In her recent blog post, "Why Celebrities and Politics don't Mix," from her blog "America Lately," Alyssa argues that Donald Trump wants to run for President just to gain more publicity. "Like a true celebrity he couldn't resist the spotlight," she writes. She writes of how his criticisms of Obama are often pointless and racist. One of the biggest ways Trump has gained more attention is asking for Obama's birth certificate. I agree that this is pointless at any time of Obama's term and should not be in focus, especially now. Each quote she uses is a link to the source it came from. This way of citation I think is especially useful because we can click on her facts to learn more about them. Her editorial has a good balance of facts and opinions. She uses quotes from Trump and others in order to show what she thinks his real motives are. I have one small criticism to her editorial. She doesn't explain who Andy Ostroy is even though he may be pretty famous. I think it would be better to have a brief introduction to state who he is.
Alyssa offers a good, informative argument that reads smoothly.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Friday, April 29, 2011
Education Reform
We are judging kids on their ability to know the same specific information as one another and to learn ways of finding the right multiple choice answers. In turn, we are not promoting the individuals and free thinkers that kids are already inclined to be. (3)
"All you're learning about is how to fill out a little bubble on an exam...," said Obama in a recent speech on education reform. He is hoping to decrease the amount of standardized testing from every year to every few years. (1) He is moving us in the right direction. Many other countries are much more successful in education by using alternate methods of learning. Countries such as Singapore and Finland assess children's success on the quality of their various projects and activities. These children end up doing better on standardized tests anyways. (2) When kids do more of what they want and there is less concentration on test preparation, they can be successful in what they enjoy most. Kids can also be more accepting of the work that they don't have as much interest in when it is mixed with what they like.
Not only does a focus on testing limit learning, it also doesn't effectively assess a child's capabilities. Along with a greater concentration on projects, kids could be judged periodically by professionals on their success and improvement.(3)
Hopefully we can continue to step in the right direction in education so that kids can really understand what great options they have earlier on and take an interest in school.
(1) Werner, Erica. "Obama Discusses Pitfalls of Standardized Tests At Town Hall."
Huffington Post. AOL, 28Mar2011. Web. 29 Apr 2011.
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/28/obama-standardized-tests_n_841464.html>.
(2) Levine, Joshua. "Finland's Educational Success? The Anti-Tiger Mother Approach."
Time. 11Apr2007: n. pag. Web. 29 Apr 2011. <http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,917
1,2062419-2,00.htm>.
(3) "How Standardized Testing Damages Education." FairTest. N.p., 20Aug2007. Web. 29 Apr 2011.
<http://fairtest.org/facts/howharm.htm>.
"All you're learning about is how to fill out a little bubble on an exam...," said Obama in a recent speech on education reform. He is hoping to decrease the amount of standardized testing from every year to every few years. (1) He is moving us in the right direction. Many other countries are much more successful in education by using alternate methods of learning. Countries such as Singapore and Finland assess children's success on the quality of their various projects and activities. These children end up doing better on standardized tests anyways. (2) When kids do more of what they want and there is less concentration on test preparation, they can be successful in what they enjoy most. Kids can also be more accepting of the work that they don't have as much interest in when it is mixed with what they like.
Not only does a focus on testing limit learning, it also doesn't effectively assess a child's capabilities. Along with a greater concentration on projects, kids could be judged periodically by professionals on their success and improvement.(3)
Hopefully we can continue to step in the right direction in education so that kids can really understand what great options they have earlier on and take an interest in school.
(1) Werner, Erica. "Obama Discusses Pitfalls of Standardized Tests At Town Hall."
Huffington Post. AOL, 28Mar2011. Web. 29 Apr 2011.
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/28/obama-standardized-tests_n_841464.html>.
(2) Levine, Joshua. "Finland's Educational Success? The Anti-Tiger Mother Approach."
Time. 11Apr2007: n. pag. Web. 29 Apr 2011. <http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,917
1,2062419-2,00.htm>.
(3) "How Standardized Testing Damages Education." FairTest. N.p., 20Aug2007. Web. 29 Apr 2011.
<http://fairtest.org/facts/howharm.htm>.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Commentary and Criticism on "Young People shouldn't vote???"
On “Mariah’s Govt 2305 Blog,” Mariah writes in her recent editorial reasons of why the new bill limiting young voters would be a problem. She overall conveys the message clearly and has a persuasive voice. She weaves in bits of quotes to give proof of what is going on without taking away from the readability. Her balance of facts and opinions gives her editorial validity and makes it convincing.
There are several issues though, that I think take away from the editorial’s power and flow. I think that the focus should be entirely on the young voter issue. The solutions given are more related to the issue of a lack of voters in general. There are a several sentences that are a little confusing. A couple of sentences begin as comments and then end as questions. I think that splitting the sentence into a comment and then following with a question would be most effective. There are other grammatical problems that are also easily fixable.
Overall, I think Mariah has a good argument that informs and persuades.
There are several issues though, that I think take away from the editorial’s power and flow. I think that the focus should be entirely on the young voter issue. The solutions given are more related to the issue of a lack of voters in general. There are a several sentences that are a little confusing. A couple of sentences begin as comments and then end as questions. I think that splitting the sentence into a comment and then following with a question would be most effective. There are other grammatical problems that are also easily fixable.
Overall, I think Mariah has a good argument that informs and persuades.
Friday, April 1, 2011
Risk of Imported Foods
About 13% of our food is imported and only about 1% of this food is inspected, with the exception of meat. As the amount of food we are importing increases, the percentage of food inspected decreases. We are getting food from over 100 countries with much hidden knowledge of their farming conditions. Food shipped from other countries doesn't have as many safety restrictions as in the United States. Micheal Doyle, the head of the center of food safety at the University of Georgia, claims that in many countries pesticides are more frequently used, many workers are not as informed about food safety practices, and the water quality is not as good. The FDA has found that imported produce is about four times as likely to be affected with salmonella. The FDA's lack of funding forces them to focus just on what is most important. Imports with salmonella and other problems are often not found by the FDA in time. Many foods don't have information on which country they are from, basic information that consumers should know to feel safe about what they're buying.
I think that the best solution to this problem is for the government to encourage an increase in local farming. Ideally, this could decrease the cost of fuel to transport foods and increase the amount of fresher foods with fewer pesticides. Not only do we need to turn our focus locally though, we should also increase funding for the FDA so they can place stricter regulations on food safety on the foods we import.
Several sites I found interesting and helped me to find information:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2007-03-18-food-safety-usat_N.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-04-16-imported-food_N.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=3060799n
I think that the best solution to this problem is for the government to encourage an increase in local farming. Ideally, this could decrease the cost of fuel to transport foods and increase the amount of fresher foods with fewer pesticides. Not only do we need to turn our focus locally though, we should also increase funding for the FDA so they can place stricter regulations on food safety on the foods we import.
Several sites I found interesting and helped me to find information:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2007-03-18-food-safety-usat_N.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-04-16-imported-food_N.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=3060799n
Friday, March 11, 2011
GOP Disaster Monitoring Cuts
A guest blogger on Think Process in the article "New Three-Week GOP Funding Resolution Would Slash Funds For Tsunami Monitoring And Disaster Response" has gathered information about the possible cuts the GOP wants to implement. There are plans to cut over 6 million dollars of the budget with 100 million of that amount from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and other disaster monitoring agencies.
I think that the author writes clearly, organizing the editorial in a way that is simple. He/she quickly gets the point across without potential mind-muddling facts. The author starts off writing of a problem that has a lot of meaning to us now with so many affected by the tsunami. He/she summarizes specific disaster monitoring programs that will have money cut from them, such as NOAA and U.S. Geological Survey. The blogger summarizes the the agencies affected and how much would be cut from them. This should get the public more focused on the issue since they know what could be affected and how. I think the fact that it's straight forward in this way will make it more appealing to the public to read and think about.
The author concludes the editorial with his/her opinion on the issue. I think that this is a good way to close the editorial. Readers have time to get their take on the issue and think about it a little as they read. They can then get another perspective after reading how the author feels. We get an idea of which side the author is on from the beginning, with a couple of words, but most of the author's opinion doesn't come until the end. Once the author has given reasons the cuts on disaster monitoring are a problem, the opinion that comes afterwards has more power as opposed to giving bits of fact and opinion at the same time. I think the author wants to inform the public and hopes that we can do something more than just knowing about the issue. There is one main criticism I have. The title is long and I think it would catch more attention and work better with the article if it were just a few words long.
Overall, I think the author is effective in communicating his/her message and with perfect timing.
I think that the author writes clearly, organizing the editorial in a way that is simple. He/she quickly gets the point across without potential mind-muddling facts. The author starts off writing of a problem that has a lot of meaning to us now with so many affected by the tsunami. He/she summarizes specific disaster monitoring programs that will have money cut from them, such as NOAA and U.S. Geological Survey. The blogger summarizes the the agencies affected and how much would be cut from them. This should get the public more focused on the issue since they know what could be affected and how. I think the fact that it's straight forward in this way will make it more appealing to the public to read and think about.
The author concludes the editorial with his/her opinion on the issue. I think that this is a good way to close the editorial. Readers have time to get their take on the issue and think about it a little as they read. They can then get another perspective after reading how the author feels. We get an idea of which side the author is on from the beginning, with a couple of words, but most of the author's opinion doesn't come until the end. Once the author has given reasons the cuts on disaster monitoring are a problem, the opinion that comes afterwards has more power as opposed to giving bits of fact and opinion at the same time. I think the author wants to inform the public and hopes that we can do something more than just knowing about the issue. There is one main criticism I have. The title is long and I think it would catch more attention and work better with the article if it were just a few words long.
Overall, I think the author is effective in communicating his/her message and with perfect timing.
Friday, February 25, 2011
New York Times Editorial: "Stopping Qaddafi"
"Stopping Qaddafi"
This New York Times editorial, "Stopping Qaddafi," explains the newspaper's stance that the United States and other countries need to quickly get involved in the issue in Libya. The article offers a short introductory paragraph on what is going on--Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi is soon going to kill hundreds or thousands of Libyans because it is the only way he knows to keep power.
The New York Time's opinion is that we need to get involved soon and should have already done something. The newspaper lists ways of how we can stop Qaddafi, such as creating no fly zones and stopping military communication. They close the editorial with what I think is a strong way to summarize and show just what they intend to communicate: "The longer the world temporizes, the more people die." I think that The New York Times wants to inform the public and persuade those with power to get involved.
At one point, they seem to be contradictory when they say that we have waited too long to take action but then say that it was right of Obama to wait since Americans were still in Libya and it was dangerous to get involved. I agree that we should react soon to the situation, but there wasn't really anything to be done several days before when Americans were there and already at risk.
The New York Times offers their mainly clear view that we are behind on "Stopping Qaddafi," and offers many ways this can be done. Overall, I think that they nicely present the issue, their stance, and ways that we need to solve this before it is too late.
This New York Times editorial, "Stopping Qaddafi," explains the newspaper's stance that the United States and other countries need to quickly get involved in the issue in Libya. The article offers a short introductory paragraph on what is going on--Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi is soon going to kill hundreds or thousands of Libyans because it is the only way he knows to keep power.
The New York Time's opinion is that we need to get involved soon and should have already done something. The newspaper lists ways of how we can stop Qaddafi, such as creating no fly zones and stopping military communication. They close the editorial with what I think is a strong way to summarize and show just what they intend to communicate: "The longer the world temporizes, the more people die." I think that The New York Times wants to inform the public and persuade those with power to get involved.
At one point, they seem to be contradictory when they say that we have waited too long to take action but then say that it was right of Obama to wait since Americans were still in Libya and it was dangerous to get involved. I agree that we should react soon to the situation, but there wasn't really anything to be done several days before when Americans were there and already at risk.
The New York Times offers their mainly clear view that we are behind on "Stopping Qaddafi," and offers many ways this can be done. Overall, I think that they nicely present the issue, their stance, and ways that we need to solve this before it is too late.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Current Health Care Struggles
McConnell: We'll Keep Fighting Health Care Law Whether it's Popular or Not
This is a short article from CBS of how Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell and other Republicans continue to work hard to keep the health care bill from passing. McConnell claims "we are not about to retreat." He says that it's unconstitutional to force everyone to buy health care.
This is a good article to read to get an idea of some of what is going on in health care. The word "fighting" in the title I think sums up what is going on right now. Although everyone is going to have different opinions on health care, we are not so different that we can't communicate and work things out. There isn't really an option for compromise on some issues, but I think we could compromise some on health care. I think health care is a right to anyone who will take it, which I think would be everyone. If people don't want health care though, then they shouldn't be forced to have it. This is my opinion and of course everyone wants to "win," but I think that we should all be represented in this since government will never be ideal for everyone.
This is a short article from CBS of how Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell and other Republicans continue to work hard to keep the health care bill from passing. McConnell claims "we are not about to retreat." He says that it's unconstitutional to force everyone to buy health care.
This is a good article to read to get an idea of some of what is going on in health care. The word "fighting" in the title I think sums up what is going on right now. Although everyone is going to have different opinions on health care, we are not so different that we can't communicate and work things out. There isn't really an option for compromise on some issues, but I think we could compromise some on health care. I think health care is a right to anyone who will take it, which I think would be everyone. If people don't want health care though, then they shouldn't be forced to have it. This is my opinion and of course everyone wants to "win," but I think that we should all be represented in this since government will never be ideal for everyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)