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