Recently, there have been a rising number in cases of teens committing suicide after being bullied. The most publicized case was when 18 year old Tyler Clementi was web casted having relations with another boy by his roommate and committed suicide after finding out. This case is was just one of many, and as a result of this recent spike in teens committing suicide after being bullied, the government has decided to step in. The government has recently warned schools that “tolerating or failing to adequately address ethnic, sexual, or gender based harassment could put them in violation of federal anti-discrimination laws” (Armario, Austin American Statesman). An example of how the government is stepping in can be seen in New Jersey. Lawmakers there are working on creating an “anti-bullying bill of rights”, which would require schools of grades K through 12 to have various anti-bullying programs.
The topic of bullying at the schools is an unnecessary issue for lawmakers to be focusing their time on. Yes, bullying is a problem that schools should not tolerate, but having the government getting involved is a step too far. It is every adults moral obligation to stop bullying whenever they are aware of it happening, but we really do not need laws stating that. The main problem with the recent spike in teens committing suicide is not a recent rise in bullying, but a drop in the teens ability to handle insult and criticism in a reasonable way. Instead of teaching kids how to deal with the bad parts of life, we are sheltering them from it as much as we can. As a result of this, when kids get bullied, they overreact in a negative way towards themselves. This is a tragic situation affecting today’s youth, but government involvement is not going to fix the problem.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Dithering on 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'
One of the biggest topics of the public interest dealing with the national government today is the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy in affect in the military. The editorial published "Dithering on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell'" questions why this law is still in effect, and covers the recent rulings by Judge Virginia Phillips. Judge Phillips ruled the law is “unconstitutional because it infringes the due process and free speech rights of gay service members.” She also stated that “the original premises for the policy have been proved wrong”, which was to enhance military preparedness. She encourages the military to stop the law immediately, as well as “drop any investigation or discharge proceeding mounted under the law against any gay service member.” Although because congress has not repealed the law, changes are still not in effect yet.
Once again, I could not find who wrote the editorial on the website other the “Editorial Board”, so I am not able to properly and accurately evaluate the authors credibility. The author has all of their facts straight about the recent events, and made very few arguments in some of their statements, which were properly thought out and reasoned.
The author’s intended audience for this editorial are those that are interested in the events concerning the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ law. The author’s main intention is not persuade anybody either against the law or for the law. Instead, the editorial mainly just discusses the most current events with the law. The only persuasion that takes place in the editorial is that the law should be repealed, but there is very little actual persuasion. We only get this idea from the author from their tone, and a few short sentences simply stating that the law is wrong. Because this is so minimal throughout the editorial, the author’s main audience is not for people against the law, just those interested in the events concerning the law.
Although most of the editorial is about the recent events with the law, the author’s main argument is that the law is wrong, and should be repealed. This stand point is evident throughout the entire article because it has a tone in favor with the Judge Phillip’s decisions and rulings, most notably when the author calls the law “odious and misguided” . The author also states that they “believe[ed] the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell” law was wrong from the day it passed 17 years ago.”
Once again, I could not find who wrote the editorial on the website other the “Editorial Board”, so I am not able to properly and accurately evaluate the authors credibility. The author has all of their facts straight about the recent events, and made very few arguments in some of their statements, which were properly thought out and reasoned.
The author’s intended audience for this editorial are those that are interested in the events concerning the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ law. The author’s main intention is not persuade anybody either against the law or for the law. Instead, the editorial mainly just discusses the most current events with the law. The only persuasion that takes place in the editorial is that the law should be repealed, but there is very little actual persuasion. We only get this idea from the author from their tone, and a few short sentences simply stating that the law is wrong. Because this is so minimal throughout the editorial, the author’s main audience is not for people against the law, just those interested in the events concerning the law.
Although most of the editorial is about the recent events with the law, the author’s main argument is that the law is wrong, and should be repealed. This stand point is evident throughout the entire article because it has a tone in favor with the Judge Phillip’s decisions and rulings, most notably when the author calls the law “odious and misguided” . The author also states that they “believe[ed] the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell” law was wrong from the day it passed 17 years ago.”
Friday, October 1, 2010
An ally against Mexico's terror
A recent editorial in the Austin American Statesman, "An ally against Mexico's terror", discusses why the “U.S. immigration authorities granted political asylum to Mexican journalist Jorge Luis Aguirre” through giving him citizenship. The U.S. immigration authorities granted him asylum in order to protect him from the drug cartels. The drug cartels have been targeting and killing journalists in Mexico for several years now in their efforts to silence and control the free press. The U.S. immigration authorities feel that granting journalists asylum here is important because, as stated by the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, “A free press is essential to an empowered citizenry, government accountability and responsible economic development. Wherever independent media are under threat, accountable governance and human freedom are undermined”.
Both the printed newspaper, and the internet do not mention a single author for the editorial “An Ally Against Mexico’s Terror”, but rather just the ‘Editorial Board’. The two people on the Editorial Board, Alberta Phillips and Ken Herman, have both been employed by the Statesman for many years, so they hold credibility in their years of experience as editorial authors.
The author’s intended audience in this editorial are those who are interested in immigration, and those that oppose immigration. The editorial includes a description of the events that took place concerning the U.S. granting journalists asylum, which shows that the article is intended for those interested in the current events on immigration. The article also shows that it is geared for those who oppose immigration when it tries to persuade the audience that the U.S. granting journalists asylum is a good thing.
The author’s main argument in the editorial is in favor of the U.S. government granting Mexico’s endangered journalists asylum here. Their argument is evident throughout the editorial because of its overall positive tone. The main feelings of the author are most apparent at the end of the editorial when he states that it is good that America is being “proactive about the fact that Mexico is in grave danger and that when the press -- one of the most basic safeguards against tyranny -- is under attack, we’ll be willing to extend our hand”. The author feels that this protection of their press will help protect their country from further corruption.
Both the printed newspaper, and the internet do not mention a single author for the editorial “An Ally Against Mexico’s Terror”, but rather just the ‘Editorial Board’. The two people on the Editorial Board, Alberta Phillips and Ken Herman, have both been employed by the Statesman for many years, so they hold credibility in their years of experience as editorial authors.
The author’s intended audience in this editorial are those who are interested in immigration, and those that oppose immigration. The editorial includes a description of the events that took place concerning the U.S. granting journalists asylum, which shows that the article is intended for those interested in the current events on immigration. The article also shows that it is geared for those who oppose immigration when it tries to persuade the audience that the U.S. granting journalists asylum is a good thing.
The author’s main argument in the editorial is in favor of the U.S. government granting Mexico’s endangered journalists asylum here. Their argument is evident throughout the editorial because of its overall positive tone. The main feelings of the author are most apparent at the end of the editorial when he states that it is good that America is being “proactive about the fact that Mexico is in grave danger and that when the press -- one of the most basic safeguards against tyranny -- is under attack, we’ll be willing to extend our hand”. The author feels that this protection of their press will help protect their country from further corruption.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)