Comment on a Colleague's Work #2

I really like many of the thoughts you relayed in your editorial, but I do have suggestions that could strengthen your blog post. While there are many factual statements that do support your reasoning for wanting to eliminate the Electoral College, I would recommend using the entire rhetorical triangle in order to completely persuade your audience. The rhetorical triangle encompasses ethos (trust), logos (logic), and pathos (emotion) to convince your writer to believe you by showing them that you agree with them, but to look at things from your perspective. Also, I would make sure to watch grammar errors throughout your post. For example, “for coming presidential election” in the first paragraph should be “for the coming presidential election.” This occurred in a few other places throughout your editorial, which can distract the reader from the point you are trying to get across.  

In addition, I would try to embed quotes in the text rather than simply place them in, giving the reader some context behind the insertion so they are less confused. So, I would replace the sentence that you have as simply one large quote and break it up a bit, using some background information to make a smooth transition. Lastly, I would use a hook at the beginning that you can use to wrap up your conclusion in a more persuasive way. This could be something creative or something simple like “we all like to think our opinion matters, but the electoral college is going against this American ideal of equality for all.” I really like your editorial and feel that it brings up some good points, but these changes may strengthen your argument even further.

Original Editorial #2

As children, we love to think of a world with global peace, no climate change, and free college for everyone. But when we grow up, we realize that these things are a bit harder to accomplish, and are truly about as simple as finding a unicorn in the world. So, why should the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (or DACA program) be treated any differently? Deferred by definition means an alternate way of approaching something, but we need to, as citizens, ask ourselves if this policy is truly legal or if it is one of those complicated dreams from our childhood that we only hope can come to a resolution. In my opinion, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program is illegal and has only caused harm to our country and even the people it was designed to benefit by perpetuating a state of limbo. 

According to the Immigration and Nationality Act, this legal document “authorizes the Attorney General to grant asylum if an alien is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin because they have suffered past persecution or have a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of ‘race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.’” However, DACA covers many undocumented immigrants that came to this country illegally in pursuit of “a better economic life.” While I can appreciate their efforts to achieve a better life for themselves, it is still outside of the law. Our current policies are giving the impression that our laws are suggestions rather than standards. In addition, this lack of clarity about our laws is confusing to not only immigrants, but our own citizens, creating unnecessary hostility. Also, the Deferred Action for Parental Arrivals (or DAPA program that is the parent program to DACA), was found to be illegal by the Supreme Court. So, if the parent program to DACA was found to be illegal, why isn’t DACA already being discontinued permanently? Many of the people affected by this illegality of this proposed program had also been in the United States for many years. 

            Not only is DACA illegal, but it is also harming everyone included in this process. By providing in-state tuition and other low-income programs to DACA recipients, we are bankrupting our government even further, all while contributing to the overcrowding problem in the United States. While many feel these are not serious or negative implications, we must acknowledge that this program also hurts the people it is meant to benefit. President Obama implemented DACA as a two-year program to temporarily handle immigration while the House of Representatives and the Senate came to an agreement. However, this program has continued past its intended lifespan, causing DACA recipients to be in a constant state of limbo and never quite understand what is going to happen next. In addition, by having DACA, the House of Representatives and the Senate seem to feel less pressured to implement a permanent solution. 

Many of our laws seem arbitrary at times, for instance, widows or divorcees only receive social security benefits under their husband if they were married for ten years. Although that at times creates unfairly burdened situations, that is the standard. What is our standard for citizenship? Why is it not clearly and unambiguously defined and applied uniformly? 

The hard decision that we have put off for so long is clearly defining the legal reasons that we will allow people to become citizens. The House and Senate must come to a decision and enforce and apply these rules to everyone equally. Whether we will allow DACA recipients to have a pathway to citizenship must also be defined, so that exceptions are made standards if there are to be any. The president should not unilaterally have the power to make decisions contrary to our laws and create ambiguity as to the foundation of our nation. The lack of enforcement by President Obama and ensuing muddying of the waters created by DACA has made a compelling case for DACA recipients. The House and Senate need to make the immigration policies clear and defined,  backed by research, facts, and intent to implement, taking into account the fact that much of our current situation has been self-imposed by our leaders. I am someone that still has big dreams, but we need to find a better solution rather than continue to simply put a bandaid on our problems.

Comment on a Colleague's Work #1

I admire many of the ideas you relayed in your blog post, especially the logical argument behind funding for the wall President Trump proposed, but much of the language in the article is not as strong as it should be. In the first paragraph, the phrase “especially with the current treatment humans have been receiving,” why are you referring to society as “humans?” The word “humans” almost brings a derogatory tone to the article, reminding me of the “illegal-alien” terminology used to describe illegal immigrants. If you are trying to convince the reader that immigration is a positive thing and that President Trump’s actions aren’t improving America, I would suggest using more inclusive language. You want your reader to trust you, which goes back to the rhetorical device of ethos and your audience viewing you as trustworthy. By using words like “us” or “we,” you directly include the reader and show them that you are part of their community and are a reliable source. If you want to strengthen your persuasive writing overall, I would suggest intertwining the three rhetorical devices of ethos, pathos, and logos to fully convince your viewers of your central claim.

    In addition, I found some of your logic a bit flawed, which almost made me question your argument more than convince me of your main point. You stated that “many live in constant fear of being detained and deported to their past home,” but also note that the American experience “is often not what one expects and they are treated worse here than in their home countries.” This makes me think that immigrants should just go back home because they are constantly in fear of being deported from a place that is worse than where they came from. So, I would clarify, because these two conflicting arguments make me very confused. Lastly, using the phrase “messing with” to describe President Trump removing the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program makes me think of President Trump and DACA as two siblings pranking each other. I would use much more formal language to describe such a serious situation. I really like the points you bring across in your editorial, but I would strengthen them in order to fully convince your reader of your point and legalize immigration.

Original Editorial

By now, much of America now has the moto “Make America Great Again” ingrained in their memory, a phrase coined by President Donald Trump that has become sewn in red, white, and blue on any and every kind of merchandise imaginable. However, many have also heard of President Trump’s impeachment hearing.  As a public audience partially governed by this executive branch, we have to wonder - is President Trump or his subsequent impeachment going to truly make America great once again? In my opinion, President Trump’s impeachment will ultimately be in the best interest of the American public as we must place our trust in the people we elect and evaluate the illegal events leading up to his election. Many, such as David Brooks with the Austin-American Statesman, believe that the impeachment process “gives 100 mostly millionaire senators a voice in selecting the president.”  While this is true, we, as the public, elect our representatives for the House of Representatives that have the power to charge the president with impeachment. Just as we elect the President, we also elect the Senate, which  ultimately decides his fate. So, when we realize that the President of the United States of America may have performed illegal actions, we should trust the courts to decide his fate.

           On a 30-minute call with Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky, President Trump may have elicited illegal services to help him win the election against Hilary Clinton in 2016. This we know for certain, but is it worth impeachment? As someone who is seventeen and about to vote in the 2020 presidential election, I can say without a doubt that I want to do my research before casting my vote. So, one quality that is a dealbreaker for me in any candidate is the ability to break the law and then not confess for their crimes. If someone admits their crimes, the punishment is usually less. However, President Trump may have gotten away with something that puts the entire governmental system at stake, with the people not truly having their vote matter. In addition, President Trump recently cast blame on current Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, urging Ukraine and China to open investigations that have no basis. Is our government supposed to govern us or be a political game of Battle Royale, with the most ruthless candidate winning rather than the one most suited to lead the United States? If President Trump is willing to put our say in government at stake, what is he truly capable of doing? The Senate needs to convict President Trump once and for all, removing a corrupt leader from office.

Even though we may all enjoy the warm and fuzzy feeling and the vision that comes with making America great once again, that vision should not include a criminal as our president. No matter what our political views are, we must set these aside and realize that impeachment is the only way to learn the truth. We still have our patriotic spirit, and we must cling to the America we still have before falling into this phrase of deception once more.

Blog Editorial Critique

A CounterPunch article published on October 14th, 2019 entitled, “The Economics and Politics of Financial Transactions Taxes and Wealth Taxes” by Dean Baker gives some insight into the debate between enacting a financial transactions tax or a wealth tax.  The author’s intended audience is clearly liberals/democrats that are up-to-date on the upcoming presidential election in 2020.  The author uses a very generic title that does not appeal to any particular side of this debate between a financial transaction tax (FTT) or a wealth tax more or less than the other.  However, this title is still intriguing to the reader as this editorial is published in a liberal (left-wing) blog, drawing a well-educated audience that would like to further their knowledge on the upcoming presidential debate.  While this technique is less grabbing than other title-framing styles can be, the author ultimately uses its audiences’ political knowledge to select a hook, drawing the reader in with a topic that they would like to learn more about.  The source itself gives the author credibility, aligning with the same ideals as the target audience.

    Baker makes the argument that “while there are good reasons for wanting to tax the very rich, an FTT is almost certainly a better economic policy and would have much better political prospects.”  By using a concession and rebuttal to introduce their claim, the author shows that there are benefits to both arguments, but ultimately that an FTT is better for certain reasons.  Through the use of words like “us” and “we,” the author shows that he shares the same liberal values as the audience and is part of their community, giving him a sense of ethos that carries on through his claim.  In addition, the rhetor frequently uses hypotheticals throughout the article, making a complex topic much more understandable to the common reader, being certain that everyone understands the negatives and positives of both scenarios in order to convince them that an FTT is the way to go.

    While the author definitely inserts his values and assumptions in the article, he also uses a large amount of evidence to back up each of his claims.  Shortly after introducing his main claim, he uses logic and reminds the audience of the purpose of taxes: to “free up resources in the economy to allow the government to spend on other priorities.”  Using hypotheticals to back up his claim, the author eventually circles back to the fact that the wealth tax can be avoided by the small wealthy population in the United States through the use of skilled accountants and financial planning.  However, an FTT will only affect the financial sector, with the rhetor convincing the audience that the financial sector will be fine after a major reduction in trade, relating to the audience that “we know this, because we lived through periods with a much smaller financial sector.”  The author continually uses a variation of ethos, pathos, and logos throughout the article, convincing the reader of his claim by connecting himself to the audience and their views, using inflammatory words against Trump to unite the audience as liberals, and inserting factual information to convince the reader.

    While the conclusion is very brief, it is also very convincing, coming full-circle by restating the author’s main claim.  In addition, it shows a call to action statement, with Baker noting that “the enormous rise in inequality over the last four decades demands a serious response.”  The last sentence truly resonates with the reader, envisioning the FTT as the right decision and that will positively affect our government in the long-term.  Even though we as citizens may believe that the wealthy deserve to be taxed since they have the most individual income in our society, but articles such as these show us that this instinctive decision may have some fatal flaws.  We must continue to educate ourselves on matters involving our national government in order to truly achieve success.

Editorial Critique

An Austin American Statesman article published on October 1st, 2019 entitled “Brooks: Yes, Trump is Guilty, but Impeachment is a Mistake” by David Brooks gives some insight into the recent announcement of Trump’s impeachment trial.  The author’s intended audience is clearly going to be those that are against Trump and support his impeachment.  The title is “Brooks: Yes, Trump is Guilty, but Impeachment is a Mistake,” which shows the audience that Brooks concedes that Trump is guilty, but refutes that impeachment might not be worth it.  This beginning technique ultimately draws in an audience that wants to know why they should be against impeachment, since the author shares their perspective that Trump is guilty.  In addition, the Austin American Statesman is a local newspaper, which could intrigue many Austinites due to its unique way of looking at this impeachment hearing.  In addition, it gives the author credibility as he is not another writer in Washington D.C., but rather someone who lives in Austin and understands the Texan take on things.

    Brooks makes the claim that Trump did commit a crime by calling the Ukranian president, which is worthy of impeachment, but impeachment should still not have been enacted.  This gives the reader a clear sense of what the author is trying to convey throughout this article through rhetorical appeals and evidence.  He makes his values clear to the reader, revealing that this impeachment process against Trump is “completely elitist” because it is right during election season, showing the reader that he values fair trials that are in the best interest of the nation.  In addition, he makes a variety of assumptions that reveal what could happen if the impeachment process does go through.  These assumptions are well-placed, seeming more like convincing logic for why the reader should support his claim, but ultimately is an assumption regarding the possible future.

    While he does insert many of his values and assumptions into this article, he also backs them up with clear evidence and reason, ultimately doing an adroit job of convincing the reader.  After stating his main claim, he reminds the audience that “impeachment is a political process, not a legal one,” and that there is no obligation to go through an impeachment trial.  He even goes on to insert a personal example, putting himself in the reader’s shoes by describing himself going to Waco, Nantucket, and Kansas City, only ever having one fellow journalist mention the ongoing impeachment proceedings.  Throughout the article, the author uses ethos, pathos, and logos to convince the reader of his claim by proving himself to be a credible source through personal connection, having an emotional connection to the readers by sharing his values and beliefs regarding this impeachment trial, and using factual information to convince the reader.

    The conclusion is not as strong as the rest of the article, being very brief.  However, he does end with “An election can save the country.  An inside-the-Beltway political brawl will not.”  The author uses this to appeal to both the emotional and logical sense of his audience, realizing that they want to have a great presidential election this year and want this to elevate the country rather than be a political brawl due to this impeachment hearing.  This article brings up the political implication of the Democrats gaining power if President Trump is removed from office, which could lead to a political brawl.  While we may think that we know everything about this impeachment hearing, we must continue to read articles such as this one that give us a different perspective on the matter at hand.

   

Article Introduction

A Boston Globe article published on September 7th, 2019 entitled “Trump Calls Off Secret Meeting with Taliban, Afghan Leaders” by Jonathan Lemire and Deb Reichmann revealed that President Trump posted via Twitter that there was going to be an undisclosed meeting with Taliban and Afghanistan leaders.  However, this meeting was cancelled due to an act of terrorism affecting an American soldier within the past week.  This left America wondering - why would President Trump be hosting a meeting with Taliban and Afghanistan leaders so close to the anniversary of the September 11th attacks (as they harbored the al-Qaida members responsible for this heinous act of terrorism against our country) and why would he cancel the meeting so suddenly?  

Cancelling the discussion with these leaders also goes against President Trump’s claim to pull out most of the remaining troops currently left in Afghanistan.  However, there is some clear reasoning behind his decision.  Not only has Trump been facing some pressure from government lawmakers voicing that it may be too soon to withdraw troops from such a conflict-torn area, but on September 5th, an American soldier was killed on duty by a bombing in Kabul.  Sergeant 1st Class Elis A. Barreto Ortiz (age 34) died as a result of a Taliban car bomb that detonated near his patrol vehicle.  Ortiz was just one of four military personnel killed in Afghanistan within the past two weeks.  

Trump justified his reasoning behind the cancelled meeting on Twitter, noting that, “If they cannot agree to a ceasefire during these very important peace talks, and would even kill 12 innocent people, then they probably don’t have the power to negotiate a meaningful agreement anyway.  How many more decades are they willing to fight?” (Lemire and Reichmann par. 9).  As the anniversary of the September 11th attack is upcoming, viewers should certainly read this article to understand our current relations with Afghanistan and Taliban leaders and the need for our countries to come to a peaceful agreement.  While the time might not be now, this topic of discussion must be brought to the table if we expect any improvements in our relations.