Commentary

  In the latest article, http://nobullinamerica.blogspot.com/, a student discusses the advantages and disadvantages immigration can have on the population as a whole. He/she states that if someone violates a law then they should be punished and in this case deportation will be the punishment of illegal immigration. They also explain how Americans worked hard to be a citizen and make ends meet, while immigrants are just coming to the country illegally and taking our jobs. Some of them only come here to create a better future for their family, but they are legal ways to do that. I agree with this topic completely, the government should take more cautions when it comes to illegal immigration.  He/she did a really good job explaining the impact this can have on the population. This article had many different perceptions and it wasn't just focused on one view. They did a very good job wording and separating their topic into separate paragraphs. Not only did they explain how an immigration reform can help the country, they also listed some ways it can help. Overall I really learned a lot about immigration from this essay, and I found it to be really constructive.

Why Not ObamaCare? Part Two

   Obama had a specific goal when he came up with the Affordable Care Act. His primary goal was to provide a substantial way for poor people or low income people with an opportunity to protect them. His ACA provided a way for the less fortunate to receive health insurance no matter what type of condition they were in, but is it fair to others? ObamaCare has its advantages and disadvantages when it comes to our citizens. These people may be able to receive health insurance now but at what cost? Somebody has to pay for them to have insurance and I assure you it isn't our government who pays for it. That money comes out of our pockets and it puts people of lower income in a bigger hole because they now are paying for yet another bill that they can't afford. For example, my mother works 10-7 every day and gets paid the same amount of money as your average fast food worker. Everybody knows fast food workers average between $200-300 per week, which isn't very much for a single mother of 4. My mom works very hard to make ends meet with the little bit of money she has, but the government adds on to the amount of money she has to spend by putting out this ACA law that makes it mandatory for her to spend up to $100 on something she may never use. So why should one person have to sacrifice for a stranger?

   ObamaCare was put into place with about 33% of the population in mind, but what about the other 67%? Is it right that they have to pay for health insurance when they're as healthy as a horse? Obama may think so, but I don't. Yes ObamaCare prevents people from paying for the health of others, but it always requires them to pay for the health of themselves. You may think this is what people are supposed to do anyway, but not everybody needs health insurance. ObamaCare just puts more people in debt and causes small businesses to lose money and employees. While these may be the disadvantages of the new ACA, there are also some advantages. You see life is a risk and every day you wake up, you are taking that risk. So maybe having the ACA isn't such a bad thing if you think about it this way. You may think you don't need health insurance now, but nobody knows what the future brings them. You could wake up tomorrow morning with cancer and your only option of survival would be treatment; however, many hospitals don't treat patients without health insurance. So what do you do then? Your only other option is to get health insurance or you can just wait around for this disease to get worse and eventually lead to death. This isn't the life you want to live, so maybe instead of completely trying to get rid of ObamaCare, we should just make a few minor changes to it.

   I suggest that Obama revise his new Affordable Care Act. The new act should've been written with all of the population in mind, not just part of it. The new law should require citizens who want health insurance to receive it without being turned down. It shouldn't have any drawbacks to it, such as the price these citizens have to pay to have health insurance. The price should be lowered to a more reasonable price, such as about $20. Either way the Government is still making money, so why overcharge citizens. We already give a good portion of the money we make to the government and I don't think it's fair that they take any more of our money. At the end of the day, we work hard to make our money and we deserve every last dime. The government does nothing but causes problems for our Country as a whole, and for that they do not deserve a dime of our money.

Commentary on Safety First

   In the latest article, http://governmentselfie.blogspot.com/, a student reaches out to students and faculty members at public schools all around the world. He/she discusses how some faculty members refuse to teach sex education due to their religious and conservative ties to the family as well as not wanting to expose kids to "inappropriate" subject matter.  Is he/she right? Does this controversy exist? A logical appeal is used to give statistics of how this controversy leads to more than just the teaching of sex education in school, he/she provides us with current information on how this can lead to less abortions and maybe lower the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.  This was a great issue to address because not many people are aware of this issue; therefore, they have no knowledge regarding the fact that it can lead to more pregnancies and STDs. While you provide us with many facts to support your claim that sex education should be taught in public schools, you lack in persuading your readers why you feel that way and why should we trust your opinion over others. This information shows that this author is trustworthy, but it can also hurt his/her credibility because it shows that this article is very one-sided. He/she only talks about the advantages of teaching sex education in public schools, while they may state a couple disadvantages: they don’t elaborate on them and that makes it hard for them to convince there reader. His/her argument is a strong one, with a lot of evidence to support his claim but it focuses more on the effects of not teaching sex education then it does the causes. I feel the author should’ve elaborated on what causes this issue because without knowing the cause, how can you determine the effects? But I agree with the author’s claim that teaching sex education in school can possibly lead to less unwanted pregnancies, as well as the prevention of STDs because it provides them with guidance and knowledge on an issue that there scared to discuss with their parents. Our children shouldn't be affected by such a petty issue because teachers refuse to teach such topic, instead they should be taught how to avoid small problems that can lead to life altering decisions. This author does a good job overall explaining how such controversy can change solve so many problems within the United States in such little time, only with the right guidance.

Why not ObamaCare?

 Obamacare. We've all heard this term being uttered by supporters and skeptics alike, across the country. Whether we've heard it discussed on CNN, read about it in an article, or seen a related post on our favorite social media website, we've all been exposed to the new Affordable Care Act. The one that forces U.S. Citizens to spend money on insurance that they may not need only to benefit those in need of health insurance. So why are we obligated to pay for healthcare if we don't need it? 

   I feel as though ObamaCare should be an option for US citizens to chose from. Not everybody needs health insurance and some people can't afford it, which is why citizens are having a hard time adjusting to this new affordable care act. Washington Post makes it clear that this new law causes problems for small businesses and insurance companies. It requires small businesses to pay for their employees insurance which they cannot afford and that only causes them to lose employees because they can't afford to pay them due to the fact that they have to pay for health insurance for each one of their employees and as a small business they don't make a lot of money. ObamaCare also hurts parents who had to make sacrifices just to make ends meet and now they have to pay for health insurance that they can't afford only to please those who need it. Insurance companies will soon be wiped out by this new affordable care act that they will soon go out of business which only cost more people to be without a job. I understand that this act will provide a way for citizens with health problems that have a hard time paying for hospital bills or doctor visits because they don't have insurance but what about the people who don't need health instance, do we make them suffer so everybody else can be happy? This new act was put in place with a certain group of people in mind, nobody stopped to think about the people who would be hurt by this act. Washington Post

Critique #2

  In the latest article, http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/10/opinion/mccormick-veterans-shutdown-props/index.html?hpt=op_t1, Nick McCormick reaches out to our troops and their families. He discusses how the Government Shutdown affects America's veterans every day. He reaches out to these people who have put their life on the line for this country, only to have it thrown back in their faces. Nick McCormick draws his audience in with a thought that provides sympathy to those troops impacted by the Government Shutdown. This is a great way to draw readers in because it makes readers wonder how this thought came about and in order for them to find that out, they will have to continue reading the article. Nick also provides us with facts, as well as opinions, which makes this author trustworthy because not only is he stating the truth about this issue, but he's also telling us how he feels about these facts and why they can be devastating to America's veterans. This information shows that this author is trustworthy, but it can also hurt his credibility because it shows that this article is very one-sided. Nick only talks about how the Government Shutdown affects our troops; he doesn't discuss the possibility of it helping our troops, which makes the reader question why he/she should agree with his argument. His argument is a strong one, with a lot of evidence to support his claim but it focuses more on the Government Shutdown then it does on our troops. I feel this article is a good article, but there are some minor problems within the article that can have an impact on the author, such as the word choice the author uses and how it can be offending to some people. I agree with Nick's claim because it is absolutely true, but I do think he could've presented it to the readers in a manner that would inspire them to think about this issue and whether they feel it hurts our troops, instead this article forced us to pick a side. Our troops shouldn't be affected by such a petty issue because they are the ones who keep our country safe, but as Americans we shouldn't base our judgment off of what somebody else tells us, we should ponder that thought and decide whether this author provided us with enough facts for us to agree. Nick McCormick does a good job overall at explaining why our troops deserve better when it comes to the Government Shutdown.

A Reader's Critique on "ObamaCare is fiscally irresponsible: Opposing view"

   In one of the articles found on USA Today, "ObamaCare is fiscally irresponsible: Opposing view" Michael A. Needham takes a stand on Obama Care. Michael A. Needham, the author of this article, believes Obama Care to be "incompatible with fiscal responsibility." He uses a substantial amount of evidence to support this claim, but he lacks in his thoughts. He gives us his opinion based off facts; he doesn't really include how Obama Care affects his emotions. As an author taking a stand on an issue, it is his job to provide us with facts to support his claim, as well as some type of personal experience or emotion that he felt when dealing with this issue. That way the reader can trust his credibility because as the author he experienced the effect Obama Care has on the world. His article appears to a limited amount of people who feels as though Obama Care isn't helping our economy, it's hurting our economy. His article needs to appear to a wider range of people, it shouldn't appear to a certain group of people, but because of how the article is written, it only can appear to a certain crowd. If you want to make a claim that Obama Care isn't helping our economy, then you need to provide more information regarding that issue and ways to fix that issue. This will enable more people who may not agree with you to take a stand on this position because you've provided them with a solution to your problem. I don't necessarily agree with this article because I support Obama Care. I only support Obama Care because I like Obama and I believe that he is trying to make a change in the world, but given that opportunity to read something that's provides me with information on Obama Care and how it's helping/ hurting our economy, my opinion can easily change. So if Michael A. Needham wants to get through to people like me, who only support Obama Care because of the person involved within it, then they need to provide an argument that not only takes a stand on a topic, but it also expresses how that person feels about the topic and it provide us with a range of ways to fix that issue. Overall Michael A. Needham does a good job at stating his opinion on Obama Care and providing us with facts to support that claim, but he lacks in emotion and personal experiences as to why he doesn't support Obama Care. He could add some details regarding other people views on Obama Care verses his and some suggestions as to how he thinks we can fix or change the way Obama Care works.

"Washington Navy Yard opens just three days after massacre."

 

On Thursday, September 19, 2013, ABC News published an article titles "Washington Navy Yard opens just three days after massacre." This article explains how wokers were devastated to return to work just 3 days after the Washington Navy Guard shooting occured. We all should know about this shooting that occured on September 1, 2013 at the Washington Navy Guard, but for those who don't this is what happened. A 34-year-old, afican american man named Alexis gunned down 12 people before police killed him. He claimed to be unstable, as "he complained to police in Rhode Island that people were talking to him through the walls and ceilings of his hotel room and sending microwave vibrations into his body to deprive him of sleep." Today the workers at the Washington Navy Guard will be returning back to this place where this awful event took place. This aticle is important not only because it educates us on this event but it also explains how this man conisently was denied help by the govenment because he didn't meet its "needs". This man tried to tell the world that he wasn't mentally stable but they didn't see nothing wrong with him. We as citizens blame people like Alexis for his actions because we only see what the media brodcasts, but there's way more details to the story then what they show us, which is why you should read this aricle. This article gives us the full details on this tradedy as well as the facts and it's also educating us on a real life issue that occured within our country. These people that work here will be reminded every day of this tradgey so why shouldn't we take at least 10 minutes to pay our respects to not only the people that work here, but also their families. Reading this article is an excellent way to pay our respects!