Critique of Considering Cutting Costs

Navarette claims that the Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal should be commended for not wanting to accept his state’s $98 million share of the $787 billion national stimulus bill. Jindal understands that accepting the money will require a change in state laws dealing with unemployment and a subsequent larger cost to the state in the long run. Navarette is critical of Californian Governor Schwarzenegger who would be jump on the opportunity to receive Louisiana’s share as well as his one state’s portion of the national bail out.

Going into detail about California’s debt problem, Navarette draws evidence for his argument from the fact that although things are bad in the Golden Gate State, they could be worse. Yes there is a $42 billion debt, but at the same time tourists and businesses continue to pour dollars into the state.

His audience is Californians for the most part, yet he also draws national interest by relating the issue in California to the national budget crisis.

Navarette’s purpose and argument in this editorial are not clear, and he seems to jump from talking about despising taxes to endorsing them. He applauds Governor Jindal for refusing the national stimulus package, but gives no clear evidence or logic explaining why this is a laudable move. As for the California fiscal matter, Navarette makes it clear that he is unhappy about the $12 billion in new taxes, yet criticizes the Republicans who are stubborn to tax increase. His argument is ambiguous and the lack of conclusive evidence and logic keep his commentary from being effective.

From Navarrette: Consider costs in the long run

Cut the CIA Some Slack

The recent scandal involving the CIA chief in Algiers being accused of rape has shed poor light on the already shady Central Intelligence Agency, but are blows to the agency’s name such as this recent one actually blown out of proportion? Baer’s article at http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1876470,00.html addresses the severity of the issue, especially in light of the upcoming appointment of Panetta to the top position of CIA Director, but also the trivialness of it. Yes, rape is a serious crime and culprits need to be punished, but does one perverted CIA appointee really symbolize an entire agency of corruption? Baer argues that the bad reputation the CIA receives is not entirely deserved. He also draws evidence from the lesser scandal over leaks from Harold Nicholson, an ex-double agent who allegedly enlisted his son to carry on his treasonous work. This incident is stale compared to the rape issue, but definitely does not help the agency’s reputation. Baer asks America to take a step back from the media driven scandal of it all and analyze responses to these problems. The simplicity of firing the Algiers chief and moving Nichols to the maximum security prison really diminishes the perceived severity of the scandals.