I took my opportunity to finish the last assignment early and not make Professor Seago wait any longer than he has to. So, I ended up reading Daniel Rivera's blog post about Gun Control.
When I first began reading it, I noticed a few grammar mistakes but I continued on. He states that there are, "several bills that will allow gun possession to expand in Texas." However, in the entirety of the blog, Mr. Rivera only gave one bill to talk about. I was kind of surprised that he did not at least mention a second gun-possession bill.
When he did begin discussing the one example he gave, he expressed his disagreements with it. "I personally don’t see a need to have a gun at work inside your car." I do agree with his statements, but he could have elaborated further than just giving a few situational examples.
One point he did state was if people were angry or had limited shooting experience. From my knowledge, though I'm not 100 % sure, to legally possess a gun and permit you must have taken a training course with the type of gun you carry. Although, I do agree with him on the anger subject.
Finally, the last thing I noticed is that he did not link to an article about the one example bill he gave. Which is part of the criteria for the post.
- Blake
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Monday, May 2, 2011
More Sonogram News
Lately, a lot of talk has been fueled by the upcoming House Bill 15. This bill would basically make a women have a required sonogram test before an abortion. Tomorrow, the bill will be sent back to the House so they can sign off on a few small changes to this bill.
Whether the sonogram should be administered in a twenty-four hour period or a two hour period advance has been a major argument between Democrats and Republicans. Some senators feel the twenty-four hour period is too long, and creates hardships on the women trying to receive an abortion. These hardships were mainly centered around the difficulty in finding transportation. Senator Carlos Uresti of San Antonio offered to uphold the twenty-four waiting period if some exceptions were made for women who live over 100 miles away or in a smaller populated county. Senator Wendy Davis of Fort Worth proposed that a lot of women who lived in urban counties had transportation problems as well. She continued to say that this bill was only meant to traumatize women.
Regardless of what Republicans or Democrats say the bill is for. It is a given that this bill is going to be passed soon. This bill will include specific terms that have recently been updated and approved today. These include: A physician (or trained assistant) must perform a sonogram at least twenty-four hours before a women is allowed to receive an abortion (special cases have been made), a small description of the development in the fetus must be given at the sonogram (special cases are made for sexual assault victims), women can refuse to listen to the heartbeat or view images, medical emergencies are the only exception, abortion provides will be periodically checked to ensure compliance, physicians are required to give a list of information to the woman, and finally if a woman chooses not to have the abortion, the provider must give them information assistance on how to obtain child support.
Quite the bill, it includes a lot. All information was gathered from an article in The Texas Tribune.
- Blake
Whether the sonogram should be administered in a twenty-four hour period or a two hour period advance has been a major argument between Democrats and Republicans. Some senators feel the twenty-four hour period is too long, and creates hardships on the women trying to receive an abortion. These hardships were mainly centered around the difficulty in finding transportation. Senator Carlos Uresti of San Antonio offered to uphold the twenty-four waiting period if some exceptions were made for women who live over 100 miles away or in a smaller populated county. Senator Wendy Davis of Fort Worth proposed that a lot of women who lived in urban counties had transportation problems as well. She continued to say that this bill was only meant to traumatize women.
Regardless of what Republicans or Democrats say the bill is for. It is a given that this bill is going to be passed soon. This bill will include specific terms that have recently been updated and approved today. These include: A physician (or trained assistant) must perform a sonogram at least twenty-four hours before a women is allowed to receive an abortion (special cases have been made), a small description of the development in the fetus must be given at the sonogram (special cases are made for sexual assault victims), women can refuse to listen to the heartbeat or view images, medical emergencies are the only exception, abortion provides will be periodically checked to ensure compliance, physicians are required to give a list of information to the woman, and finally if a woman chooses not to have the abortion, the provider must give them information assistance on how to obtain child support.
Quite the bill, it includes a lot. All information was gathered from an article in The Texas Tribune.
- Blake
Saturday, April 23, 2011
A late Commentary/Critique
Well. I totally let this assignment slip past my mind. So I'm doing it now rather than never!
I sat down to read through some of my classmates blogs, yet, I didn't get past the first one. P.B.'s post about Gay Marriage stopped me dead in my tracks. I began reading through it, and found myself agreeing and laughing quite a few times. So I decided to just go with this one for my assignment.
To begin, the author opened up the blog post with quite a funny hook. The use of this small couple of sentences definitely draws in the readers by making them laugh. However, after this, P.B. blatantly states the topic that is going to be discussed at hand. Which makes you take it seriously.
As I read through the blog, P.B. went on to explain how idiotic, mindless and pointless it is for people to follow certain ideas about homosexuals. How "sheeple" look down on things that they don't even make an attempt to understand. P.B. goes on to quote scriptures from the Bible and pointing out the flaws in those writings. Flaws that "gay-bashers" don't ever really pay attention to. Most of these flaws are things that people commit quite often, yet, there is no constant condemnation of them.
Doing this, P.B. explained that "gay-basher" pick and choose between what they want to use against people.
Also, the way P.B. ended this post is so freaking true. Just saying.
Now, the only problem I had with P.B.'s post is that (s)he never mentioned the major fault with this situation. A lot of people bring this to the table, and it does get kind of knocked down every time. The separation of church and state.
Basically, one of my major points is, the decision to allow gay marriages to take place should be up to the Priest/Pastor/etc asked to perform it. The Marriage Ceremony is not a government issue, and never should be. Many of the State's governments have chosen to completely ignore gay marriage. Some settle in between by allowing civil unions, or by recognizing their rights.
I personally, as a gay (Christian) male, don't care too much about the damn rights. It's more about the banning of the ceremony that gets on my nerves.
So, that's that. I wanna say thank you to P.B. for that entertaining and wonderful post!
- Blake
I sat down to read through some of my classmates blogs, yet, I didn't get past the first one. P.B.'s post about Gay Marriage stopped me dead in my tracks. I began reading through it, and found myself agreeing and laughing quite a few times. So I decided to just go with this one for my assignment.
To begin, the author opened up the blog post with quite a funny hook. The use of this small couple of sentences definitely draws in the readers by making them laugh. However, after this, P.B. blatantly states the topic that is going to be discussed at hand. Which makes you take it seriously.
As I read through the blog, P.B. went on to explain how idiotic, mindless and pointless it is for people to follow certain ideas about homosexuals. How "sheeple" look down on things that they don't even make an attempt to understand. P.B. goes on to quote scriptures from the Bible and pointing out the flaws in those writings. Flaws that "gay-bashers" don't ever really pay attention to. Most of these flaws are things that people commit quite often, yet, there is no constant condemnation of them.
Doing this, P.B. explained that "gay-basher" pick and choose between what they want to use against people.
Also, the way P.B. ended this post is so freaking true. Just saying.
Now, the only problem I had with P.B.'s post is that (s)he never mentioned the major fault with this situation. A lot of people bring this to the table, and it does get kind of knocked down every time. The separation of church and state.
Basically, one of my major points is, the decision to allow gay marriages to take place should be up to the Priest/Pastor/etc asked to perform it. The Marriage Ceremony is not a government issue, and never should be. Many of the State's governments have chosen to completely ignore gay marriage. Some settle in between by allowing civil unions, or by recognizing their rights.
I personally, as a gay (Christian) male, don't care too much about the damn rights. It's more about the banning of the ceremony that gets on my nerves.
So, that's that. I wanna say thank you to P.B. for that entertaining and wonderful post!
- Blake
Monday, April 4, 2011
The Chopping Block
Today, as I started searching for something to write about, I learned about the states lawmakers plans to cut a big chunk of funding out of an the AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP). This program makes outrageously expensive drugs used for HIV and AIDS available to low income Texas civilians.
Just hearing the title of this news report made me cringe. Out of all programs and businesses to cut, it sickens me to see they could even think about possibly cutting something like this. The report stated that nearly 15,000 people in Texas use this program to afford their NECESSARY medication. Not medication that just makes them feel better, but medication that keeps them alive. The proposed $20 Million dollar cut would in turn take away these services from 3,000 needy people. This, in turn, would directly kill them.
Now, further into the article, it is reported that the Senate Finance Committee has voted for ADAP to be saved from the budget cuts. However, the battle to save the program is far from over. The House of Representatives now have to vote on what to do with the situation. So far, it seems that the battle will favor in ADAP's direction. But even just the possibility of a program like this getting cut is horrible. Apparently, ADAP has had battles like this before in the year 2005. They were eventually rescued and had their funding replaced. So, hopefully, this time around they can be saved once more.
I swear this state needs to get it's priorities straight.
- Blake
Just hearing the title of this news report made me cringe. Out of all programs and businesses to cut, it sickens me to see they could even think about possibly cutting something like this. The report stated that nearly 15,000 people in Texas use this program to afford their NECESSARY medication. Not medication that just makes them feel better, but medication that keeps them alive. The proposed $20 Million dollar cut would in turn take away these services from 3,000 needy people. This, in turn, would directly kill them.
Now, further into the article, it is reported that the Senate Finance Committee has voted for ADAP to be saved from the budget cuts. However, the battle to save the program is far from over. The House of Representatives now have to vote on what to do with the situation. So far, it seems that the battle will favor in ADAP's direction. But even just the possibility of a program like this getting cut is horrible. Apparently, ADAP has had battles like this before in the year 2005. They were eventually rescued and had their funding replaced. So, hopefully, this time around they can be saved once more.
I swear this state needs to get it's priorities straight.
- Blake
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Critiquing a Right Leaned Blog
Alright, so I'm doing this blog a tad late again cause I was out for birthday dinner. (Yey me)
Today I'm going to be critiquing a post by Ron Miller, a friend of the owner of the actual blog.
Alright let's start it up! The author starts out pretty damn shaky in my opinion. The use of "reckon" and bad grammar in the beginning got me rolling my eyes, thinking, "Oh boy here we go." However, Miller began with a story about his adult life in the town Rowlett. When he began with this, he immediately fixed his grammar (which I was extremely thankful for) as well as stopped with the "Texan accent".
He alluded to how the town of Rowlett advanced and grew to the turning point it's at now, mentioning a lot about the towns value and possible connections. Seeing that he lived there for twenty plus years, I would assume he knows what he's talking about. His statements give off a pretty valid feel, and somewhat paint a picture in your head, which I think is a great way to draw people in.
Aside from his technique of drawing people in and implanting ideas in their head, he also asked the audience to make a choice. This stimulates the reader even more and makes them truly think and analyze what they had just read.
The intended audience would be the people living in Rowlett obviously but, I think everyone could gain something from reading this post. It kind of just makes you think in a good way.
Finally to wrap this up, the author argues that the choice of "players on the team" is up to the people. The "players" obviously being politicians. He states, the readers should choose someone who knows what they're talking about when it comes to the towns set up and how it's going to go. His evidence of having this "knowledge of Rowlett" is shown previously through his previous "story".
Hope you guys enjoyed this blog, I'm off to go celebrate the last 45 minutes of my birthday :P
Today I'm going to be critiquing a post by Ron Miller, a friend of the owner of the actual blog.
Alright let's start it up! The author starts out pretty damn shaky in my opinion. The use of "reckon" and bad grammar in the beginning got me rolling my eyes, thinking, "Oh boy here we go." However, Miller began with a story about his adult life in the town Rowlett. When he began with this, he immediately fixed his grammar (which I was extremely thankful for) as well as stopped with the "Texan accent".
He alluded to how the town of Rowlett advanced and grew to the turning point it's at now, mentioning a lot about the towns value and possible connections. Seeing that he lived there for twenty plus years, I would assume he knows what he's talking about. His statements give off a pretty valid feel, and somewhat paint a picture in your head, which I think is a great way to draw people in.
Aside from his technique of drawing people in and implanting ideas in their head, he also asked the audience to make a choice. This stimulates the reader even more and makes them truly think and analyze what they had just read.
The intended audience would be the people living in Rowlett obviously but, I think everyone could gain something from reading this post. It kind of just makes you think in a good way.
Finally to wrap this up, the author argues that the choice of "players on the team" is up to the people. The "players" obviously being politicians. He states, the readers should choose someone who knows what they're talking about when it comes to the towns set up and how it's going to go. His evidence of having this "knowledge of Rowlett" is shown previously through his previous "story".
Hope you guys enjoyed this blog, I'm off to go celebrate the last 45 minutes of my birthday :P
Monday, February 28, 2011
Use Their Money Against Them
Knocking out this nice little assignment I had forgotten about. Alright, so opening up, the Editorial Board of the Austin Statesman Newspaper wrote an interesting editorial about a senators idea on what to do with money confiscated from Mexican drug traffickers. Senator Ogden wondered if any of the millions of dollars are being put to use as payment for better border control.
The author of the article then, instead of relaying the actual answer, goes into relaying a response from Steve McCraw (director of the Department of Public Safety) about the annual amount of money trafficked into America. This answer was, "an estimated $28 billion a year in cash proceeds from illegal drug sales crosses the U.S. border into Mexico every year. Two-thirds of that money passes through Texas." The author then goes into another relay of response from Sen. Ogden: "That's the Medicaid budget".
The article started off interesting and I was excited to see what exactly was going to happen(as well as the argument the author was going to make), but instead, the author goes off on a branch about how Al Capone was caught and captured. Criticizing the movie "The Untouchables" and giving the 'praise' to the accountants.
After the seemingly unnecessary and quite random talk about Al Capone and the movie, the author goes back to the topic first made at the beginning. Back to the traffickers, mentioning the wars over smuggle routes, how they are the 'heirs' of Al Capone and then finally gets into his argument.
The author argues in this that an accelerated effort to stop money from getting into the hands of the traffickers in the first place will help Mexico but also help get money into our state coffers. Which I agree with, this statement is a very obvious one.
The author points out that money is being laundered through Texas banks for support and funding of these drug traffickers. Continuing his/her statement, the author notes that previous State Senator Shapleigh pointed out that not enough was being done by government to stop illegal money going through Texas banks.
The problem I had with this article is just that it seemed unorganized, as the final couple of statements (s)he reaches back way to the beginning and argues that Ogden's 'instinct' is a good one. Which I don't really understand. I assume the author is referring to the idea and questioning about what the confiscated money is being used for. The targeted audience the author is trying to reach is also hard to assume. However, my best assumption is: The target audience for this particular argument(which the author ends the editorial with) are people who are interested in this situation, bank owners, and people with power in government.
The author of the article then, instead of relaying the actual answer, goes into relaying a response from Steve McCraw (director of the Department of Public Safety) about the annual amount of money trafficked into America. This answer was, "an estimated $28 billion a year in cash proceeds from illegal drug sales crosses the U.S. border into Mexico every year. Two-thirds of that money passes through Texas." The author then goes into another relay of response from Sen. Ogden: "That's the Medicaid budget".
The article started off interesting and I was excited to see what exactly was going to happen(as well as the argument the author was going to make), but instead, the author goes off on a branch about how Al Capone was caught and captured. Criticizing the movie "The Untouchables" and giving the 'praise' to the accountants.
After the seemingly unnecessary and quite random talk about Al Capone and the movie, the author goes back to the topic first made at the beginning. Back to the traffickers, mentioning the wars over smuggle routes, how they are the 'heirs' of Al Capone and then finally gets into his argument.
The author argues in this that an accelerated effort to stop money from getting into the hands of the traffickers in the first place will help Mexico but also help get money into our state coffers. Which I agree with, this statement is a very obvious one.
The author points out that money is being laundered through Texas banks for support and funding of these drug traffickers. Continuing his/her statement, the author notes that previous State Senator Shapleigh pointed out that not enough was being done by government to stop illegal money going through Texas banks.
The problem I had with this article is just that it seemed unorganized, as the final couple of statements (s)he reaches back way to the beginning and argues that Ogden's 'instinct' is a good one. Which I don't really understand. I assume the author is referring to the idea and questioning about what the confiscated money is being used for. The targeted audience the author is trying to reach is also hard to assume. However, my best assumption is: The target audience for this particular argument(which the author ends the editorial with) are people who are interested in this situation, bank owners, and people with power in government.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Poor Teachers :c
An outrageous amount of job cuts(over 1000) are going to be carried out by the end of this month. A news article explains AISD's plans to cut over 500 teachers. The plan apparently takes seniority into effect when making the teacher cuts, poor teachers. I feel bad for all the ambitious, relatively new, teachers in Austins Independent School District. Supposedly, the AISD wants to improve their systems efficiency but maintain the "High Quality Education" they offer. The information source, did not provide how much money will be saved from all of these cuts, but I assume it should be a lot. Seeing as the number of job cuts planned is so high, and so early in the year of 2011.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)