Recently I applied to LA County Sheriff's Department, I could not help but notice on the employment page they had a link to Women In Law Enforcement Seminars: http://www.lasdhq.org/recruitment/WOMEN-IN-LAW-ENFORCEMENT-INFORMATION-SEMINAR-2.html - here they explain their female deputy sheriff hiring goal of 20.11%. EVERYONE has a right to work in Law Enforcement, people of all races, nationalities, and genders; however, by setting a percentage goal, LASD has lowered the standards for women to be hired and has made it more difficult for males to be hired. They have set similar goals in regards to minorities. I have served my country on two combat deployments to Helmand Province, Afghanistan, should my chances and "rights" to a job be hindered because a goal percentage? I feel women have just as much as a right to law enforcement than men, and I know women that are very qualified and would be outstanding cops, but in setting this goal, they take rights away from men by setting the bar even hire, but lowering the bar for women. I feel there should be more of a balance and everyone should have equal rights and opportunities to the same job.
On the bases of handicapped individuals, special programs and jobs should be set aside by companies to allow for more opportunities for the disabled to work and stay active. In agreement, I could not have said it better than Jacqueline in regards to handicapped.

I think the political media realm uses these very tactics on a daily bases to persuade its audience. They attempt the wear down technique by repeating discussions and providing a repertoire of stories to fit their agenda. They sound credible by using statistics and being able to articulate without much hesitation (avoiding hesitant language). They attempt to mimic the audience by, at times, covering entertainment drama stories that attract the audience (in doing this they improve ratings as well). They ask the audience to think about a few reasons why their position is correct by polls, after they have bombarded the audience with their opinions. They inform the audience that other media networks are one sided, do not have the facts right, and are attempting to persuade their audience. Finally, they offer a few weak arguments from the opposing side by using guest opponents, usually only one to create a one sided battle, so they can over power him/her to make the opposing view look discreditable.

I think the political media realm uses these very tactics on a daily bases to persuade its audience. They attempt the wear down technique by repeating discussions and providing a repertoire of stories to fit their agenda. They sound credible by using statistics and being able to articulate without much hesitation (avoiding hesitant language). They attempt to mimic the audience by, at times, covering entertainment drama stories that attract the audience (in doing this they improve ratings as well). They ask the audience to think about a few reasons why their position is correct by polls, after they have bombarded the audience with their opinions. They inform the audience that other media networks are one sided, do not have the facts right, and are attempting to persuade their audience. Finally, they offer a few weak arguments from the opposing side by using guest opponents, usually only one to create a one sided battle, so they can over power him/her to make the opposing view look discreditable.

"Indoctrination is defined as the intentional manipulation of opinions and preferences and the destruction or prevention of independent judgement"(Stone).

1) How much indoctrination is there in the United States and do you feel indoctrinated?

"Rational-democratic Model: facts, data, and information are neutral, and can settle conflicts" (Stone).

2) Are neutral facts attainable for citizens, or is manipulation and bias impossible to avoid?

Government should not entitle citizens to paying higher taxes as a penalty of not buying the governments health care. Also, I believe the government should not force states to spend billions of dollars because of the plan implemented. States already have to make cuts due to the economy. Government continues to spend tax dollars to sustain economy by bailing out or helping companies that, after the fact, go bankrupt, and waste money. This is another case of the government needing to leave the situation to the states, instead of spending more tax payer money. This is a state issue, period. not a national issue. Now as an individual state, if one feels the need to implement health care regulation to the citizens is necessary, then that is the state's right to do so.

Comes down to one main thing. If we are attacked by a country or terrorist organization, and that attack causes harm to a great number of American civilians or American military personnel; it is our countries duty to react in order to: 1, protect the well being of the country, and 2, let the world know that we will not back down and let enemy groups take advantage of us because we are too soft and or too political. If we did not react and become proactive against the enemy we would have gotten attacked more, following 9/11. Never take your enemies or their actions lightly because they will surprise you in the worst way possible and you will be sure to fall. Who ever does not believe we should have gone to Afghanistan in 2001, has forgotten the emotions and great terror 9/11 brought on our people.

In America there always has to be conflicting beliefs in politics, morals, and justice. Rawls has a biased one sided belief in his own views of how America should be run. But that is what makes America so great, Rawls and Nussbaum are certainly permitted to voice their one sided opinion that there is only one way to run the country correctly. Thus, bringing on the far left of the Democratic Party. However, the far right of the Republican Party does the same thing with its own beliefs. Just like anything in life and in politics, there should be a happy medium. There should be a government and system in place that protects the core foundations of America, but brings forth new ideas involving modern times and the diversity of America.

Although this article is the sad truth, Niger is one of many countries with very similar beliefs and practices. It may be gut wrenching and very foreign to us; however, that way of life is all they know. A country like that does not change because the country as a whole does not want to change. The old Islamic and cultural traditions countries practice freeze them in history. The people not only are uneducated on the modern way of life, but lack the motivation to seek the knowledge to change their own way of life. That does not dismiss the horror women face in countries like Niger, I feel people from western cultures should do their best to help, but there is only so much the modern world can do to influence an entire way of life.