Stage Eight - classmate post blog critique

A post in the blog The Lone Star State Diary titled Waking Up in Texas to Clean Fresh Air was written with what seems to be the hope of combating global warming.

Let's make something clear before I proceed: besides not buying into the whole "global warming is our fault" scheme, I feel that it is part of the natural course of action that the planet is on.  I mean, there was an Ice Age and before that there was a tropical climate everywhere.  I think there's supposed to be global warming.

Moving on.  The idealistic nature of the listed points in the post is the main issue as I feel that none of them hold much water.

1.The plan has been revised and worked on for a long time and the final plan is more flexible and fair.

I feel the aforementioned plan is very limited and as the population continues to grow the desire/need for more power plants will also grow so any reduction in the current structure will be a drop in the bucket by the time the mandated deadline arrives.

2. It will strengthen and move the programs that are trying to achieve a cleaner environment faster and better.

I think that this plan will not impact other programs as the continued incursions into the environment will occur with the harvesting of the natural resources that continually appear underground.

3.  If all states in America adopt to this goal, it will motivate other countries especially China to come up with ideas to make our home, Earth healthier.

China and India are some of the biggest offenders when it comes to pollution and, like their population rise, they have made very limited moves to decrease it.

4. The plan's commitment and dedication is shown by having customized goals for each state to decrease the air pollution.

The plan is one thing, but actions are what counts.  As previously mentioned, I feel the growing population will create growing demand for energy and I also feel that most people are not willing to sacrifice creature comforts like air conditioning for the good of the environment.

Overall, the post was put together well albeit with a lot more hope than my curmudgeony self has.

Stage Seven - Original Editorial 2

Coming soon to a State Capitol near you:

THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING GOVERNMENT!!!!!

I would hope that our lawmakers would find cutting a number of (what I see as) extraneous programs is the best way to go about their next legislative session and to reduce the scope of our state government to be as small as possible.  Understanding that the last sentence was chock full of subjectivity, I plan to outline a small number of objective points for my plan forthwith (I really wanted to use the word forthwith).

-  Eliminate any and all financial need based programs (e.g. TexCare Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Comprehensive Energy Assistance Program (CEAP), Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), etc.)
-  Decriminalize possession of any amount of marijuana under 30 grams throughout the state in an effort to reduce the burden on the judicial system and the police departments.
-  Begin transitioning to Volunteer Fire Departments throughout the state.
-  Outsource all road repairs to private companies.

These are a few of my least favorite things regarding the bloat of our state government.  I understand that some may have a fear that if the financial need based programs are taken away the crime rate will skyrocket.  I trust that it probably will, initially, but that noise will calm and life will go on.  To help ease the transition to a charityless government, private organizations would be encouraged to pick up the slack or if they choose not to, that would also work as I feel that charitable assistance should be completely disavowed from government connection.

I feel that people, overall, need an attitude adjustment regarding what they can do for themselves as opposed to what someone else can do for them (Yeah, yeah.  I know it sounds kinda like President Kennedy).  We're all in this together and if we want real change we all have to be involved in making changes work.

Stage Six - Classmate Blog Post Critique

Should they stay? is post from the blog Deep In The Heart Of Texas.  The post makes a quick summary of the system of government known as Federalism and the inherent differences between the Federal Government and the Texas Government on the issue of illegal immigration.  The author shares the opinion that immigrants willing to work should be allowed access to this country where they can, presumably, become productive members of our society in that "they are willing to work [and] pay taxes."

I found that the post itself was not too wordy in that it gave a concise explanation of Federalism and shared an opinion without blathering on.  The title was short enough to grab attention but too short in that it did not give any allusion of what lies ahead.  I recommend adding something simple as two or three more words so it would read "Concerning Illegals: Should They Stay?"

The author's use of a statistic regarding a majority opinion and the opinion of President Obama as well as his plans on the issue were linked to the article.  This is always a good strategy if you want to have validity for your claims, otherwise, you risk coming off as a "crazy talker" with no backup.

Overall, I found the post an efficient way to convey the author's opinion.

Stage Five - Original Editorial 1

Proclamation Concerning Armed Residents



 

Whereas, shootings against the unarmed have increased throughout the last ten years.

 

Whereas, the safety of the residents of our great State of Texas is continually compromised by near constant pressure from criminals.

 

Whereas, the border with Mexico is as porous as it is vast and invites a nefarious element to plague our residents.

 

Whereas, the clamor for little to no restrictions on firearm possession has grown louder.

 

Whereas, the need to help equalize the playing field grows each day.

Therefore, I, Greg Abbott, Governor of Texas, do hereby proclaim that each resident, regardless of status, will be issued the sidearm of their choice and a license will no longer be required for either open carry or concealed carry effective 01JAN2016.


Now then, some may see the absurdity in this fabricated proclamation while others may see the legitimate concerns raised.  Ideally, you see both.  I support open and concealed carry for anyone and everyone who chooses to do so (which includes those that are restricted as I feel anything less is impinging on rights).  If you feel that carrying a weapon is not for you then simply do not carry a weapon.

Part of my rationale for unrestricted carrying of firearms is to give more power to the common man.  Our Founding Fathers decided in favor of the Second Amendment to protect against the threat of tyranny which will always apply.  Another point is that there are already a number of firearms in the hands of people up to no good and I feel that they should be well aware that anyone they accost will most likely be armed and ideally educated in how to use their weapon.  Some may ask about putting the Police in more danger and I respond with, "They're already putting themselves in danger because they know what they signed up for."

There are a number of counterpoints to be made and I welcome the opportunity for debate.

Ready . . . Go!

Stage Four - Texas Blog Critique

Burnt Orange Report is a blog that is the, self-described, "leading source for progressive coverage of political news and issues that matter in Texas."  The blog recently published an article describing Texas Senator Ted Cruz's intentions to add amendments to highway legislation that would take away federal government moneys for the Planned Parenthood program.

My initial take on the article was what I always imagined a blog to be: mildly informative and mostly invective.  The author, Katherine Haenschen, makes use of subtle and overt digs against Senator Cruz while not providing much information.  She seems to have enough credibility to get into a Ph.D. program at the University of Texas or maybe she just knows someone. (get it?  I'm playing the invective game.)  Her intended audience seems to include just about anyone however, the slant comes across as favoring those who mostly subscribe to a Liberal point of view.

Evidence supporting the claim in the headline is limited to one quote from the office of Senator Cruz with the rest of the filler consisting of derisions which seem to have the intention of swaying the reader into immediately discounting anything Senator Cruz does.  Examples include alluding to Senator Cruz's supposed allegiance with Donald Trump, calling his intelligence into question and alleging his drastic measures to increase his popularity with potential primary voters.

Overall, the author seems to have succeeded in her effort to inform the public of Senator Cruz's alleged intentions against Planned Parenthood funding and in her effort to denounce him.  I feel her success is mostly due to her low standards for this article as it appears it was thrown together in a period shorter than ten minutes.  Nevertheless, at least it was entertaining.

Stage Three - Major Outlet Critique

An editorial in the San Antonio Express-News discussed the notion of evaluating whether to keep symbols of the Confederacy on public property.  The article casts a wide net as it can appeal to anyone that is aware of the history of the United States and seems to be rustling up support for the cause of taking the symbols down.  The credibility cannot be called into question as the San Antonio Express-News is a major newspaper outlet.

Recent events in Charleston, South Carolina have ignited fierce debate on outlets as far reaching as cable news to our local morning radio programs.  This editorial stirs the pot ever so gently in, what I gather to be, a non-inflammatory way by making superficial observations that a number of these symbols may offend a number of people.  Using the general claim that "It's offensive." (said in a whiny voice) is a tired strategy because everything is offensive to somebody.

In the case of symbols of the Confederacy, it is entirely obvious that they are offensive to plenty of people but the authors of the article should present a stronger argument.  When a symbol universally incites violent action . . . that would be a legitimate reason to discuss its removal.  Another point the editorial makes is that "placement on these spaces confers a legitimacy that seems to say all taxpayers agree with the respect extended."  The same argument can also be applied to canceling every spending decision lawmakers make in our stead because not one law is accepted by every, single taxpayer.

Regardless of your opinion, if you intend to sway people toward a certain point of view, present a decent argument and do not use the aforementioned article as inspiration.

Stage Two - Politifact Texas

A joint venture between the Austin American-Statesman and Politifact.com publishes a web page dedicated to investigating statements made by public figures.

PolitiFact Texas recently published an article discussing the progress of the updated firearm carrying law which will include open carry (limited to shoulder and belt holsters).  Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed the bill into law on 13JUN2015 with the effective date coming in 2016.

I support people openly carrying firearms and feel they should include all weapons.  A quick rebuttal from others will most likely include a "But, what if . . . ?" statement to which I would simply reply, "Maybe.  Maybe not."  Tragedies will most certainly happen with or without these laws in place as laws only establish consequence for an action instead of actively preventing an action.  For example, it is against the law to not make a complete stop at a stop sign, yet nearly every driver has failed to make this complete stop on multiple occasions.

Granted, others may say not stopping at stop signs and moseying about with a holstered "six-shooter" gently bouncing against my thigh are not the same but, like everything, they boil down to the common ground of an attempt to restrict freedoms.  I understand that a number of laws were put into place to protect the general population but I feel that placing limits on what people can do is the more important issue.  (More on my thoughts about a self-governing society later.)

Nevertheless, the aforementioned article and website make it easy for people to stay informed about what's happening in the realm of politics and how accurate people's claims are.