Response PaperThe articles mainly discuss issues about politics especially Chapin’s case, President Reagan’s and President Carter’s speech. Regarding the case of Nixon being allegedly spying and sabotaging the Democrats campaign during election days, I do say that the long and detailed story could possibly convince the public the authenticity of the case, but, since everything is just a hearsay, the case might actually be just a make-up story. First things first, the FBI nor the accusatory was not able to provide any concrete evidence that would proof Chapin spying and sabotaging the Democrats election campaign. Their stories might be detailed and chronologically stated but these are just words and stories and would not convince the public that much. Though Chapin denied the issue and made no further comment, one can say that there is definitely something else going on in there. He confirmed the fact that Segretti and the others were his college friends and told that he never met nor talk to Hunt.
This led his case to nowhere since no further details were known. His denial might actually convey that there is more about the issue. As we know this issue has started from the “Watergate Caper”, the break-in of five men from the Committee for the Re-election of the President in the Democrats territory with spying materials.If you are running candidate for the elections, don’t you think it is a reckless act to send you disciples in the opponent’s territory with their naked objective? Naturally this kind of reckless act would impose a huge issue in the public. If we analyze this situation deeper, one could say that this act might actually be a way or strategy to shift the public’s attention from something else. The other party might have a different plan in campaigning and in order to do this they need to make a distraction. This break-in might be the distraction they did to accomplish their other work, whatever that may be.
A case which could testify this case to be a blunt is the fact that the persons involved was not able to vividly explain the money transaction. Though you are a wealthy man you would not spend huge amount of money not knowing exactly where it had gone. This case is indeed very intriguing but failure to prove the authenticity of it is really disappointing. The issue might have done quite an impact to the public but its failure would be they were not able to prove the case.
In fact, the real issue might actually go of their hands if all this are just made as a distraction for the real dirty plan of the CRP.President Ronal Reagan has indeed been a very effective speaker: using ethos to state his thoughts and ideas thus convincing his people of his desire. His words might have power and authority but it would still leave people thinking. His words saying, “I have seen the conservative future and it works” made me think in a quite sarcastic tone, “Really?” In the most fundamental sense, who among us can see the future? He may imagine the future with how he wants it to be but never can he see it as he wanted it to be.And how was he able to tell his people that he actually sees his plans would work? He is already claiming things that has not yet been done or has happened. Another thing is when he introduces to the public his desire for conservatism; he only tells people the good things about it. As far as I can remember, he did not in any case tell the public his comparisons between having liberal and conservatism as a party.
This would actually make his claim more effective if he was able to prove that conservatism is more preferable than the other.The last article I read was the case of Charlotte-Mecklenburg school system. It had been a very long discussion and many points have been raised but for my opinion, none of these have happened if in the first place everyone disregarded issues about racism.
How is it that other schools are able to have different races all together? We may have different issues about racism but sometimes we have to compensate for those problems in order to avoid huge conflicts.