My assement of a college's blog

The topic of legislation to be passed to allow students to carry guns on campus is Hot! In fact since it is such a trendy topic, I would like to point out two of my colleges' blogs. They had such a superb case for their argument, that I was amused and inspired by their brilliance. The blogger Hersteez intertwined a comical tone in her blog called, Known to blow fuses, watch your step, while S. Williams had a more blunt and realistic tone with, Allowing college students to carry guns on campus, seriously. I agree with both bloggers that, guns should not be allowed on campus. These two individuals did an excellent job at constructing their arguments.

Hersteez utilized interesting graphics on her words to convey the message. Italics brought out important supportive words and sentences, while words in bold showed the writer's frustration with the stupidity of the legislation. The excert of John Woods was great. She put the right twist on the story to catch the audiences' attention and support herself at the same time. This individual also had a great opening to her argument. The story gave humor and showed personal importance to the writer.

The Texas Proud blogger did a great job at connecting to the audience. This author's
target were students and teachers, with this aim they related the situation to the feelings of the audience. Which took place by asking questions. In the example of passing out papers to an angry student, the author connects with a professor's perspective.

Both individuals summed up their arguments clearly and effectively. What I have noticed on this topic is that the arguments for both sides are repetitive. The same reasons to have guns or not to, keep appearing, but no one wants to change their minds except for John Woods.

Is there a limit for Renovations?

I am the type of Texan, that if I traveled outside of its state line, I would proudly say I am from Texas. When I am away from home I don't care about the stupid accent, or the negative perspectives I meet. Deep down, I admire the beauty and architecture of our capitol, it is a damn shame I did not know where the Governor's mansion was before it burned down. For the moment, my head is in conflict with my heart. Though I do believe we should restore that which we love, I feel that there is a money limit. Our State is the second largest state of the nation and with that responsibility, I feel our state government is obligated to put the citizens before landmarks.

So I was thinking, who is in control of renovations for the capitol? Like always, it starts with a fire. In 1983, a fire nearly destroyed the capitol, and our legislatures reacted with creating the State Preservation Board. Within these thirty years they have made some nice changes for the capitol, like new plumbing, stabilizing the exterior, and protecting the building against fires. They have also spent some money. In 1993, 75 million dollars was used for an "underground capitol extension," in 1995 there was a "comprehensive interior and exterior restoration" that cashed in 98 million, and in 1997 8 million went to "park like grounds." That means in a decade a total of 181 million dollars went to a building.
More recently, they have spent $3.1 million on a "security system designed to protect the perimeter." Which, by the way turned out to have design flaws.

I am not to sure I want the State Preservation Board in control of restoring the mansion. In the Senate Bill 2307, it says that previously "the preservation and maintenance of the Governor's Mansion was provided by two state agencies and one organization: the Texas Historical Commission," but recently they have given the authority to the State Preservation Board. The house so far is willing to use $27 million of the state budget for the restoration of the manor. Luckily the Senate feels that this amount is to high, and so far has only decided upon the balance of $13 million.

I feel that the hesitation of the senate just proves that they are more prestige. Over the last thirty years we have given to much money to the State Preservation Board to not have some doubt.

This argument was not inspired by one single article but about the awakening of how much our legislatures grants to restore landmarks. The large number of sources were the result of an unsettled mind on the pursuit of an answer.

My view of a classmates blog

All my classmates had amusing topics from laser hair removal to the removal of board members. It was just an obstacle to find an ending article, but when it comes down to it you have to find an argument that you are passionate about. Kristine Fetiza's post about Texas education to be without influence of the board was well organized and clearly stated her opinion.

I like how the argument introduced the topic, and then addressed a solution. In the solution it was noted that the power would be transferred to someone else, I believe that just transferring the power does not change anything. The next person can easily be persuaded and corrupted just as the former board members were. I feel we need some guidelines and more check and balance on the members. It would be nice to know that these people are making decisions based on the well fair of the students and not personal gain.

Ms. Fetiza beautifully wraps up her argument with her decision on the legislation. She thinks it is better to leave elected officials in office rather than someone that we do not know as well and who was not elected by the people. I agree that we should not pass the legislation, but for different reasons. I think the focus should not be on the one's who are in control but what qualifies them for their positions.

Reading this argument I came up with some questions. I want to know what requirements do we have for these positions, are they like the house were you only have to be eligible to vote and 21 years old. I feel that if you are going to be approving curriculum for students you need to be required to have some experience in the educational system and have a very large college background. For my second question, I was wondering if Ms. Fetiza had a source. I think it would be nice to have something to refer to in an argument.


Is it really a democracy, and if so who is in control?

I have internalized the belief that the United States and Texas are a democracy. Society has influenced me from childhood that this great nation is indeed built and ruled "by the people, for the people." Abraham Lincoln's very own Gettysburg Address is used by American history teachers as a method of repetition and memorization to drill this concept into the minds of our nations' youths.

So what is a democracy? A democracy is a government by the people, it can be direct or indirect input from the people. The idea of it has developed to the concept that the power is invested in a group that represents the majority of the people, most commonly chosen through elections.

So, through this definition we have a democracy, right? Sociologist use two perspectives to look at this topic. One, with a pluralist perspective that answers yes, or an elitist perspective that says no we do not live in a democracy.

Pluralist believe that the power lies in the hands of the people through representation. People have input in this society because they have the freedom to organize, run for an office, and vote. Access to information, such as news, is another attribute needed to have a democracy. People can affect legislation by the use of interest groups or lobbying, this is a freedom that stands on the platform of knowledge.

The Elitist perspective argues that democracy does not exist, it is an illusion in this country, power is concentrated in the hands of an elite. If you want to study power don’t study politics, study the rich and the people outside of the politics such as corporations. In this structure people are powerless.

Personally, I go back and forth between the two perspectives. I feel that we do have a democracy, if people want the power they can have it, but most citizens give the power up. We chose to let our voting rates drop, and to watch American Idol rather then the news. We are consumed with our own lives, so much that we forget who or what runs them. Through these actions and choices we leave ourselves vulnerable to the elite. Today our representation does not represent the majority, but only the minority who chose to vote. Middle aged white men our are legislatures not because the people love them, but because they have incomes other then the insignificant salaries of legislatures. I mean if Leslie wants to be mayor of Austin, why can't he? Yet, he was able to get more votes than some of the other unsuccessful candidates because he got the attention of the people. Now, it does not matter if they are democrat or republican once they take office their platforms that they used to conquer the voters with all crumble to the same pile. Why, is the Texas Constitution in shambles even though over the years both parties have had their chance to make the difference. I feel that legislation is put off until the last ten days of secession so that legislators do not have to make the choice of offending any big business or valuable outside influence. Recently, the state education board approved new science standards. I feel that this action does not benefit the people, who all have different beliefs and cultures, that this action farther confuses young students. I think that this policy will benift the publishers, which leads me to my example of an elite society.


Newspapers under a democracy

On March 25, 2009, Robbie Cooper, from Urban Grounds, posted a blog called "How could the newspaper industry get any worse? Put the government in charge of it,". Cooper brings up the topic of newspapers getting help from the government. Cooper used minimal words to express his own thoughts but rather quotes from two other blogs. I believe that the purpose of this method was to give him some one-sided support and credibility. Michelle Malkin and Ed Morrissey are effective in showing support for Cooper's claim, but do they also give credibility? Cooper failed at using first party knowledge, using evidence from another blog can easily be twisted from the original context of the article. His intended audience is for fellow conservatives. He rallies his claim with the negative adjectives such as beholden and smitten in his sentence, "a media even more beholden to and smitten with Obama and Liberals than they currently are." This was found in his opening paragraph to awaken conservative passion against the obama administration. Now, for his claim he states that having "US Government subsidise the media that is supposed to hold politicians accountable is a dangerous idea." He speaks of a free nation and the importance of the media being free. Of course, I agree that the media should be able to write what it sees and not be forced to only cover one favored side. The thing is, I would rather have a media then not have it at all. Cooper believes that individuals can cover the news enough that we do not need journalist, and if they go into bankruptcy then let them. Now, if he thinks that he can cover the news by his blog then our nation would be in worse trouble. Actually, this proposed bill will only allow newspapers tax breaks. It will not monitor what they report on, the one down side would be that newspapers can no longer endorse political candidates, which would hurt Patrick Rose's campaign. I do not see tax breaks as such a threat to our freedom of knowledge, but in Cooper's defense, maybe newspapers could think of a way to raise money and get through this short-term recession.

A Death for a Job

I think I can recall, in our earlier lectures Mr. Seago described an incident where a judge from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied an appeal. Well, it just so happens that this event gets to be discussed further. I am not fully talking about the editorial written by the Austin American Statesman's staff on February 22, 2009. I am speaking of the literal fact that the judge will be having a trial coming up to evaluate her actions. To bring us to this up coming event an anonymous writer of the article, "Texas judge Keller should stand trial for rejecting an appeal filed after hours," bluntly states their views on this topic. Now, does this anonymous person show some wit in their editorial or not?

Let me summarize the situation before I critique her, just in case there is any Texan lurking around that begins to get confused. On September 25, 2007 an attorney was trying to turn in an appeal for his client when he started to have computer problems. He called and asked Keller if they could keep the office open later, so that he could stop by and turn in the papers personally. He was turned down, due to the fact that the office closed at 5 p.m. Michael Richard was executed that very day because of an unfortunate deadline. Since then, this action has been very controversial. The state legislature has now begun the process of impeachment. Keller still has the chance to stand trial, or to resign, but she has been charged with five counts of violating her position.

I feel that the writer is reaching out to the democrats that populate Austin, the humanitarians that want justice, and the people against lethal injection.He or she, adequately reaches out to his audience through his vivid vocabulary. For the humanitarians he depicts the judge's actions as "a heartless approach to justice." He plays with the republican court as having a "reputation for rubber-stamping convictions." He even brought up the lethal injection in his article.

For his argument, he continues to play on the values of his audience. I mean, we our a nation with checks and balances, so why not put this naughty judge to the test of trial. He certainly wants justice served in the way our nation was built on it.For his evidence he builds in the facts. A judge made an uncalled for denial, she went around her fellow judges, and is already convicted.

This writer's conclusion that we should let Judge Keller go to trial is well argued.First time reading the article I kind of felt unsure, but after truly reading the article I think he persuaded me. I even believe an eye for an eye is a death for a job, and lets give the judge to the judges.