Grand Old Party vs. Occupiers

First off I would like to congratulate you for picking an article with an important point of view. The point of view featured in the editorial you critiqued definitely takes an interesting twist on who to blame for all the economic trouble the common people have. Since a lot of homeless and weird hippies have shown up to the “Occupy Wall Street”, the movement has been downplayed by the media to the public. It has been thought of s another failed ideology, which is not true as emphasized by the article explaining that there are just people “who just think the deck is stacked against them” and think there is something that must be done about it, hence why the movement started.

For the length of the article you decided to critique on your editorial was too short. The length of your editorial cannot cover the entire article well. You also seemed to not have focused on a specific area, which would then allow for a shorter editorial, until the end of your editorial. Even then it seemed rush. The quotes were crammed and not explained. A rule of thumb that could help out would be that for every quote there must be at least 3 sentences that precede the quote, explaining why the quote was chosen. I am specifically talking about the last sentence which is a quote. It’s a nice quote to end with because it does leave the reader thinking, which is the purpose of an editorial, but there is no explication why the quote is chosen. Therefore leaving the quote by itself makes the writer look immature as though they lost train of thought of what they were going to write about and decided to insert a random quote to cover it up. Also on that last paragraph I saw different ideas that could have amounted to at least another paragraph. You could’ve taken “"The point is that we…” to “…..regulation and policies” and made it its own paragraph. Adding length to the editorial by giving examples of when the “little man” gets run over by the regulations and policies while the wealthy don’t.

On middle paragraph when you write about the writer and why the article is legitimate, it could have been narrowed to no more than three sentences since it’s not relevant to the topic at hand. Instead of using a whole paragraph to explain why this article is legitimate, the space could have been used to write a short summary about what the article is about. To which the reader would appreciate, because when I first started reading the article I did not understand what you were trying to say until I read the article itself. Then you could have tied it in to why it’s a relevant article, when the author says that a republican should take stance and control the situation, since it contains some insight on how the public is starting to view the Grand Old Party.

Lastly, I enjoyed your opening paragraph. It shows intellectual curiosity about a relevant issue and why a person reads what it reads based on interest such as “what an occupier is”. The article definitely gave me a different opinion on what I was beginning to think about “Occupy Wall Street” and who to “blame”.

What Now Obama?

Once again the political debate left a lot of people wondering who will be the Republican Candidate to take lead against Barack Obama in the upcoming elections. The remaining eight candidates (Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Jon Huntsman and Rick Santorum) all stood firm during the South CarolinaPresidential debate sponsored by CBS, the National Journal and the Republican Party of South Carolina. From the beginning, candidates such as Jon Huntsman and Herman Cain wrestled for time against the mediators, who enforced the time limit strictly. The candidates longed for those extra seconds that could have them achieve the highest form of approval; the wave of applause by the public. Unfortunately there were times when the candidate’s extended responses caused tension between the mediator and the candidate, making the candidate appear childish to the public.

The main topic of the night was foreign policy and national security. It was emphasized from the beginning by the mediators that when the president assumes power it will be expected and demanded that he or she is able to make drastic decisions in a short amount of time. For most of the debate candidates spoke of reasonable answers that they would implement if they became president until the mediator asked what their stance on torture was, more specifically water boarding. On this question all hell broke loose, as the alliances that the candidates had formed, enforcing each other’s theoretical policies were broken; it became Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman vs. Michelle Bachmann and Herman Cain. The group of republicans was divided on the issue of “should torture be legal”. Herman Cain played around with the subject, calling it an “enhanced interrogation technique” instead of torture, saying it was vital way to get the truth. Cain teamed up with Michele Bachmann who agreed with Cain that torture should still be implemented since it was very effective against terrorists on previous years. She explained that “we have no jail for terrorists” and if torture is not used, is as “if we have decided to loose in the war on terror under president Obama”. Those words struck the public who eagerly applauded to finally hear Bachmann speak defiantly in the debate.

Then Ron Paul entered the debate. At first he shyly stood as he said “torture is illegal by our laws and international law”, then gained height as he continued stating that not only is water boarding “immoral and impractical” its “un-American”, the ending he needed to get the audience up and cheering. Michelle Bachmann quickly tried to add in a side comment in her defense but was shot down by the mediator who sensing a victory for Ron Paul, introduced Jon Huntsman who had yet to speak in the debate. He started off with a personal anecdote about his two boys who serve in the Army and all they want to do is “protect” the American values. As an ambassador he saw that “we should not torture we dilute ourselves down”, implying that the United States has an international image to keep up, which a “lot of people in corners of this world still look up to”, a point of view that most of the public agreed with hence the loud cheers that erupted. Even with their divided views on certain topics all Republican candidates agreed with Newt Gingrich statement that “Every single one of us is better than Barack Obama “

                It’s unfortunate to say, but some candidates took the floor more often than others, leaving some candidates on the dark while having other’s outshine them.  The next republican debate will be broadcasted Nov.22 which hopefully will allow those candidates that didn’t shine their turn at the spot light. 

Blog 6- Alabama has issues

The subject of Immigration is more often than not a good topic for discussion since it’s a topic with no right or wrong answer. The Alabama Immigration law unconstitutional by Mieroux had a good topic but I saw no critique. It appeared to have more information than opinion, which is the sole purpose of an editorial. The paragraph he wrote would be a good fit for the “breaking news” of a news paper, short and sweet brief glance over the immigration issue in Alabama. The editorial could have elaborated more on how the law has “affected many farmers who have lost many Hispanic workers” and perhaps added in a story of why the Hispanic workers are a “vital part to harvesting crops”, same with the public school issue. this not only would strengthen the editorial, but enlarge it as well since it appeared to be a bit short.  Perhaps a way to remember how to write a good editorial is “inform, promote, praise and entertain”. An easy way to websites relating to the article without having to MLA every website would be to “link” the websites, which is an option in the “new post” section. This also serves as a good tool for the reader because they can go back to the websites the article focused on and get a further understanding of the subject at hand.

Blog 5- The Swell Texan Governor

Since I have been unconsciously writing about Rick Perry in my past blogs, I figured it was time to discover the man behind the mask. The first placed I looked was his own presidential campaign website where he had a few essays dedicated to his accomplishments and future presidency plans.

The first essay covered Perry’s extensive resume, ranging from his humble origins in the small community of Paint Creek, to a twice elected Aggie Yell Leader with a bachelor’sdegree in Animal Science, to a C-130 pilot of the Air Force and finally to a three times elected Texas Governor. The rest of the essays were used to shine on Perry’s widely known achievement within the Texas economy and how they could be taken as a reference to impulse the US economy if Perry was to ever get his shot at Washington.  Each of the essay’s title exemplified Perry’s goals for the future; Jobs, tax relief, spending, liberty, security and prosperity. Not very original, but I guess it’ll do.

The last essay, “BelieveAgain” was the one that caught my attention. Not because I wished to believe again in the government but because of the remarkable similarity it held with the 2008 Obama’s campaign slogan; “a Change we can believe in”. It’s not only because both contain the word “believe” that I found the similarity, but the intentions behind are the same, show the public that their approach is something new and unique and that this time it will actually work, and set Washington straight.

Both Perry and Obama had similar plans, both wanted to lower taxes and increase jobs, both wanted to minimize unnecessary federal government spending in order to maximize the use of tax payer dollars and both wished to “restore the confidence in the American dream” where everybody has an equal and fair chance. Essentially both had the same bottom line. The only distinction between both candidates was that one had solid hard rock solid data while the other one didn’t. Perry has a lot more statistical facts than Obama does, all ranging from jobs created to approval of government jobs, which is why for Obama the slogan “a change we can believe in” may no longer work for the upcoming elections since Perry’s statistical data is something no one wants to compare themselves to.

Overall I find Perry to be the Obama’s republican, except with more hair and a lot more candidates to battle before obtaining Republican nomination to the presidency.  

Blog 4- Can't swoon nobody

Can Mitt make theladies swoon? An interesting title, definitely catchy, unfortunately the story doesn’t live up to it. As I read the article I was expecting more information about Republican policies that would affect women. Instead I found the same shallow subjects that I characterize the Republican Party with; looks. For some reason the author felt it was imperative to spend a whole paragraph comparing Romney to a “more Ralph Lauran” and Perry to “the traditional Marlboro Man” followed by the comparison of the two candidates to a perspective High school stereo group. As the economy is right now, with the 99 percent people crowding Wall Street ready to change everything, I think comparing and analyzing our future president looks to popular figures is the last thing anybody should worry about.

Though I did like her effort to try and make a political blog, by adding statistics every so often. First starting with Obama’s triumph over Sen. John McCain “70 to 29 percent among single women”, and moving right along today’s polls: Obama versus the Republican candidates, where the closest “49 percent would go to Obama, and 41 percent to Romney.” But then the public reaches the question. Who are these women? Single women only? Middle aged and married only? Or are we speaking of certain race groups? Socioeconomic groups? Who are these women that support either candidate? That’s a prominent issue I saw in her blog, defining who the women are because no longer can one generalize by gender only, other factors must be taken into consideration. especially in a country where more than 50% of the population is Hispanic, like it or not the Hispanics will play a vital role in the upcoming election thus their opinion may be valuable.

Another thing I could not help but point out, was the paragraph she wrote on Romney’s undivided attention to a woman speaking, for “he listened intently, without a hint of condescension” treating the “attractive and articulate” woman like “an equal”. The fact that she referred back to beauty made me loose all hope on the blog, because listening to a woman and treating her like an equal has nothing to do with her attractiveness or unattractiveness but instead her coherence of words and ideas.

Writing a blog is not about choosing a topic, picking a side and adding statistics. It’s about putting actual effort and thought into a subject, especially one with such importance as the presidential candidates. 

Blog 3

Last month the massive wildfire that swept through Bastrop made it to The New York Times editorials, but with a new twist. The editorial was titled “Life without Government” by Bill Keller, and similar to any story written recently about the Bastrop Wildfire area, its primary focus was the devastation the fire had caused, but brought in a critique to Governor Rick Perry. 

Keller had an interesting way to indirectly blame Perry and the Republican Party for the damage done, since neither believes in the theory of Global Warming Keller relied heavily on that point. He first set up the scene by mentioning Obama’s statement against Perry in one of his visits, “you’ve got a governor whose state is on fire denying climate change” then brought evidence from scientists who would  not claim a direct relationship between global warming and the wildfire, “….. But most would say confidently that the global trends tipped the odds towards disaster….” Leaving the reader if with nothing else the thought that Perry doesn’t believe in Global Warming thus he is the causing agent of this disaster. In my opinion an interesting tactic to lay out there information while pointing a discrete finger towards the Republicans.

With all taken into consideration, the Republicans or Perry shouldn’t be held accountable for a horrible incident as such. This sort of incients should be used to build a better society rather than a dived one. Even if it does seem it was Perry’s fault since the legislature that happened during Perry’s reign caused the counties to not have any “zoning power” therefore virtually no space between houses which caused the fire to engulf the houses so quickly thus causing this horrible event.

Blog 2

It's no news that Government spending in education has decreased, even so more now with the Budget deficit crisis. As a student who is about to begin college next year, I find this issue to be of moderate importance. Since it appears to be less and less money going around to help pay for college and more people trying to compete for that money. 
I read Pain, some Gains: House Bill on Education spending by Kristina C., and to be truthful I found it some what depressing, which is odd because it's informative. The article talked about the Budget plans recently employed, a lot of green being cut from federal programs, and a billion or two scattered in the system. Mayor programs, such as Advance Placement were receiving a cut of $43.4 million. Sad because those programs definitely help kids get a head start in college and save money while doing so. Advance Placement courses, for those who do not know, are courses offered at high schools that assimilate a College class,. The class prepares the student to take an exam at offered the end of the School year, and if the student passes it counts as a college credit. Typically the Advance Placement is offered to take a required class such as English and knock it out of the way, college Freshmen year English. 
What I found perturbing, mostly because I was unaware, were the cuts being employed to the Latino population. Spending on programs to aid the Latino population were being cut, meaning less Latinos finishing college thus putting forward, yet another uneducated generation of Latinos. Another thing I was unaware of were the Pell Grants, whose eligibility not only downsized three years but the income downsized as well, to 5,500 dollars. Ironic, since United States has the best economy in the world, but according to the Education Spending chart, United States holds the 38th place in  money spent on education, with a mere 17 % of the country Government expenditure used for Education falling behind third World countries such as Yemen, who spend roughly a third of the Government expenditure on education

It seems that now a days there are no good news, this was not the exception.