Lauren comments on the proposed bill that would allow handguns on college campuses. Her position is not firmly stated but she does lean for the passing of the bill. Her tone is not aggressive which suggests that she is analyzing and providing information but is not 100% all for it. I believe Lauren’s audience is general because she does explain and give information about the issue in a very clear diction.
Lauren provides information and reasons for the positions taken both for and against the bill but does not seem to give her own position on the bill; as she ends her commentary with “You decide,” prompting the reader to do just that, take a position in a very controversial issue indeed.
Lauren needed to go into more depth about the possible positive affects the bill would have on campuses if passed. The paragraphs are not organized; I think she should have broken up the paragraphs a little more for easy flow.
Lauren’s use of a question as the title and also in her conclusion is successful in catching the reader’s attention and getting the reader actively involved in her reasoning.
I like the way Lauren explained both the negative and positive affects this bill would have in college campuses if passed. Why people want to pass the bill and why some do not want the bill to be passed. I think this is very important to the reader so that one can better decide a position on the issue.
When Lauren presents references such as links to statistics, she does not provide details and a thorough introduction to her link. I feel she did not take the necessary time to bring new arguments to the discussion other then the basic pros and cons. This made her commentary less interesting.
Overall I think she does backup both arguments very well and her embedded links as references provide the reader with very important information that helps understand the broadness of the issue being discussed.
I don’t support this bill at all because I think we should and cannot live in fear, the number of tragedies in college and universities has been very tragic but there just has to be another solution to the problem then to let any licensed individual carry a gun around on campus, just because you are licensed does not mean you don’t have issues.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Friday, April 3, 2009
Border Drug War Demands More Attention.
In the Austin American Statesman commentary section Tom Teepen argues that "We" need to do more about the drug war problem in the U.S-Mexican border. His main claim is that the current policies in place are not enough to reduce the drug traffic and weapon trade and that the government needs to make some changes to the strategies that have been used up until now.
I believe that Teepen's audience is academic probably a college undergraduate so that one may understand the issue more clearly and know exactly why he makes certain statements. He states that the drug problem can soon spread into politics going against the government and one would need to have an idea of how and why this would be if in fact. Teepen's diction also led me to conclude the intended audience because of his choice of some words like "metastasize."
The author's paragraph format made his commentary easy to read and to follow. Each section provides a new argument that supports his main claim. Teepen unfolds his arguments in a clear manner while elaborating some on each of his ideas (all though not very detailed) on each statement he made.
Teepen's commentary is credible because he references President Obama when he states that Obama only referenced the drug war problem briefly in his news conference. Teepen also references The US Department of Homeland Security and the analysis they made that recognizes that "unchecked" the drug war could potentially escalate to a major political problem. The author also cites quotes from Obama's conference which makes this even more believable.
I also think the use of the first person point of view is very helps the tone of his argument because when he says "we" need to do more or "political cowardice hold us back" he includes himself. He sounds less demanding and agressive.
Teepen provides enough information and evidence to support his claim.He aknowledges that Obama has done something about the drug war such as assigning hundreds of agents to the border and additional technology but then he explains that this is still not enough. He argues that President Bush let the ban on military-style assault weapons laps giving drug cartel's easy access.
The author also explains that Obama is not paying much attention to this matter because he has other more important problems to resolve at this time. He backs up this statement with Obama made this clear in his news conference. Teepen concludes his commentary with some suggestions about what changes that should be applied in order to reduce the drug trafficking and gun trade problem.
In conclusion I think that Teepen's commentary is convincing and credible. I don't necessarily agree with the author that the government is not doing enough about the drug war problem. I think the government is doing what they can with the resources at hand at the moment and that there are other priorities in Obamas agenda at the present time. There is always more one can do but in this case I think the matter is too dangerous to rush into changing policies without analysing the consequences this may have. I did learn from this commentary about the ban president Bush let lapse from the military-style assault weapons which I thought was a very unfortunate mistake.
I believe that Teepen's audience is academic probably a college undergraduate so that one may understand the issue more clearly and know exactly why he makes certain statements. He states that the drug problem can soon spread into politics going against the government and one would need to have an idea of how and why this would be if in fact. Teepen's diction also led me to conclude the intended audience because of his choice of some words like "metastasize."
The author's paragraph format made his commentary easy to read and to follow. Each section provides a new argument that supports his main claim. Teepen unfolds his arguments in a clear manner while elaborating some on each of his ideas (all though not very detailed) on each statement he made.
Teepen's commentary is credible because he references President Obama when he states that Obama only referenced the drug war problem briefly in his news conference. Teepen also references The US Department of Homeland Security and the analysis they made that recognizes that "unchecked" the drug war could potentially escalate to a major political problem. The author also cites quotes from Obama's conference which makes this even more believable.
I also think the use of the first person point of view is very helps the tone of his argument because when he says "we" need to do more or "political cowardice hold us back" he includes himself. He sounds less demanding and agressive.
Teepen provides enough information and evidence to support his claim.He aknowledges that Obama has done something about the drug war such as assigning hundreds of agents to the border and additional technology but then he explains that this is still not enough. He argues that President Bush let the ban on military-style assault weapons laps giving drug cartel's easy access.
The author also explains that Obama is not paying much attention to this matter because he has other more important problems to resolve at this time. He backs up this statement with Obama made this clear in his news conference. Teepen concludes his commentary with some suggestions about what changes that should be applied in order to reduce the drug trafficking and gun trade problem.
In conclusion I think that Teepen's commentary is convincing and credible. I don't necessarily agree with the author that the government is not doing enough about the drug war problem. I think the government is doing what they can with the resources at hand at the moment and that there are other priorities in Obamas agenda at the present time. There is always more one can do but in this case I think the matter is too dangerous to rush into changing policies without analysing the consequences this may have. I did learn from this commentary about the ban president Bush let lapse from the military-style assault weapons which I thought was a very unfortunate mistake.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
