Elaborate Please...

As I passed through the different blogs one blog stood out to me directly and really interested me. That blog was called End In Sight written by Brianna Monks. As a quick summary the blog was over her opinion on abortion and how she agreed with the pro choice side of the controversy. Overall, the blog was pretty well written in the fact that she really gave many of her own opinionated examples, meaning that she made up reasons why people would need the ability to choose whether or not to get an abortion. There were a few things that Brianna needed to incorporate into her blog though to really make it more affective.

First of all, a huge issue I had with it was the spelling errors that were throughout the blog. By having just one spelling error it slowly brings down the article’s credibility, so imagine how much the credibility dropped with multiple errors.

The next thing that is important to notice in this blog is that there are no sources backing up her opinions. Sources are so important when trying to make a blog credible and have a sound argument. Ms. Monks really needed to focus on the reasons why people don’t agree with abortions and debunk those reasons with even more examples from sources. So as I assume you understand from my constant repeating that she really needed to include sources to make sure her blog was credible and sound.

The last thing I do want to quickly bring up as well is that she really didn’t go into great detail on many of the statements she made. She attempted to use the emotional appeals, but didn’t completely elaborate on her attempts. An example I want to give is how she said that many people don’t agree on abortion because of the Bible. What from the Bible makes people not agree with abortion? And why do you think that religion causes controversy when it’s brought into law? Those are only two questions that I bring up from the many that I have after reading this. I am not saying that the blog is a massacre by any means it just really needed to elaborate on her opinions and make sure her arguments were completely credible.

-Kelsey Scott

Oh Arizona...

A major topic over the past few weeks has been the immigration law in Arizona. The Federal Government has gone as far to sue the state of Arizona for their opinions about the law being discriminating. This theory of discrimination is absurd. Yes, there are going to be those few cops that take advantage of the system, and unfortunately discriminate against the Hispanic population, but there are also going to be those law enforcers that really are trying to be neutral in determining who is an illegal immigrant and who isn’t.

This issue of discrimination is such a small issue compared to the larger issue at hand of being to reduce crime rate and send the illegal immigrants back to their home country. There is so much crime in Arizona from the drug cartels that no American citizen is safe! Sometimes the country or states have to take drastic measures for the benefit of the people. In this case of multiple deaths occurring on a day to day basis in Arizona, the state had to take measures into their own hands. There are people like Casey Stegall from Fox News who stated that the talk about crime rate is over-exaggerated. My comment on that though is that when he gave his facts on how crime rate has started to drop in the past year because the immigrants are leaving makes me support the law even more. If we can completely enforce the illegal immigrants to return to their natural home, then it will make our lives much easier and safer. So don’t we want the crime rate to drop in Arizona? Don’t we want our families to be safe? I know I do and I also know that we have no choice but to support this law for the good of our country.

More Information Needed...

When reading through my classmates blogs one blog stood out in particular. The blog called It's 2 PM, Do You Know Where Your President Is, written by Ellen was interesting. She brought up the immigration law in Arizona and what she thought of it. I need to preface this by saying that yes, I do agree with Ellen in the case that the law does create some discrimination, but in her blog she doesn’t give all of the facts. She leaves out a huge part of the reasoning behind enabling the law. One of the main reasons for the law being enacted was that the people of Arizona were not safe. With so many illegal immigrants in Arizona they brought drug cartels and violence with them when they decided to come to Arizona. People started showing up beheaded and some people did the opposite, they disappeared and were never to be seen again. So, with such a huge issue as this, Ellen never once brought that up.

Also, in terms of only appeals that she used, Ellen gave an example of one of her family members having problems finding a job because of the immigrants’ availability for cheap labor. Now, even though this story and theory could be true, she uses only one story and applies it to everyone. So basically she is generalizing one case as the basis of her whole opinion. To make the blog more credible, she should have found a few articles on where the same thing was going on so she could give more than one example.

Now, Ellen did at one point find an article to back an opinion of making all of the immigrants in Arizona citizens, she didn’t give valid reasons for why she should do that especially when there are so many negative outcomes from having a massive amount of illegal immigrants in Arizona. Again, her lack of factual representation about the reasons behind the law doesn’t go together with her opinion. She didn’t think about the repercussions of allowing citizenship to the illegal immigrants. With the major violence problems caused by the massive increase of drug cartels, it is not in the best interest of America to allow those people to become citizens. Even though some of the illegal immigrants are good people that don’t do any harm, there are too many causing problems to American citizens and we as Americans can’t allow that to be going on. So, Ellen really needed to research more before throwing out such a drastic suggestion of allowing all of the current illegal immigrants to become citizens of the United States.

Overall, Ellen honestly does bring up a few good points, but she lacked the factual backing in her opinions. With that said, she did successfully use the pathos appeal, but that doesn’t always make a blog sound. So, by knowing some more information about this controversy, it’s your choice to decide what side you are supporting when it comes to the Arizona Immigration Law.

Obama... How many years left till we get a new president?

President Obama. What can we say about this man? Well, he has made a huge step forward for all Africans in America in that they can do the same things that every other race can, but is this the only good thing about President Obama? Honestly, for the most part yes. There are so many questions when it comes to President Obama.

The main question at hand is if Obama is a true natural born-American citizen. According to multiple blogs, news groups, and websites, two experts inspected the alleged birth certificate of Barack Obama and they are finding it to be fraudulent!! If all of these people are right in that President Obama isn’t truly an American citizen then our country is in trouble. It is a requirement from the constitution that our President of the United States be at least 35 years of age, lived in residence for at least 16 years, and most importantly, be an natural born-American citizen. Some stories are stating that President Obama has been using his sister’s birth certificate. The reason for that theory is that the certificate used is one that is for a female. So, what will America do? Probably nothing because all people can seem to think about is how great this President is. But, do they love the President and his policies, or do they love what he represents which is an African man that has made a difference? I have nothing against change for the better for all races, and in this case the African American race, but I wish that there had been a different, more qualified, reliable African American candidate to take this step toward change.

Another important question when it comes to President Obama is what on Earth is he thinking when he makes his decisions?! Half of the things he does are completely idiotic. One of the most important decisions he has made is his decision to be slow at giving direction toward the oil spill. President Obama waited weeks before allowing any cleanup. This caused the oil to spread further into the ocean harming the marine habitat majorly. Now, the government has finally put a cap on the oil leak so we are finally being able to fix a little bit of what President Obama didn’t help attempt to repair.

So, is that what we want: a president who isn’t for sure an American born citizen and doesn’t take immediate action on critical events that affect our economy and society as a whole? I know that isn’t what I want. The sooner President Obama’s term is up, the better. That way we can get a move on to a better life without Obama, his questionable identity, and his thoughtless decisions.

Does Credibility and An Appeal to Emotions Help Seal the Deal?

I will be the first person to agree with someone on not liking President Obama and his politics, but the blog that I am reviewing goes a little further that just stating dislike towards President Obama. It’s called Obama, The Religion of Resentment and it discusses the author’s views on President Obama. Let’s just say that the author’s views are not that nice.

The first line in the blog says, “Obama is a religious cult leader ruling America….” Now, right off of the bat the blog is attacking President Obama’s character. For anyone reading this article that is a President Obama fan probably was quite offended. This article isn’t really meant for President Obama supporters that pay attention to the news; this article is more directed toward President Obama supporters that have no idea what is going on in the world and just support President Obama because of his race or for some other reason. The article is also of course meant for the people that don’t support President Obama and will just be fueled by the blog.

This Armaggedon writer was brutal through his article on calling President Obama a “cult master” and accusing him of being mentored by different groups such as the Islam, the Marxism group, and by the Chicago Machine but while the writer’s tactics are crude, they do appeal to the emotions of the readers and make new arguments known. By being so up front and vocal, both supporters and non-supporters will pay attention to the blog. So, by being so out there, the writer’s issues that he brings up are being noticed and discussed whether the reader is agreeing or not.

The one major thing in the article that bothers me though is the constant misspellings and grammatical errors. For an article to be fully credible, it should be thoroughly proof read. By not spelling words correctly, the writer and his article loses a lot of credibility. Therefore by knowing that the blog might not be completely credible, but makes a good argument geared towards the emotions, it is really up to you on if you are affected by reading this article.

Stage 3: First Amendment vs. Stolen Valor Act

How far will the government go when supporting the first amendment? While searching The Dallas Morning News, I came across an interesting article called When Freedom of Speech, Lies Collide by Tom Robberson. He was bringing up an issue focused towards the first amendment and the Stolen Valor Act. Now, I know you are probably wondering what I mean considering you haven’t glanced at the article quite yet, but basically what was bothering Mr. Robberson was that there were cases of people lying about being in the military service and when they got arrested for their untruthful lies, they got out of all possible fines and charges because the first amendment allowed free speech.

Now, Mr. Robberson has a good point, however I could be siding with his opinion because of his writing techniques used to persuade his audience. First of all, a main point to notice right off of the bat of this article is Mr. Robberson only gives two examples of people lying about their alleged military service and getting away with it. The way he generalizes his statements makes the reader possibly believe that many more cases are out occurring in the US, but from this article we are not given any information of that sort. The next thing I believe is important to point out in the article is the way Mr. Robberson uses pathos continually throughout his piece. The very first person he brings up lied about being a 9/11 victim. This is a very sensitive subject to many Americans and therefore would push people to feel angry about someone lying about being a survivor in 9/11 when possibly someone’s family member could’ve been a real survivor or died in the 9/11 attack. With bringing up an event such as 9/11, Mr. Robberson is appealing highly to the audience's emotions so that they will take his side. The next example Mr. Robberson used was a man who lied about being in the military to get ahead in his career. The writer once again used pathos by bringing up the active-duty service members and veterans. He said that by Rick Strandlof (the man who lied about being in the military) lying, he was actually hurting the veterans and active-duty service members. Overall, the article was well written and very persuasive because of all of the pathos throughout the article.

Federal vs. State Government

Imagine getting pulled over for a speeding ticket and asked to show your papers stating that you were a legal citizen. Does this action seem intrusive or discriminating? That is what some people believe according to Feds to Sue Over Ariz. Immigration Law in TIME. The new law in Arizona has created quite the uproar. The outcome of keeping the law or dismissing it is completely up in the air. Summarizing the information from TIME, I am going to briefly review both sides of the argument. If time permits it, I highly recommend you reading the full article because it gives wonderful background information and details to both sides of the issue at hand.

Jen Brewer, the governor of Arizona, enacted the immigration law to enforce clearing out illegal immigrants from Arizona, as it is one of the main locations in the United States for illegal immigrants to reside. With the illegal immigrants residing in Arizona, they bring large problems to the community such as violent kidnappings and major drug trafficking. These problems are problems that can’t go untouched, yet they are hard to fix unless the root of the problem is dismissed. This was Arizona’s reasoning for having police officers ask to see people’s papers stating that they are citizens or have a work visa. This interaction with the police officer is only supposed to occur if there is probable cause, but the people contesting this law believe it will cause discrimination towards Hispanics anyways.

In opposition, Obama believes that the law is wrong even though there is already a federal law stating that it is illegal for immigrants to reside in the US. The reasoning for his opinion on the dislike for the law is that if one state enforced an immigrant law, then other states would soon follow. That chain of events could cause an unbalanced reaction towards immigrants in different locations in the United States which could cause major discrimination. The only issue with both arguments is that they both have hypothetical affects and no one really knows what will come from this law being enacted. So with that said, we have a collision of federal government versus state government… which side do you support?