going green

In my colleagues blog Political Haze the author fails to create a sense of credibility for the reader. The reader is unaware if the author or the source of information is even a credible source. Though the author does a great job of outlining the background information of the issue, without the audiences trust they cant get their point across. With the authors use of “the government should” and the use of words like passionate, shows the authors bias opinion and what message they want to get across. Obviously this author wants the reader to be for the government having a greater involvement in environmental issues, and to make a move for the a greener America. The author also leaves out important information about the clean air act and what that accomplished. And thus by not talking about anything the government did in the last 19 years for the environment it makes the reader think that nothing at all was accomplished which is clearly not the case. However overall the author is truly affective at convincing his audience.

U.S., Canada, and Mexico

President Obama met with the Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper and the president of Mexico Felipe Calderon to discuss issue of immigration, the H1N1 flu pandemic, organized crime, and trade. At there meeting Obama talked about the much needed immigration reform, saying that he doesn't think we will see change till 2010. For one he said that he has many other things on this plate, and " [hes not] going to be able to snap[his] fingers and get this done". However he did say that he hopes to get the laws passed in 2010. I think it is really important that Obama works to get this immigration reform done as soon as possible because we need to make the immigration process fair and run more efficiently. These three countries rely heavily on each other and their relationships are important for commerce. This is why in these talks the President of Mexico, Felipe Calderon was urged to put more efforts on dealing with the organized drug crimes. Obama rightfully said that America would continue helping Mexico with this issue and that, “the biggest, by far, violators of human rights right now are the cartels themselves that are kidnapping people, extorting people and encouraging corruption.” Thus overall it was a successful meeting even though no formal decisions were made. 

critique

The blog "Government by Asia", critics an article about college age students watching the "Daily Show". The writer portrays the article as being against popular shows like "The Daily Show" that give impressionable college age viewers cynical and bias opinions. However, the blog does present  fact that combats its view on the issue. The editorial quotes a fact about the average "Daily Show" viewer being more informed about current events than people that just watch regular news shows. To me this fact holds higher credibility than what the professor quoted in the article. In order to convince your reader, even in an editorial, one must display information from the article that adds to your point, rather than taking away from it. 

Watch what you eat!

The House finally passed legislation to give the Food and Drug Administration(FDA) the resources and the authority needed to prevent food born illnesses. After a year of many food born illnesses in products like hot peppers, spinach, olives, and of course the salmonella in peanut butter. Due to this outbreak of food born illnesses President Obama ordered a review of the FDA in order to prevent similar events from happening. This new House bill requires the FDA to make much needed, more frequent inspections, and give them the authority to require company's keep certain records in order to better trace contaminated foods. Though it seems ridiculous, the FDA currently make such records mandatory, thus the FDA basically "suggests" food and drug safety, while the company's choose whether or not to follow them. It is very important that a government agency that controls much of the health and safety of our people has the power and resources to do its job. Though this bill will most likely not pass in the Senate for another year the FDA has already put many new plans in action. For one, they hired a food-safety specialist, Michael Taylor to focus on issues of food born illnesses. They have also begun to train food inspectors to be more detailed with these more frequent checks. I think there is great importance in inspecting our food, however the House claims it will cost 2.2 billion dollars over five years to put the bill in place. So, we have to ask ourselves, how much money are we willing to spend on the safety of what we consume?

Bang Bang!

The article “A Trigger Lock for the Gun Lobby” published in The Christian Science Monitor by the Monitor’s editorial board, talks about how the senate blocked new conceal and carry laws. The article discusses current gun laws in different states, and how in the past the U.S. Senate and Legislature have lost the battle against gun supporters. After many years of being defeated by the gun rights activists, the US government stopped the passing of a bill that would allow people to cross state lines while carrying a gun, thus changing all state gun laws to the most lenient states rules. The writers of the article are obviously against the extension of conceal and carry laws. This is evident based on their word choice. The article states that "State legislators have also rediscovered their political bullet-proof vests as the gun lobby has pushed aggressively to extend conceal-and-carry to college campuses, taverns, and the workplace". The use of the phrase "Bullet proof vests" shows the authors bias.  Since there is not one author and the actually authors are unknown, the reader must base the articles credibility on the news source it was found in. The Christian Science Monitor is a credible new source, however it may be bias to those of the Christan faith. Thus their audience may be one that is more religious and values life, and therefore is pro gun control. By personifying gun issues with phrases like "bullet proof vests" and "pistol packing" it adds a more frightening level to the issue, it makes the issues real. This tactic adds life to the writers argument, and thus truly affects the readers. The author uses the example of the Virginia Tech shooting to gain authority by addressing a popular topic. I agree with this article because I believe that the highest form of gun control is really the best way to protect the American people. I also think the author of this piece gave a great argument and led you to his conclusion through examples and beautiful diction. 

Hate Crimes, How to deal?

With the ever increasing issue of hate crimes, legislators are working to pass new hate-crime legislation that would "expand federal jurisdiction from crimes motivated by the victim's race, color, religion, or national origin to include the victim's gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability". The new law would also require all hate-crime cases to become the business of the federal government rather than state courts. David Rittgers argues against this new legislation with two main points. First he states that crimes involving racist, homophobic, and anti-Semitic acts along with many other crimes of this sort are already dealt with using the highest levels of punishment, while being viewed as true atrocities. Thus he argues that the new law is not needed due to the fact that these crimes are already given the needed attention. Secondly he points out that many people who commit hate crimes due such things in order to be viewed by their peers as a mortar. Therefore, by prosecuting them differently for their ideology is giving them exactly what they want and encourages their followers to copy their actions. Rittgers wants his audience to see the danger in letting this legislation pass. This article is published in The Christian Science Monitor , which means it is appealing to people that uphold themselves to Christian values and that consider themselves religious people. So, Rittgers is saying to them specifically, that this new law will possibly endanger their religious life, because it could encourage a hate crime against Christians. Rittgers gains credibility by giving recent examples of hate crimes in the US and how they were prosecuted. His gives a sound argument by leading the reader to a logical conclusion that his position on the topic is just. I have to agree with what the author states. I think that this legislation will only encourage like minded people of these so called mortars to commit similar crimes.

Rittger, David. "Hate-Crime Legislation Would Backfire". The Christian Science Monitor. July 10
2009.

Post 1 Health care

In the Wall Street Journal article, House Panel Starts Health-Care Bill Review, discuses a bill that is currently being reviewed in the House. The bill proposes a public run health care option that would compete with privately owned health care providers. Plus it calls for an expansion of Medicaid, a surtax on families making over 350,000 dollars to cover this expansion, and the cost of subsidies for the uninsured. Democrats and Republicans differ greatly on their views over the issue of government spending and of public health care. The Democrats feel as though this bill will decrease health care costs, while protecting many Americans that are currently uninsured. Republicans on the other hand believe this bill will destroy employer-sponsored insurance and leave many more people uninsured, while costing the government large amounts of money. This however is not the important issue to me. The bill also includes a move to expand employee tax benefits to same-sex, non-spouse partners. This bill is estimated to cost the government 4 billion dollars over the next ten years. I think this aspect of the bill is very important and controversial in today society. If this bill passes than same-sex couples will have gained one of the same rights traditional marriages have always received. Thus this issue is extremely relevant and should be closely followed by informed citizens.