Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Response to Berlin's CHIP and Medicade
I also agree with Berlin. There is no reason why there are families out there that qualify for government support and do not take advantage of it. There is no excuse for there to be families that have no idea about the programs. It is the responsibility of the government to do everything within there power to educate families on the programs available to them. We live in a time now where we are very technologically advanced which makes it easy to communicate and inform people even over large areas. It is sad for the government to use an excuse such as Texas is very large so it makes it hard to inform everyone.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Response to "Woman to be extradited to US to face charges; parents of victum clash on punishment for crime."
When I started to read the article I thought it was going to be about a parent that did not want to prosecute the person who accidentally killed daughter in a drunk driving accident. At first it seemed like it was going to be a touching story about two parents who found it themselves to forgive the woman possible. I thought it was really neat because you would think the girl would realize the magnitude of what she did and would change her lifestyle or at least make better choices. It is now evident that her life is the same which is shown on her myspace page which has a picture of the girl drinking and a quote that says "Life's too short... so live it up". I agree with Elyssa and believe that the government should do everything within their power to bring the girl to justice.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Maintain Neutrality
Consider the source and audience.
The argument found in the article is between members of the Texas Education agency. This article was found in the Dallas Morning News without a certain columnist being recognized for writing the article. The article is written to inform everyday normal citizens. The arguments presented in the story are not meant entertainment purposes so there is nothing to change to help keep an audience.
Lay out the argument and the underlying values and assumptions.
The basic argument is between two different parties, the Texas Education Agency, or TEA, and Chris Comer. The TEA is forcing Comer to resign because of an e-mail that she sent which the TEA says it show that Comer is not neutral about intelligent design and evolution. The e-mail that comer sent announced "a presentation being given by the author of Inside Creationism's Trojan Horse. In the book, author Barbara Forrest says creationist politics are behind the movement to get intelligent design". The values that the TEA find important is being neutral and they believe that Comer supports one side stronger than the other.
Uncover the evidence.
The argument between the two parties are supported with facts and evidence. The TEA came strait out and talked about the e-mail and why what Comer did was unacceptable. The TEA as a whole decided they did not want the upcoming ideas or curriculum to be talked about outside the agency which is what they believed she did when when she sent the e-mail.
Evaluate the conclusion.
I believe the argument is successful because I can see why the TEA believes Comer should not have done what she did. It does convince me that TEA was justified with the forced resignation of Comer. The reason I believe that is because if your job or boss requires something of you and sets guidelines you have to follow those or there are consequences. The article did not change any of my beliefs because of what I just said. If your boss tells not to do something and you do it anyway you will face repercussions.
Sort out the political implications.
The political significance of the argument is that it can influence the way intelligent design and evolution are presented in classrooms across the state. This article shows me that the political world is just like any job were you have a boss. There is always somebody higher than you that you have to answer to.
The article commented on above can be found bl clicking here.
The argument found in the article is between members of the Texas Education agency. This article was found in the Dallas Morning News without a certain columnist being recognized for writing the article. The article is written to inform everyday normal citizens. The arguments presented in the story are not meant entertainment purposes so there is nothing to change to help keep an audience.
Lay out the argument and the underlying values and assumptions.
The basic argument is between two different parties, the Texas Education Agency, or TEA, and Chris Comer. The TEA is forcing Comer to resign because of an e-mail that she sent which the TEA says it show that Comer is not neutral about intelligent design and evolution. The e-mail that comer sent announced "a presentation being given by the author of Inside Creationism's Trojan Horse. In the book, author Barbara Forrest says creationist politics are behind the movement to get intelligent design". The values that the TEA find important is being neutral and they believe that Comer supports one side stronger than the other.
Uncover the evidence.
The argument between the two parties are supported with facts and evidence. The TEA came strait out and talked about the e-mail and why what Comer did was unacceptable. The TEA as a whole decided they did not want the upcoming ideas or curriculum to be talked about outside the agency which is what they believed she did when when she sent the e-mail.
Evaluate the conclusion.
I believe the argument is successful because I can see why the TEA believes Comer should not have done what she did. It does convince me that TEA was justified with the forced resignation of Comer. The reason I believe that is because if your job or boss requires something of you and sets guidelines you have to follow those or there are consequences. The article did not change any of my beliefs because of what I just said. If your boss tells not to do something and you do it anyway you will face repercussions.
Sort out the political implications.
The political significance of the argument is that it can influence the way intelligent design and evolution are presented in classrooms across the state. This article shows me that the political world is just like any job were you have a boss. There is always somebody higher than you that you have to answer to.
The article commented on above can be found bl clicking here.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Response to "Why You Should Vote November 6th" by Carrie
I agree with the article but only to a certain extent because I am torn on the issue. I believe that everyone should vote to maximize the potential of a democracy. If everyone does not vote it is possible that some of the bills or elected officials are supported by only the select few that voted. On the other hand I think that it is a good thing that a lot of people don't vote. The reason I believe this is because I think a lot of people are ill informed on issues and may not vote for things that are in the best intrest of the state.
Friday, November 2, 2007
Kids Health Bill
Consider the source and audience.
This article was found in the San Antonio Express News. It was written by Associated Press special correspondent David Espo. There is an argument because many people believe that it is wrong for young children to have to go without health care because their family is too poor. The article is written to inform the general public on political figures beliefs. I don't think Espo needs to do anything different to attract more of and audience.
Lay out the argument and the underlying values and assumptions.
The basic argument is that all children should have health insurance even if your family doesn't have enough money. The argument relies on the fact that several children are uninsured. The values that are being argued about are basically between the President Bush and the democratic party. Bush doesn't believe that taxes should be raised to support pay for the children's insurance while the democratic party thinks they should. The article is very clear and well explained.
Uncover the evidence.
The article is supported by facts and evidence. For example in the article it was stated that there are 6 million children that benefit from the current financial support and that 4 million more will be covered if the new bill is passed. It is also stated in the article that children have to provide a birth certificate to make sure that no illegal aliens will benefit from the program.
Is the argument successful?
I believe that the argument is very successful because it can make people feel bad for the children. That is very important because it could sway someones political views and try to get someone in office who will get the bill passed. I'm not quiet sure that I completely support the new bill. Yes I feel bad for the kids but I don't believe in other people have to help pay for their bills because of higher taxes so my opinion really didn't change.
Sort out the political implications.
The political significance of this article is that if the bill is never passed and put into effect a large portion of lower class families will vote for a democratic president so you can bet they will have an great effect on the next presidential election. The article once again shows how important money is in politics.
The article commented on above can be found bl clicking here.
This article was found in the San Antonio Express News. It was written by Associated Press special correspondent David Espo. There is an argument because many people believe that it is wrong for young children to have to go without health care because their family is too poor. The article is written to inform the general public on political figures beliefs. I don't think Espo needs to do anything different to attract more of and audience.
Lay out the argument and the underlying values and assumptions.
The basic argument is that all children should have health insurance even if your family doesn't have enough money. The argument relies on the fact that several children are uninsured. The values that are being argued about are basically between the President Bush and the democratic party. Bush doesn't believe that taxes should be raised to support pay for the children's insurance while the democratic party thinks they should. The article is very clear and well explained.
Uncover the evidence.
The article is supported by facts and evidence. For example in the article it was stated that there are 6 million children that benefit from the current financial support and that 4 million more will be covered if the new bill is passed. It is also stated in the article that children have to provide a birth certificate to make sure that no illegal aliens will benefit from the program.
Is the argument successful?
I believe that the argument is very successful because it can make people feel bad for the children. That is very important because it could sway someones political views and try to get someone in office who will get the bill passed. I'm not quiet sure that I completely support the new bill. Yes I feel bad for the kids but I don't believe in other people have to help pay for their bills because of higher taxes so my opinion really didn't change.
Sort out the political implications.
The political significance of this article is that if the bill is never passed and put into effect a large portion of lower class families will vote for a democratic president so you can bet they will have an great effect on the next presidential election. The article once again shows how important money is in politics.
The article commented on above can be found bl clicking here.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Agree to Dissagree
Consider the source and audience.
The article "Governor's endorsement of Giuliani draws criticism" was published in the Fort Worth Star Telegram. The article was published by staff writer John Moritz. I think that Moritz brought to every ones attention that Governor Perry is supporting Rudy Giuliani to show everyone how politicians basically tell people what they want to hear but when it comes down to it they do what they think is in the best interest for themselves. Moritz is doing a good job and is going to keep his audiences interested because people want to hear controversial stories.
Lay out the argument and the underlying values and assumptions.
The basic argument of the article is that Governor Perry is supporting someone who does not share the same beliefs as him. An assumption that the article does present is that Governor Perry is setting himself up to move up the political rankings. I believe that if you elect a person because you share the beliefs as them, no matter what they may be, they should uphold those beliefs and support other people who have the same.
Uncover the evidence.
The article is supported with facts and evidence the Governor Perry supports presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani. Governor Perry "appeared with Giuliani in Washington , D.C. and in Iowa after endorsing him on Wednesday morning. It goes with out saying that if you travel with someone to show your support you obviously want to them to win whatever election they are in.
Evaluate the conclusion.
I do believe that the argument is successful because it shows that Governor Perry is supporting someone who disagrees with him on a lot of major political issues. The article doesn't change my mind about any previous beliefs because I have always thought that politicians are always going to tell you what you want to hear and once they win they will do whatever they want.
Sort out the political implications.
The political significance of the article is that if Governor Perry has a lot of loyal supporters who trust his judgement they to could support Giuliani which in result could help him win Texas in the presidential election. The political world depends strongly on who has the support of who and if a democrat can get a large portion of republicans to support them they have a great chance of winning the election.
The article commented on above can be found by clicking here.
The article "Governor's endorsement of Giuliani draws criticism" was published in the Fort Worth Star Telegram. The article was published by staff writer John Moritz. I think that Moritz brought to every ones attention that Governor Perry is supporting Rudy Giuliani to show everyone how politicians basically tell people what they want to hear but when it comes down to it they do what they think is in the best interest for themselves. Moritz is doing a good job and is going to keep his audiences interested because people want to hear controversial stories.
Lay out the argument and the underlying values and assumptions.
The basic argument of the article is that Governor Perry is supporting someone who does not share the same beliefs as him. An assumption that the article does present is that Governor Perry is setting himself up to move up the political rankings. I believe that if you elect a person because you share the beliefs as them, no matter what they may be, they should uphold those beliefs and support other people who have the same.
Uncover the evidence.
The article is supported with facts and evidence the Governor Perry supports presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani. Governor Perry "appeared with Giuliani in Washington , D.C. and in Iowa after endorsing him on Wednesday morning. It goes with out saying that if you travel with someone to show your support you obviously want to them to win whatever election they are in.
Evaluate the conclusion.
I do believe that the argument is successful because it shows that Governor Perry is supporting someone who disagrees with him on a lot of major political issues. The article doesn't change my mind about any previous beliefs because I have always thought that politicians are always going to tell you what you want to hear and once they win they will do whatever they want.
Sort out the political implications.
The political significance of the article is that if Governor Perry has a lot of loyal supporters who trust his judgement they to could support Giuliani which in result could help him win Texas in the presidential election. The political world depends strongly on who has the support of who and if a democrat can get a large portion of republicans to support them they have a great chance of winning the election.
The article commented on above can be found by clicking here.
Friday, October 5, 2007
The rich get richer while the poor get poorer.
Consider the source and audience.
The article titled "Older black communities hurt by family issues, appraisal hike" is written by Leslie Casimir. Casimir is a immigration reporter that concentrates on black immigration in the United States. This article was published in the Houston Chronicle which I was intended to educate the general public.
Lay out the argument and the underlying values and assumptions.
The basic argument of the article is that African Americans in Houston are losing houses that they inherited because of taxes that they can not afford because of appraisal increases. The assumption that the article relies on is that there are several families and individuals that are being affected by the taxes because they simply do not have the money to afford it. In the article Casimir never comes out and says what she thinks the government should do but from the article I think that she believes that the government needs to lower the taxes or create some type of payment system that is easier for them to afford.
Uncover the evidence.
I think that Casimir has made a good argument and has supported it well with facts. She stated in her article that the number of houses being foreclosed has gone up considerably in the past three months. Her article stated that "328 (houses) in August, 389 in September, and 447 this month. That is a drastic increase especially considering we are only five days into October. Casimir also backs up her article by introducing the dollar amount owed by the residents in the third ward, were most of the house foreclosures are taking place. the third ward alone owes the county 17 million in tax dollars because of the resent appraisal hike.
Evaluate the conclusion.
I believe that Casimir's argument is successful in two different ways. She convinced me and brought to my attention that there is a serious problem in Houston. I think they have to find an alternate way for the county to get their money but also for the residents to also get to keep their houses. Casimir was successful in changing my mind because she simply introduced me to a problem that is effecting several people. I used to believe that everyone should pay their taxes with no questions asked. Now I believe that when someone buys a house that they should get to pay the original tax for the property for the extent of them owning that property. Once the house is sold then i think it is okay for the property tax to go up to what it should be. If that were to happen the buyer would know what is to be expected from them financially instead of a long time owner get hit with tax raise after tax raise.
Sort out the political implications.
This article is very important because it shows that you never truly own your land. You will always be making some form of payment on it. The government just like everybody else is dependent on money because it helps them continue to be successful. It is a shame because people who have had houses in their families for close to 100 years are losing them. This is another perfect example showing that wealthy people are going to get the better thing in life.
The article written about in this blog can be found by clicking here.
The article titled "Older black communities hurt by family issues, appraisal hike" is written by Leslie Casimir. Casimir is a immigration reporter that concentrates on black immigration in the United States. This article was published in the Houston Chronicle which I was intended to educate the general public.
Lay out the argument and the underlying values and assumptions.
The basic argument of the article is that African Americans in Houston are losing houses that they inherited because of taxes that they can not afford because of appraisal increases. The assumption that the article relies on is that there are several families and individuals that are being affected by the taxes because they simply do not have the money to afford it. In the article Casimir never comes out and says what she thinks the government should do but from the article I think that she believes that the government needs to lower the taxes or create some type of payment system that is easier for them to afford.
Uncover the evidence.
I think that Casimir has made a good argument and has supported it well with facts. She stated in her article that the number of houses being foreclosed has gone up considerably in the past three months. Her article stated that "328 (houses) in August, 389 in September, and 447 this month. That is a drastic increase especially considering we are only five days into October. Casimir also backs up her article by introducing the dollar amount owed by the residents in the third ward, were most of the house foreclosures are taking place. the third ward alone owes the county 17 million in tax dollars because of the resent appraisal hike.
Evaluate the conclusion.
I believe that Casimir's argument is successful in two different ways. She convinced me and brought to my attention that there is a serious problem in Houston. I think they have to find an alternate way for the county to get their money but also for the residents to also get to keep their houses. Casimir was successful in changing my mind because she simply introduced me to a problem that is effecting several people. I used to believe that everyone should pay their taxes with no questions asked. Now I believe that when someone buys a house that they should get to pay the original tax for the property for the extent of them owning that property. Once the house is sold then i think it is okay for the property tax to go up to what it should be. If that were to happen the buyer would know what is to be expected from them financially instead of a long time owner get hit with tax raise after tax raise.
Sort out the political implications.
This article is very important because it shows that you never truly own your land. You will always be making some form of payment on it. The government just like everybody else is dependent on money because it helps them continue to be successful. It is a shame because people who have had houses in their families for close to 100 years are losing them. This is another perfect example showing that wealthy people are going to get the better thing in life.
The article written about in this blog can be found by clicking here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)