It is time to be serious about our future and nature in which we are living. We have faced many natural disasters in past and now the oil spill in Golf of Mexico. Our Government has attempted several times to solve this problem but, unfortunately, the problem is still rising. When I was reading my colleague’s blog,I found more on oil drilling connected with the disaster that we are facing at present. He says that we human being are so selfish that we chase after money and wealth and destroy our own nature and its resources. However, we forget that nature takes revenge with us for creating an imbalance in the ecosystem and natural resources. Now is the time to think of alternative support for energy rather than searching new mines for drilling. The author has mentioned that Shell is moving ahead to drill Alaska for oil. Despite of warning from environmentalists, the work of drilling the earth is rising which is a matter of pressure to everyone because we are the one who have to face the challenges and environmental disaster. Oil spill in Golf of Mexico is the case of the natural disaster we are facing at present. The author is extremely serious about this matter.
The author has successfully cleared the idea that he wants people to understand the reason to explore the other source or energy than drilling another part of the earth. As a reader, I found the article highly relevant, and truthful. It is well organized and well managed. It does not contain any untrue facts. The author has done a fantastic job by including several suggestions that we need to do to keep the nature and our environment. I believe that the author has done an incredible job by including the facts and evidences. The article includes enough logics and ideas. In addition, it makes us aware that we should be careful about our environment before doing
Friday
Arizona's tough Immigration Law
Arizona’s Immigration Law is the hottest topic at present. The Law signed by Arizona’s Governor Jan Brewer on April 23 is the nation’s toughest bill ever on illegal immigration into law. The main aim of the bill is to identify, prosecute and deport the illegal immigrants. Governor Brewer signed the bill despite the criticism on President Obama. President Obama called this law “miss-guided” and referred to justice. This law has charged the national debate about securing the Mexican border and fighting drugs cartels.
Arizona Law gives authority to Arizona local police to arrest the immigrants they suspect are living illegally in United States and check they legal status. According to public poll, many said Arizona’s Law needs changes; three quarters said illegal immigrants were occupying their jobs and were enjoying the public services without paying. Well, the law has not taken effect and is facing legal challenges. Majority believe that this law is devised for segregation, discrimination and racial profile. The law raises a moral issue for those illegal immigrants who were here as yearly as they were 6 months old. They do not know anything about their country and they spend all their life in United States. In consequences of this law, they will be detained too. Many Americans still believe that immigrants have weakened the economy of America; therefore, this law is appropriate, whereas some argue the law is all right. However, some changes needs to be done. The number of protesters has increased not only in Arizona but also in other states. Protesters from other states fear that parallel law may employ in their state. It is the broadest and strictest immigration law in generations, which allows Arizona police officials to stop, ask and arrest any immigrant if they do not provide legal documentation. The law will carry into effect 90 days after the end of the legislative session, by August. It may lead to more crimes as immigrants would not report the crime to the police department due to the fear of detention. The law has created strong fissure in Arizona, with thousands of the caller to the Governor’s office urging her to reject the toughest immigration law.
Arizona Law gives authority to Arizona local police to arrest the immigrants they suspect are living illegally in United States and check they legal status. According to public poll, many said Arizona’s Law needs changes; three quarters said illegal immigrants were occupying their jobs and were enjoying the public services without paying. Well, the law has not taken effect and is facing legal challenges. Majority believe that this law is devised for segregation, discrimination and racial profile. The law raises a moral issue for those illegal immigrants who were here as yearly as they were 6 months old. They do not know anything about their country and they spend all their life in United States. In consequences of this law, they will be detained too. Many Americans still believe that immigrants have weakened the economy of America; therefore, this law is appropriate, whereas some argue the law is all right. However, some changes needs to be done. The number of protesters has increased not only in Arizona but also in other states. Protesters from other states fear that parallel law may employ in their state. It is the broadest and strictest immigration law in generations, which allows Arizona police officials to stop, ask and arrest any immigrant if they do not provide legal documentation. The law will carry into effect 90 days after the end of the legislative session, by August. It may lead to more crimes as immigrants would not report the crime to the police department due to the fear of detention. The law has created strong fissure in Arizona, with thousands of the caller to the Governor’s office urging her to reject the toughest immigration law.
Thursday
Blog stage six
As I was reading my classmates blog,I found the issue of the editorial interesting. Her intended audiences are the whole American population. The author has begun her editorial with the economic health of America in 2009. She argues that Government did wrong by granting a loan to General Motor. She says that giving money to the Company General Motor was not required rather, it could be used for creating jobs, social security or Medicare. She has also shown that she is not satisfied with Government’s act of giving money to the Company General Motors because she says that about four decades later, Government is giving tax money to the company General Motor that took the job of lots of people in the past.
As a reader, I found this editorial a bit unclear because of incomplete information and most of her ideas are just based on her own mind, as I could not see any supporting facts and statistics. I did not find content of the editorial as gripping as the topic. Her arguments were not valid and credible, as it could be if she had stated some of the facts and statistics. In fact, I do not agree with her belief that Government made the wrong decision by giving money to the Company General Motors because we all know that the Company General Motor was escalating downward towards its failure and Government did an admirable job by giving credit to keep the company. In addition to that government loan helped to keep the load of jobs. Recently Company General Motor has also paid off eight billion to taxpayers ahead of schedule. I truly appreciate the author’s opinion about government investing that money for social security, Medicare and welfare, but in that instance, it was Government’s responsibility to protect that the company from going bankruptcy. I think she could have assembled a bit more evidence and logics to supports her ideas. Her allegation was not totally wrong, but I would say it was a poor claim. I think that the writer could have researched it a bit more and included more detail on it because as a reader, I could not figure out what was the main theme of the editorial. In addition, author could have used more issue related ideas rather than other ideas that were not strongly related to the topic. Also, author could have restated her thesis in conclusion so that it would be clearer what the main thought that she was arguing for was.
In conclusion, I would want to say that her arguments and claim were not strong enough. However, the author has tried to make it intelligible and easy.I would suggest that she could have included more detail about what she was arguing for and the supporting facts. The author was not successful to get the clear picture to the intended audience of what she was arguing for in her editorial. Also, her arguments were not that strong as it could be if she had taken support of relevant information and researched it little bit.
As a reader, I found this editorial a bit unclear because of incomplete information and most of her ideas are just based on her own mind, as I could not see any supporting facts and statistics. I did not find content of the editorial as gripping as the topic. Her arguments were not valid and credible, as it could be if she had stated some of the facts and statistics. In fact, I do not agree with her belief that Government made the wrong decision by giving money to the Company General Motors because we all know that the Company General Motor was escalating downward towards its failure and Government did an admirable job by giving credit to keep the company. In addition to that government loan helped to keep the load of jobs. Recently Company General Motor has also paid off eight billion to taxpayers ahead of schedule. I truly appreciate the author’s opinion about government investing that money for social security, Medicare and welfare, but in that instance, it was Government’s responsibility to protect that the company from going bankruptcy. I think she could have assembled a bit more evidence and logics to supports her ideas. Her allegation was not totally wrong, but I would say it was a poor claim. I think that the writer could have researched it a bit more and included more detail on it because as a reader, I could not figure out what was the main theme of the editorial. In addition, author could have used more issue related ideas rather than other ideas that were not strongly related to the topic. Also, author could have restated her thesis in conclusion so that it would be clearer what the main thought that she was arguing for was.
In conclusion, I would want to say that her arguments and claim were not strong enough. However, the author has tried to make it intelligible and easy.I would suggest that she could have included more detail about what she was arguing for and the supporting facts. The author was not successful to get the clear picture to the intended audience of what she was arguing for in her editorial. Also, her arguments were not that strong as it could be if she had taken support of relevant information and researched it little bit.
Saturday
President Obama and Russian President Medvedev have signed the treaty to cut off the nuclear arms
President Obama and the President of Russia Medvedev has recently signed the treaty about cutting the nuclear arms. At present where most of the countries are increasing the production of nuclear weapons, President Obama after passing health care reform Law, is on mission to reduce the utility of nuclear arms together with nuclear-armed country Russia. It is good to know that President Obama wants to solve every problem by peace process. It may sound offensive and unusual to some people, who think America deserves the hegemony, but I actually admire and appreciate Mr. President for this peace action. He also proved that he deserved the Novel peace price as a lot of controversy raised by then when he won the Nobel peace prize.
The production and use of nuclear weapons and arms does not make country powerful rather it creates threats and insecurity to people. We have already learned the lesson from the World War 2 about the consequences of nuclear arms. We cannot even imagine the worst scenario that nuclear weapons will create even though we saw Japan literally bombed and effected for decades .Therefore it is right step that President Obama has taken to cut off the use of nuclear arms in America. We are well known that some of the countries at present are increasing the production of nuclear power to prove them powerful. The effect is every people in the world are globally threatened regardless of the country because of their ambition to be dominant. However, President Obama has tried to show that a country can be strong and powerful without nuclear arms. This could be a live example for all the countries in the world.
Mr. President has taken such a peaceful step to secure the future of America by peace process. President Obama and Russian President Medvedev are in process of increasing the participation of other countries as well. President Obama has said that America and Russia are prepared to take leadership once again by signing the treaty of cutting down the nuclear arms. They are also confident in ratifying the treaty .It is believed that this treaty will be the key part to reset the acquaintance with Russia that was badly strained under the Bush administration. It is good news that America is proceeding toward friendship and peace action with other nations and building the new relationships with those countries that had cold feeling between each other because of past wars. This news could be something that many Americans might have been waiting to read since so long.
The production and use of nuclear weapons and arms does not make country powerful rather it creates threats and insecurity to people. We have already learned the lesson from the World War 2 about the consequences of nuclear arms. We cannot even imagine the worst scenario that nuclear weapons will create even though we saw Japan literally bombed and effected for decades .Therefore it is right step that President Obama has taken to cut off the use of nuclear arms in America. We are well known that some of the countries at present are increasing the production of nuclear power to prove them powerful. The effect is every people in the world are globally threatened regardless of the country because of their ambition to be dominant. However, President Obama has tried to show that a country can be strong and powerful without nuclear arms. This could be a live example for all the countries in the world.
Mr. President has taken such a peaceful step to secure the future of America by peace process. President Obama and Russian President Medvedev are in process of increasing the participation of other countries as well. President Obama has said that America and Russia are prepared to take leadership once again by signing the treaty of cutting down the nuclear arms. They are also confident in ratifying the treaty .It is believed that this treaty will be the key part to reset the acquaintance with Russia that was badly strained under the Bush administration. It is good news that America is proceeding toward friendship and peace action with other nations and building the new relationships with those countries that had cold feeling between each other because of past wars. This news could be something that many Americans might have been waiting to read since so long.
As I was reading the blogs in The Wall Street Journal, I found the blog 2010 will be a Tough Census.The author has expressed his individual ideas and thoughts about 2010’s census which is likely to be the tough census and the most challenging population count in recent history. The cost of census is also expected to rise and there is doubt regarding the accuracy of the count. Sean Reardon, Professor at Stanford University who studies income inequality has indicated that recession could make hard to find the people.
The author has given his reason which is the bad timing where census is going to take place during the worst recession period. He says that the government knows when the census takes place but it is the economic condition which is so unpredictable. He has predicted that this year’s census would take place aftermath of the worst recession. The writer has given more importance to the recession because it is considered as one of the topmost factor which is expected to hinder the 2010’s census. He has compared the timing of census with the past which used to take place in prosperous time before the beginning of the recession. He has answered how the population count would be affected if the census is conducted in awake of deep recession .People have been forced to move around different places because of the economic hardship due to which they could be omitted from the count. Also census seekers have to search them when they do not answer their surveys which will raise the cost of census .The author has tried to give us information how the cost of the census would increase and how tough the census of 2010 is going to be with his relevant ideas.
I agree with the author’s idea but I think the reason he has offered is not enough to support the fact. He could have included the data and statistics to support his ideas. There is no any logics and evidences which would grab the reader’s mind. The topic he has chosen is very reasonable and appropriate as compared to the content. I think he could have added more facts and content to make more fascinating and interesting rather than simply presenting his own ideas.
The author has given his reason which is the bad timing where census is going to take place during the worst recession period. He says that the government knows when the census takes place but it is the economic condition which is so unpredictable. He has predicted that this year’s census would take place aftermath of the worst recession. The writer has given more importance to the recession because it is considered as one of the topmost factor which is expected to hinder the 2010’s census. He has compared the timing of census with the past which used to take place in prosperous time before the beginning of the recession. He has answered how the population count would be affected if the census is conducted in awake of deep recession .People have been forced to move around different places because of the economic hardship due to which they could be omitted from the count. Also census seekers have to search them when they do not answer their surveys which will raise the cost of census .The author has tried to give us information how the cost of the census would increase and how tough the census of 2010 is going to be with his relevant ideas.
I agree with the author’s idea but I think the reason he has offered is not enough to support the fact. He could have included the data and statistics to support his ideas. There is no any logics and evidences which would grab the reader’s mind. The topic he has chosen is very reasonable and appropriate as compared to the content. I think he could have added more facts and content to make more fascinating and interesting rather than simply presenting his own ideas.
Sunday
The Voter will pay
Electronic voting is controversial. People have doubts about the machines and the companies that make them. According to editorial from the New York Times, the nation would be using almost 70 percent of machines made by a single company which would make it difficult to negotiate prices and guarantee quality. The editor argues that justice department should reject it because it is against the public’s interest. He has also given some of the evidences of 2000 presidential election debacle in Florida which had highlighted the deep flaws in voting machine technology with the hanging chads and uncounted votes. He also adds that it would not create any robust competition rather it would disappear.
According to the article, various studies have shown that many voting machines are vulnerable to remove software glitches and intentional vote theft and having the large percent of the nation’s vote counted on machines made by a single company increases vulnerability to these problems. I agree with the writer of this article because we cannot totally rely on the machines and the services provided by a single company like Diebold and expect fair voting. Therefore, the Justice Department should use its authority to ensure the trust of people before the situation gets worse.
I chose this article because I think that the writer has been able to raise the questions that are on the top of the head of people. The author has focused all the range of people by raising the issue of this unsecured voting system that most of the people are unsatisfied with. He is successful in supporting all the range of people by choosing this topic and has successfully conveyed the message that we should be more careful about what decisions government makes about voting machines. The article clearly sets the example that we should try to use the Justice Department to protect our voting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/26/opinion/26fri3.html?ref=opinion
Saturday
Health Care Reform
Public health Care Issue is one of the concerning topic during these days. Even after six month of the hot debate, no one showed the interest in health care reform. Despite hard work of government to create the public awareness about the health care reform, the result did not showed the positive attitude of the people towards the issue, rather the number dropped than the past results.According to this news,fifty one percent of the people opposed the propose of changing the health care system presented by Obama and the Congress and forty four percent are on favor and the rest are undecided. The detailed report on health care reform can be found in (http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1100a4HealthCare.pdf) the overall result from the poll shows that people are losing their interest towards the health care reform. Therefore, I suggest everyone should raise concern on health care reform and support it .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
