Critique

Brooke does a great job outlining a new law in Arizona banning illegal immigrants in her last post. She makes it clear was her opinion of the matter is. She believes that illegal immigrants should not be allowed into the state, because it isn't fair for others who have gone through the proper tests and functions. She also presents the counter view that this law may encourage racial profiling. It is great that Brooke showed both sides of the argument. The only thing I would like to hear more about it perhaps how these laws are going to put in place and the exact affects from them. Will it make the state more safe? And how will it affect the citizens?

U.S. Government

In my opinion, the U.S. government needs to make several changes in order to get its citizens involved. Political knowledge within our nation has been decreasing for the past few years. America's citizens do not feel as if they can make an impact in our governmental system by just one vote. However, we do not live in a true democracy if not everyone is heard. The creation of several organizations such as "green peace"or animal protection groups have given people a sense of unity and right to be heard in our government. These groups also encourage people to aim for a goal or purpose within our country. However, citizens should be able to trust that they can affect the government, and not just the wealthy. As of now, many people believe that the right to impact political officials is reserved to the wealthy. This is often the truth. All citizens should be able to trust their voice within our nation and feel as if their vote matters. Unless the U.S. wants our country to eventually be run by only the elite, the government needs to encourage political participation by its citizens.

Critique

The blog post “Medicinal Marijuana” by Shawnta Anderson is written in a clear and concise manner. It is easy to follow, and the main points are clearly outlined. It is clear that the author is arguing for the legalization of marijuana. Shawnta does a great job comparing marijuana to alcohol and demonstrates that alcohol is often more dangerous than marijuana. She states two reasons why alcohol is dangerous: liver disease and poison to the body.

Shawnta also does a good job considering the other side of her argument. She states that legalizing marijuana may increase its production and trafficking. This is an argument that many people may make against legalization. However, Shawnta argues that the government should spend more time dealing with drugs that produce worse affects. She also claims that the government is spending too much money in order to convict those with marijuana.

This is a strong argument considering the current state of our economy. The government is looking for ways to cut spending and maximize money within the system. Therefore, I think that Shawnta makes a very good point stating that thousands of dollars are spent on something that may be legalized.

One thing that I would like to read more about in this article is the beneficial use of marijuana. It would be a strong argument to prove that marijuana could seriously help with certain illnesses or diseases. Now that is has been shown that marijuana isn’t extremely harmful, how can it be helpful?

Shawnta’s post is very coherent and presents a valid argument. I enjoyed being able to read her blog and understand the exact points and arguments that she was trying to present. Well done.

The U.S. Government in 2010

Our government is in a place where action is crucial. The economy is down and people are losing jobs by the hundreds. Obama conducted his campaign based on “change” and a new beginning for our country. However, since his election, the American people are still waiting for things to look up. Many of my fellow republicans claim that Obama is only creating more problems within our government and making the economy worse. Although Obama did not have my vote, he won the election. He has been placed in power over our country. Therefore, I feel a sense of submission and support him in leading our country.

Instead of bashing Obama for not making immediate fixes, I would like to look into how he is trying to change the U.S. government. Regarding our economy, Obama claims that he is trying to create more jobs. By signing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, our president is hoping to save 3.5 million jobs. Although right now all we have seen is job loss, perhaps there is hope for the future. Obama is also trying to make homes more affordable for families who are struggling to have places to live. In terms of civil rights, Obama is working to make anti-discrimination laws stronger. He is currently fighting for equal pay for many employees. He is also working on getting more severe punishment for hate crime. This is extremely important for a nation that is trying to live within the principle of equality.

In other areas of our government, heavy funding has been invested within education. Emphasis has been put on early education, so that our students will be better equipped citizens in our nation. Our community will function much better if our citizens are well educated. The president has promised to offer better incentives to our teachers. I believe that this will encourage them to teach well and impact their students. In terms of foreign policy, our government is working towards protecting our country. Obama wants to have all troops out of Iraq by 2011. He claims that he wants to stabilize the forces of Iraqi Security. The government has a plan to keep all terrorists from entering our country.

As stated, the government has the ability to change the state of our nation for better or worse. We are in a war against terrorism and our economy is suffering. The president has made many hopeful predictions about the future of our nation. Instead of criticizing him, I will hope for the best for our country and hope that the change Obama promises will come.

Blog Critique

The Smirking Chimp is a left leaning blog. Writers who post within this blog have fairly liberal views and are often against conservative views. The writer of this post, Rose Aguilar, is a woman. She is extremely interested in women’s issues and activism. She has interviewed several people about different political issues. She has also hosted a radio station. Therefore, I believe that the source is quite credible. Aguilar is well known and is an active member in several different organizations. I presume that since she has run a few political talk shows, she has a fair amount of knowledge.

Since Aguilar is interested in women activism, I believe that her intended audience is women. Rose Aguilar is blogging about certain laws being passed that are making self induced abortions illegal. The audience doesn’t even need to look past the title of Aguilar’s blog in order to know her opinion-Meet Rep. Carl Wimmer, the Man Behind Utah's New Law Criminalizing Miscarriages When most people think of miscarriage, they think of a woman losing her baby without wanting to. However, Wimmer is trying to pass laws making self induced abortion illegal. Aguilar claims that these laws would weaken the decision made in Roe v. Wade. It is apparent that Aguilar’s intended audience is pro-choice. The writer seems to think that making self induced abortions illegal is ridiculous. This can be seen by the questions she asks in her interview with Representative Carl Wimmer. She continually asks what his actual goal is in passing these laws. She also asks if he believes that educating teen girls about sex would be more beneficial than these laws.

Rose Aguilar asks Wimmer what kind of circumstances the law would apply to. She also continues to ask him what the implications of the laws would be. Will Carl Wimmer hope to pass a law against abortion overall? Also, she asks him how he will make sure that the children who are born have good lives. Lastly, she claims that he couldn’t possibly believe in the death penalty if he is against abortion. This shows Aguilar’s use of logic. This is a good argument, because many people believe that killing others is wrong overall. However, Aguilar points out that it doesn’t make sense for Wimmer to pass laws against abortion, yet be for the death penalty.

Aguilar gives great evidence when she states that the amount of teen pregnancies went down when the schools focused on sex education. She alludes to the fact that sex education may be a better answer than laws against abortion. Perhaps, if the schools educated young teens, they wouldn’t get pregnant. Her argument is clear and cohesive. She argues that the law is not defined enough to apply to certain situations as well.

I believe that her argument is organized and easy to understand. Although I do not agree with her views on abortion, she presents facts that lead me to understand another perspective. Her argument is logical, contains evidence, and she appears to be quite credible.

The article “Voters can end dysfunction at State Board of Education” (Austin American Statesman, February 14th 2010) was published by the Austin American Statesmen. This newspaper publishes articles focused on different issues within our city and the surrounding area. It is neither a purely republican or democratic newspaper. In 2000 and 2004, the newspaper endorsed Bush. However, in the most recent election, it endorsed Obama. It is apparent that the author of this editorial is writing to potential voters. The audience is anyone eligible to vote for representatives within our State Board of Education. The author is arguing that the current board is dysfunctional. One of the author’s key points is that our school system is focused too much on basic skills than technology. However, the author does not clarify what certain elements of technology should be stressed within our school system. Basic skills are necessary for students to graduate and enter into the workforce. Therefore, the author should elaborate on which basic skills are overemphasized within our schools. Another argument is that our schools should not focus on abstinence when we have so many teenage pregnancies within our city. The editorial does not outline how long the schools have emphasized abstinence or alternative measures for preventing pregnancy. The author seems to assume that if citizens vote for the representatives noted, these problems will be solved. Although the potential candidates are listed with a brief comment of their experience, their views and goals for our schools are not mentioned. The article doesn’t seem to have much evidence. In order to be more persuasive, the author should have added numerical data. Information about the specific number of teen pregnancies would be beneficial. Also, testing scores and how technology would affect them would support his argument. The editorial seems to be focused more on emotion than evidence. The author seems to be venting his feelings about our education board, rather than explaining how to overcome these issues. This article is not very convincing to me. The author has understandable arguments, but they are not supported. I agree that our school system has room to improve and needs to find creative ways to enhance learning. However, I will not vote for these candidates simply because our board doesn’t seem functional. I must see proof of the candidates’ goals and beliefs. The author is making an argument based on emotion. This makes me believe that sometimes people vote on gut reaction. Many peoples’ reaction to this editorial may be “Yes, our board is dysfunctional. Therefore, I agree with the rest of the article.” However, it is important to find further insight when voting. I want to believe that our citizens never vote from pure emotion, but this article makes me believe it is a possibility.

Michelle Obama in Action

I think it is often assumed that the lady of the White house does not carry her own agenda. Many times, we believe that the president has certain goals or aspirations and his wife simply supports him. Although it is crucial for the president to have this support from his wife, I think it is very admirable when the women of the White house have their own goals as well.

Michelle Obama has already demonstrated that she will use her time in the White house in order to strive toward accomplishing great goals. An article in the NY Times outlines her plan to better the nutrition of children within our country. Her Campaign has been named "Let's Move" and focuses not only on food nutrition, but activity and medical examinations for children. Mrs. Obama was able to convince three different companies to reduce the amount of unhealthy ingredients in their school lunches. This alone is a huge accomplishment, considering small changes in diets will make a large impact for children.

In my opinion, her plan itself is admirable. However, many people may disregard this because plans for children's health have come and gone. This is where Obama's plan differs from the rest. Many other nutrition campaigns have lacked agreement between different departments. President Obama has signed an order to instill cooperation among departments such as the Department of Agriculture and Education. This coordination is what really struck me in this article. Many politicians have dreams and aspirations. However, there are so many competing views within different sectors of our government. It is great that Obama got these different departments to coordinate.

The two main ideas that inspired me from this article were Michelle Obama's drive to make a change, and the great strategy of gaining support from several departments. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/health/nutrition/10obesity.html?ref=politics