population segment is hugely underrepresented in the market, especially in an economic climate where you can find non-gluten just about anything despite the fact that as few as 3% of the population actually has a gluten intolerance. Condom companies need to really punch a hole in this demographic and stop discriminating against the 8%.
source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluten_sensitivity
http://www.trojancondoms.com/Product/ProductListVert.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latex_allergy#Those_at_greatest_risk

Matt Stemper blog post 2

In the article “Would a U.S. strike in Syria violate international law?” the authors Jon Greenberg and Louis Jacobson, make very clear arguments for both sides of the story. It is clear by reading the article that if the United States decided to strike Syria it would be against international law, however in the United States Constitution, it states that Congress can violate international law if it is in the nation’s best interest. No matter if it is in our constitution or not, it would still be deemed illegal on the international stage. In the past the United States has not cared about this, but the author makes the argument that if we do strike and it was deemed illegal, then we would lose a lot of credibility. If we were to say another countries actions were illegal, they wouldn’t have to listen to us because we are being hypocritical. The Authors seem to think that the USA is going to act in their best interest, whether that is strike Syria and turn a shoulder to international law, or not strike and keep our credibility. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/sep/12/would-us-strike-syria-violate-international-law/

Getting Rid of Chemical Weapons

In light of the uproar regarding the use of chemical weapon attacks in Syria, many of called for the dismantling of chemical weapons. This article by PolitiFact examines the three most common methods by which the obsolescence comes about. Discussing these three methods, is an environmentalists by the name of  Paul Walker. The three methods are incineration of the weapons, neutralization using water to slowly cause the mechanisms and toxins of the weapon to self-destruct, and the ignition of the weapons in a controlled setting using water to capture the toxins. The implicit claim made by Walker was the latter method was the least desirable owing to it's arduous process and slow time frame, as well as the use of water to trap to the toxins. The author then proceeds that this method would also be least effective in Syria owing the large amount of manpower required to dismantle weapons using this method and the logistics of employing a workforce of the size in the middle of a civil war.

Abducted Georgia girl, 14, found safe, authorities say

The news I read which is from foxnews.com entitled “Abducted Georgia girl, 14, found safe, authorities say.” This news talked about the latest progress on the case of the abducted 14-year-old Georgia girl near Atlanta. 

Joshua Rhett Miller, the author of the news claims that the abducted Georgia girl, Ayvani Hope Perez, was found safe. First of all, Miller uses the quotation of Clayton County Police Chief Gregory Porter to convince that  Perez is safe and Police has detained two suspects and kept watching other suspects. In addition, both Porter and Rick Maxwell, the FBI Atlanta Field Office’s special agent in charge, claimed the reason for the kidnapping was not clear yet. Maxwell also mentioned that the relationships between the offenders and Perez’s families were unknown. What’s more, the author gave more information about the girl’s mother: Perez’s mother was arrested on drug trafficking charges in 2012, although it was dropped soon. Finally, some backgrounds were mentioned, which said that offenders took away Perez because they wanted money and jewelry but Perez and her mother didn’t have any.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/17/police-14-year-old-girl-abducted-during-home-invasion-near-atlanta-all-out/#ixzz2fI7P1hhH