Classmate comment #2

This person’s blog regarding Arizona’s new immigration law has a compelling argument for and against the issue.

The new Arizona immigration law allows local police officers to arrest anybody that is suspected to be an illegal immigrant and check their legal statuses. “The main aim of the bill is to identify, prosecute and deport the illegal immigrants.”

The author seems to be against the new but has also included reasons why Arizona should go on with the law. The author included poll results which said that 75% of Americans believed that illegal immigrants has been occupying many American jobs while not paying any taxes, and she later said how illegal immigrants are hurting the American economy.

Although these reasons are supporting Arizona’s new law, the author has provided much more reasons against the law which makes me believe that she is against it. The law has brought up suspicions of it being an act of racism because it is promoting segregation and racial profiling. The author has also brought up moral issues regarding those who were born in the U.S. from parents who are illegal immigrants and that it is not “fair” to them that they are sent to their country when they have never lived anywhere outside the United States. This law would increase crime rate because illegal immigrants would not report crimes to the police because they are afraid of being deported. The argument against the law that the author provided are purely ethical reasons which makes it less convincing to those who would prefer more legal reasons. The reasons that support the law are more convincing to me personally because illegal immigrants are occupying American jobs and thus hurting the American economy. The reasons against the law are not violating any legal issue and would not be entirely convince me to go against the law.

From an ethical standpoint, the author’s argument would be convincing to any “average” person but not to someone who would prefer legal reasons.

Congress renews auto safety measures

On Thursday, Congress began working on legislation that would impose far-reaching safety standards on the auto industry. The new regulations includes having a “black box” in each car that would be able to record the car’s crash history and be able to stop the car automatically even when it is at full power. It could also order automakers to recall defective cars immediately and pay the safety fees to cover the costs of federal oversight. Other safety measures that could go in effect are tire and seat belts safety.

I’m glad that Congress is taking the time to take care of this issue now. Some of these safety ideas were already in circulation among automakers for years, but was never put into effect. I believe that these new safety system costs are too much for the automakers to deal with. I think that having automakers recall defective cars immediately would benefit them and their customers. Not only will it reduce the amount of accidents, but it would also save the automakers from millions of dollars from having to fix the damaged cars and dealing with lawsuit issues.

The “black boxes” is also a great idea because in a case of the stuck accelerator, the car would be able to automatically stop the car because it has the ability to “override” the system. This will also save automakers from lawsuits and also increase overall safety for the people in those cars.

The legislation that Congress is working on is actually not only beneficial to the American citizens but also beneficial to automakers as well.

Classmate critique

This is from my classmate's article on why the U.S. should use solar energy. I believe that solar energy is one of the most effective ways to support “going green.” I’m also convinced that we should go green because of the statistics that said “the energy that strikes the surface of the earth in 8 minutes is more than the world uses in a year.” Your article is convincing in terms of explaining how effective solar energy actually is, but your reasoning about the cost of solar panels is still unclear. You said that the cost for solar panels can be paid off in a short amount of time, but how short is it? Although solar energy is ideal, the cost of solar panels for the whole country maybe too much for our government to handle hence we are behind in the amount of solar panels in our country.

From your article, I am not convinced that the U.S. is ready for solar panels in terms of cost especially during this economic recession.

U.S. plans for disposing plutonium

This article explains about how the U.S. plan to remove plutonium from their nuclear weapons in regards to their treaty with Russia. The U.S. has been trying to build a factory that would “convert the plutonium to reactor fuel” since the 1990s.

The main reason why the disposal of plutonium hasn’t taken into effect yet is because of the expense. This argument would be more believable if the plan started in the 2000s because that was when the economic recession started happening. During the 90s, the economy was actually expanding as opposed to collapsing. Converting plutonium for a reactor may be expensive but when the economy is at its high, finances are the last thing that is standing in the way. The U.S. could only be procrastinating on the job because the Russian’s “program has been delayed for years.” I believe that the U.S. might not trust Russia in terms of nuclear weapons. I think their just waiting to see if Russia will start at all.

What the U.S. has done so far is stop the production of more plutonium. Although the U.S. has stopped production, they have yet to dispose the remains as of now. According to the article, the “United States already has such a large plutonium surplus that it may be running out of storage places.” I thought the agreement was to dispose of it and not “store” it somewhere else. I think the U.S. feels insecure without their nuclear weapons; similarly to a soldier without his guns. With that in mind I highly doubt that U.S. will dispose of all of their nuclear bombs. They may dispose the ones that are still “visible”, but not the ones that are hidden.

Editorial comment

In this blog by Ann Coulter, she blames “the Supreme Court for the attempted car bombing at Times Square” that just happened recently. She states that “Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, five Supreme Court justices have repeatedly voted to treat jihadists like turnstile jumpers.” They are trying to convince President Obama to treat them like American citizens and so give them those rights such as Miranda rights.

She believes that because of this, simple “amateurish” terrorist attacks are still continuing to occur. She refers to how FDR ordered to have 6 German and 2 American to immediately arrested and tried when they were suspected of plotting an attack on an U.S. munitions plant during World War II. Some of the suspects were either executed or placed in prison for at least 30 years. She implies that if we take a more aggressive approach towards suspected terrorists then it will limit how often terrorist attacks will occur. The author also said that we are at war and that the Supreme Court has no right to intervene with the commanders in chief’s constitutional war powers.

The author is making an appeal towards political leaders and to some extent, the public. She wants them to realize how ignorant the Supreme Courts actions are. She tries to make herself credible by referring to FDR during WWII and to use basic common sense to make her ideas clearer. My only criticism in her blog was that her evidence was not clear. The only clear evidence was her reference to FDR but that was it. Her argument was how the Supreme Court’s decision to intervene in the president’s job was causing the problem, and she does not believe that they have the right to do so. If she included more constitutional reason as to what the Supreme Court can and cannot do in relation to the president, then it would make her argument more compelling.

Based on what I’ve read, I believe that the author’s argument is clear, but I think that the only thing that is lacking heavily is her evidence which will therefore hurt her credibility.

Opposing the Court

As I’m reading the editorial section of the Los Angeles Times, I noticed an article, ‘Countering the court’, in regards to the Congress’s attempt to counter a decision that was made by the Supreme Court last month. The Supreme Court ruled “that corporations have a 1st Amendment right to advertise on behalf of political candidates.” Sen. Charles E. Schumer and Rep. Chris Van Hollen have announced to legislation a counter for this by proposing a bill that would “require corporations to disclose their political expenditures to shareholders.”They also proposed another bill that would “require fuller disclosure to both the Federal Election Commission and to voters of the role played by corporate money in campaign advertising.” The author wrote this for the concerns of the voters. He believes that having corporations advertising for candidates will place “burdens on the voters to discern the motives of those speakers.” The editor argues that although the attempt to counter the Supreme Court’s ruling was a decent start, it still did not keep corporations from advertising for political candidates. In other words, they are still allowed to advertise for the candidates. Based on the sources from the speakers, the editor did make a reasonable argument. As I read through the rest of the article, the author did not explain at all why it is bad for corporations to advertise for political candidates. He only stated that they shouldn’t do it and how it will confuse the voters. For the majority of his article he explains his suggestions on how to improve the speaker’s proposal. As far as what I’ve read from his article, I’m not convinced as why Congress should place the higher restrictions.

There is still no success in the government’s attempt at fighting obesity

Obesity has been a big issue among children in the U.S. “with 17 percent of children considered obese and about one in three of them overweight.” Mrs. Obama announces her “Let’s Move” campaign on Feb. 9 to upgrade The President’s Council on Physical Fitness and sports that was established by President Eisenhower in 1956. The President’s Council with its $1.2 million budgets has barely affected childhood obesity due to its insufficient funding. In the 1960s, President Kennedy sponsored the program by setting up a nonprofit charitable foundation to support the fight against childhood obesity, but it didn’t last very long. The council was also led by Arnold Schwarzenegger under President George H.W. Bush in hopes of gaining more support for the program but issue became worse with the rise in video games, smart phones, and iPods.

This article is worth reading because it reveals the government’s previous attempts at fighting obesity. If the government had already attempted and failed, what makes Mrs. Obama’s program seem like it will be successful? Also, with the increase in convenient technology; it seems that this program will fall just like its predecessors did.