https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6354280413348618770&postID=4281733351073669385&page=1&token=1522962127108
Link to Blog and Response^
I also agree that the way in which we as a county absorb information is declining. It is hard to understand your own place in society without a stable understanding of the events that occur within and around it. I appreciate the passion in your tone. It feels that you believe in what you write, giving it a new sense of urgency and meaning. Different components of your writing strengthen your argument, though I do have one criticism. I understand that many people do not fully filter and curate their news sources for reliability, but rather than putting a lot of responsibility on the reader, I feel it would've been helpful to hear what sources are available to use. I agree that both readers and news outlets are responsible in that readers do not question what they consume, and that news outlets fear monger. However, I think that it is important to encourage new and upcoming journalists as well as encourage the population as a whole about the importance of truth. Great Post!
Thursday, April 5, 2018
Blog Post Stage Seven
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/21/opinions/gun-control-opinion-costello/index.html
I found this article to be very interesting in that it immediately asks readers to listen before making too many assumptions about gun control. I personally believe major improvements should be made to our gun laws. The article titled " Gun Owner are talking about Gun Control. Stop an Listen" irritated me at first. As if people would not be willing to listen about reform, as if kids and citizens across the country haven't had to struggle for the voice they have finally been granted. Victims and those effected by gun violence have tried tirelessly to have their voices heard and respected as something other than whiny or complacent. Then I paused to think that maybe this article was not going to try to silence these voices but rather offer solutions from the gun-owners themselves. I was pleased to see a shift in perspective as a gun-owner admitted that nobody should own assault rifles. It gave me a sense of hope that a gun-owner understood and admitted that the argument of possession for protection was unnecessary.
I found this article to be very interesting in that it immediately asks readers to listen before making too many assumptions about gun control. I personally believe major improvements should be made to our gun laws. The article titled " Gun Owner are talking about Gun Control. Stop an Listen" irritated me at first. As if people would not be willing to listen about reform, as if kids and citizens across the country haven't had to struggle for the voice they have finally been granted. Victims and those effected by gun violence have tried tirelessly to have their voices heard and respected as something other than whiny or complacent. Then I paused to think that maybe this article was not going to try to silence these voices but rather offer solutions from the gun-owners themselves. I was pleased to see a shift in perspective as a gun-owner admitted that nobody should own assault rifles. It gave me a sense of hope that a gun-owner understood and admitted that the argument of possession for protection was unnecessary.
Blog Stage Six response
https://austinusgovernment.blogspot.com/2017/10/abortion-rights-cnn-editorial.html?showComment=1522960560772#c8626488230837284994
Link and Response Above ^
My response : It is always interesting to me that we can actually use other countries' situations to better understand our own. I appreciate that you acknowledge the differences in El Salvador and the United States as something we can learn from rather than condemn. Many times I see journalists use the harsh realities of Central American countries to prop America up as a greater/more progressive nation, but your commentary on the article shows a good deal of awareness and understanding. New perspective can be used to better understand how we can create better circumstances for ourselves.
Link and Response Above ^
My response : It is always interesting to me that we can actually use other countries' situations to better understand our own. I appreciate that you acknowledge the differences in El Salvador and the United States as something we can learn from rather than condemn. Many times I see journalists use the harsh realities of Central American countries to prop America up as a greater/more progressive nation, but your commentary on the article shows a good deal of awareness and understanding. New perspective can be used to better understand how we can create better circumstances for ourselves.
Blog Post Six Article Link
https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/05/opinions/united-states-el-salvador-abortion-prison-driver-opinion/index.html
Blog Stage Five
https://www.mystatesman.com/news/austin-only-historically-black-legislative-seat-risk-run-off/3ftT6oaMy6DVcgXvChVCGO/
This particular article caught my eye as it discusses the loss of the only seat in the House occupied by an African American representative. Austin, despite its exponential growth has seen a significant decline in the black population. Gentrification in all parts of Austin have displaced many predominantly black and latino neighborhoods. This change in demographic is directly reflected in the threat of a loss in representation. Austin has always had issues regarding diversity, but the growth of urban settlement has only worsened them. Losing representation of an entire demographic is harmful in several ways. It communicates to certain communities that they are not important or worth representation, a voice in the larger spectrum of state government. One of the longtime representatives in the House, Dawnna Dukes, has been known for several scandals. Since then, several candidates have come forward to prevent the loss of an African American voice in the House. “That would definitely be a wound for the community because that seat has been African-American historically, and we think diversity benefits Austin, Texas, and we think everybody should recognize that,” Linder said. “But since they don’t, we’re going to make sure people vote.” Part of the struggle these new candidates face is separating themselves from the mistakes of Duke, but each are trying to preserve the seat in order to maintain a voice in a government that severely lacks diversity.
This particular article caught my eye as it discusses the loss of the only seat in the House occupied by an African American representative. Austin, despite its exponential growth has seen a significant decline in the black population. Gentrification in all parts of Austin have displaced many predominantly black and latino neighborhoods. This change in demographic is directly reflected in the threat of a loss in representation. Austin has always had issues regarding diversity, but the growth of urban settlement has only worsened them. Losing representation of an entire demographic is harmful in several ways. It communicates to certain communities that they are not important or worth representation, a voice in the larger spectrum of state government. One of the longtime representatives in the House, Dawnna Dukes, has been known for several scandals. Since then, several candidates have come forward to prevent the loss of an African American voice in the House. “That would definitely be a wound for the community because that seat has been African-American historically, and we think diversity benefits Austin, Texas, and we think everybody should recognize that,” Linder said. “But since they don’t, we’re going to make sure people vote.” Part of the struggle these new candidates face is separating themselves from the mistakes of Duke, but each are trying to preserve the seat in order to maintain a voice in a government that severely lacks diversity.
Blog Stage Four
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2018-04-04.html#read_more
Ann Coulter's article "We used to care about one another" caters to an audience most likely associated with Donald Trump's base. Ann Coulter's credibility, based on my previous reading, is questionable in that she seems to very much rely on fears that her audience already have, rather than strong evidence to support her claims. From the beginning, it is evident that Coulter is using a false historic American ideal as a basis of comparison to persuade the reader that we "used to care for one another". Some of her examples include workers in the mid-west and Floridians devastate by natural disaster. To use natural disasters, occurances that are much beyond our immediate control, as a way explain that we used to care is a weak argument already. If one is going to compare a former glorious and "caring " America to the disastrous one we apparently currently inhabit, why use a situation that hardly involves changes in administration? She continues to state that all countries have their issues, that " Like all countries, we would squabble, but we were family. We were all Americans," . What strikes me is that she refers to past America with such an endearing term as family. Family for who? It is important to recall these squabbles she so casually chooses to brush under the rug. To claim that American's used to care for one another is to completely ignore the injustice and discrimination that so many Americans have experienced. The squabbles are real and valid disagreements and attempts for many Americans to reach their basic rights. Her family that she refers to only includes middle class white Americans, which directly reflects in her intended audience. I strongly disagree with her claim that America used to be such a caring place, as many have suffered (and still continue to struggle) for basic rights and justice. Her America was a place of opportunity for a very specific demographic, and to say that the struggles for fair treatment for all were merely squabbles is to undermine the hatred and stigma many still face. I disagree with her choice to use a false American safe haven narrative to take jabs at the "Dreamers" and others who seek opportunity in this country. It is beyond frustrating to see Coulter use the idea that "true Americans" used to care and look out for one another, but that now government is only interested in helping "outsiders". Of course the reach of government has changed in foreign affairs due to globalization. To claim that the immigrants are hurting a once "prosperous and caring" America is absurd.
Blog Three
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/05/politics/trump-border-crossings-contradiction/index.html
This analysis titled " Trump wants it both ways border crossing" written by Z. Bryan Wolf details the contradictions the president has created when discussing border patrol. Wolf uses a tweet the president's tweet as evidence to back up his analysis which reads : "The Caravan is largely broken up thanks to the strong immigration laws of Mexico and their willingness to use them so as not to cause a giant scene at our Border. Because of the Trump Administrations actions, Border crossings are at a still UNACCEPTABLE 46 year low. Stop drugs!" Wolf goes on to point out that this argument is contradictory, considering that the president has just ordered the national guard to the border. I agree that sending such a high level of security directly contradicts Trump's desire to take credit for the decline in border activity. If the the Trump administration has faired so well in containing the situation, why call for such drastic measures? Wolf then goes on to provide more proof of this contradiction when he brought to attention the briefing with Homeland Security Secretary. Kirstjen Nielson explained that the number of crossings had increased back to regular levels, bringing to light the failure of the Trump administration to contain the situation despite Trump's claims. I agree with Wolf in that this sort of contradictory behavior should be brought to attention. If an administration claims facts on an issue and the president directly contradicts this not only through his words(tweets) but through direct action (sending National Guard to protect border), there has to be a degree of responsibility. It is inefficient and causes great damage to the president's credibility. I also feel that it is unfair to all citizens, including those who voted for him, in that he misinforms and twists situations, creating a false sense of trust within the population.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)