The Advocate page 6B
Stephanie Triche
3/4/2008
This article, while an interesting point of view, is a bit strange to me. The author questions the community and talks about its lack of support for young struggling students. The article starts off saying that maybe schools arent the reason for our childrens failures, rather the lack of community efforts are. He talks about how the majority of students in east Baton Rouge are in impoverished families or single-parent households. He continues to tell us that we the community should offer mentoring programs to give children a better chance at acedemic success. While I agree that we should help out those less fortunate in our community, i think that the auhor neglects to point out the lack of interest in the childrens on parental units. I think the author would have needed to do a little more research to make his point convincing.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
A Defining Moment
David Brooks
New York Times
March 4, 2008
This editorial was basically just David Brooks explaining why he loves Barrack Obama so much. Since the democratic campaign began, it has been nothing but back and forth banter between candidates, however according to Brooks, the defining moment was November 10, 2007. That was the Democratic Party Jefferson-Jackson Dinner which invited candidates to speak. Hillary Clinton gave a rousing speech about fighting (she said the word "fight" a lot) the Republicans and really putting on the heat under the Republicans to make sure the next president would be a Democrat. However, Obama was next to speak, where he, instead of waging a partisan campaign as Clinton had just done, he vowed to address “not just Democrats, but Republicans and independents who’ve lost trust in their government but want to believe again.” This was very different than Clinton's battle cry speech. Apparently his goals of equality and standing up, one person at a time made him very appealing to everyone, despite political affiliation. Brooks believes this was the time where Obama defined his point of view on the presidency and anyone should be impressed by such a candidate. Despite the fact that this article was a bit of a tangent on why Brooks loves Obama so much, I believe there was a lot of good evidence presented and it made me want to vote for Obama.
New York Times
March 4, 2008
This editorial was basically just David Brooks explaining why he loves Barrack Obama so much. Since the democratic campaign began, it has been nothing but back and forth banter between candidates, however according to Brooks, the defining moment was November 10, 2007. That was the Democratic Party Jefferson-Jackson Dinner which invited candidates to speak. Hillary Clinton gave a rousing speech about fighting (she said the word "fight" a lot) the Republicans and really putting on the heat under the Republicans to make sure the next president would be a Democrat. However, Obama was next to speak, where he, instead of waging a partisan campaign as Clinton had just done, he vowed to address “not just Democrats, but Republicans and independents who’ve lost trust in their government but want to believe again.” This was very different than Clinton's battle cry speech. Apparently his goals of equality and standing up, one person at a time made him very appealing to everyone, despite political affiliation. Brooks believes this was the time where Obama defined his point of view on the presidency and anyone should be impressed by such a candidate. Despite the fact that this article was a bit of a tangent on why Brooks loves Obama so much, I believe there was a lot of good evidence presented and it made me want to vote for Obama.
A Message About Ethics
Advocate Opinion Page Staff
The Advocate
March 4, 2008
This editorial by an anonymous author seems to almost undercut Bobby Jindal's attempt at ethics reform. Jindal is creating a bill based on stopping and curing the corruption in Louisiana. However the Advocate page staff wants to clarify that job might be impossible. It goes on about how the New York Times is giving Jindal's bill attention and categorizing him as a rising star among Republicans and someone who seems familiar with Louisiana's reputation for corrupt politics. However this positive opinion of the New York Times has the Advocate cautioning people to not expect much, because there will always be corruption, which is slightly pessimistic I think. The article chose which quotes from the New York Times to use and seemed to purposely present the comments in a negative light, almost mocking what the New York Times has said about Jindal's positive future as Louisiana's governor. I think this article was a bit one-sided and to me it was disappointing of a Louisiana newspaper to write about the impossibility of making our government not corrupt. Way to support our leader, Advocate!
The Advocate
March 4, 2008
This editorial by an anonymous author seems to almost undercut Bobby Jindal's attempt at ethics reform. Jindal is creating a bill based on stopping and curing the corruption in Louisiana. However the Advocate page staff wants to clarify that job might be impossible. It goes on about how the New York Times is giving Jindal's bill attention and categorizing him as a rising star among Republicans and someone who seems familiar with Louisiana's reputation for corrupt politics. However this positive opinion of the New York Times has the Advocate cautioning people to not expect much, because there will always be corruption, which is slightly pessimistic I think. The article chose which quotes from the New York Times to use and seemed to purposely present the comments in a negative light, almost mocking what the New York Times has said about Jindal's positive future as Louisiana's governor. I think this article was a bit one-sided and to me it was disappointing of a Louisiana newspaper to write about the impossibility of making our government not corrupt. Way to support our leader, Advocate!
Monday, March 3, 2008
It's Time to end Katrina victims' aid
Don Antie Jr.
The Advocate
March 3, 2008
This seems like a very unnecessary article, but the author makes a good point. He was backing up a letter sent in by another person that was recently posted. He he clearly on the side that those hit by Hurricane Katrina need to start living off their own finances and not that of our tax dollars. I read the article thinking that the author would have some crazy idea why but he makes a good point. He says that 99.8 percent of victims stay victims because they are still getting money thrown at them. How much of that is fact is still a question. He goes on to say that those who were hit in Lake Charles got some money, but are now living on their money. He uses emotion to those who are not currently not recieving money from the government by saying that they are spending all of his tax dollars on the victims. I see where the author is coming from, but his points aren't really backed up by facts. If he would show more facts and less emotion, it would be a more convincing arguement. It does however make you think about how much we should be helping with the victims in New Orleans.
http://www.2theadvocate.com/opinion/16167542.html
The Advocate
March 3, 2008
This seems like a very unnecessary article, but the author makes a good point. He was backing up a letter sent in by another person that was recently posted. He he clearly on the side that those hit by Hurricane Katrina need to start living off their own finances and not that of our tax dollars. I read the article thinking that the author would have some crazy idea why but he makes a good point. He says that 99.8 percent of victims stay victims because they are still getting money thrown at them. How much of that is fact is still a question. He goes on to say that those who were hit in Lake Charles got some money, but are now living on their money. He uses emotion to those who are not currently not recieving money from the government by saying that they are spending all of his tax dollars on the victims. I see where the author is coming from, but his points aren't really backed up by facts. If he would show more facts and less emotion, it would be a more convincing arguement. It does however make you think about how much we should be helping with the victims in New Orleans.
http://www.2theadvocate.com/opinion/16167542.html
Sunday, March 2, 2008
"Teaching Boys and Girls Separately."
New York Times
Author: Elizabeth Weil
March 2, 2008
This was a very interesting article to read. It dealt with the controversial topic of separating boys and girls in school based entirely on sex. It used personal examples of a school where this was happening in Foley, Alabama. The intro was very good and described the differences in the classroom atmosphere. The boys' room was light blue with cooler lights and it was kept at a cooler temperature. The girls' room was painted yellow with warmer lighting and a warmer temperature. Its' main source comes from a book titled, "Boys and Girls Learn Differently," by Michael Gurian. He entailed that children would excel if they were put only with other children of their sex. This article was informative, and showed me a side that I had never thought of before.
Author: Elizabeth Weil
March 2, 2008
This was a very interesting article to read. It dealt with the controversial topic of separating boys and girls in school based entirely on sex. It used personal examples of a school where this was happening in Foley, Alabama. The intro was very good and described the differences in the classroom atmosphere. The boys' room was light blue with cooler lights and it was kept at a cooler temperature. The girls' room was painted yellow with warmer lighting and a warmer temperature. Its' main source comes from a book titled, "Boys and Girls Learn Differently," by Michael Gurian. He entailed that children would excel if they were put only with other children of their sex. This article was informative, and showed me a side that I had never thought of before.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Piecemeal Tort Reform
The Washington Post
Saturday March 1, 2008; Page A18
This article examines recent Supreme Court proceedings dealing with medical devices in patients. The author identifies a recent case that was brought to the Supreme Court about a heart device that burst during heart surgery. The patient survived and sued the company; however, the Supreme Court ruled that the company was in fact not liable because it was preapproved by the FDA. However, the author then goes on to discuss that if cases like this keep being passed by the Supreme Court, people could eventually not be able to take legal action against companies that have wronged them. He also pointed out that the FDA is understaffed and underpaid and that to totally rely on their approval of a product would not be a reasonable thing. He then offered several solutions, such as improving FDA funding and increasing staff, keeping pressure on legislatures to pass tort reform bills to stop frivilous litigation, and to even set up a federal fund, like that for vaccines, for people who are wrongfully hurt by FDA approved products.
This is the best article I've read all year. The author was completely unbiased; you really don't know which way he prefers. He talks about the benefits for the businesses and the concerns for the people with this new kind of action by the Supreme Court. He offered MANY solutions that were well thought out. He also had a lot of references and was very well educuated on the topic.
Saturday March 1, 2008; Page A18
This article examines recent Supreme Court proceedings dealing with medical devices in patients. The author identifies a recent case that was brought to the Supreme Court about a heart device that burst during heart surgery. The patient survived and sued the company; however, the Supreme Court ruled that the company was in fact not liable because it was preapproved by the FDA. However, the author then goes on to discuss that if cases like this keep being passed by the Supreme Court, people could eventually not be able to take legal action against companies that have wronged them. He also pointed out that the FDA is understaffed and underpaid and that to totally rely on their approval of a product would not be a reasonable thing. He then offered several solutions, such as improving FDA funding and increasing staff, keeping pressure on legislatures to pass tort reform bills to stop frivilous litigation, and to even set up a federal fund, like that for vaccines, for people who are wrongfully hurt by FDA approved products.
This is the best article I've read all year. The author was completely unbiased; you really don't know which way he prefers. He talks about the benefits for the businesses and the concerns for the people with this new kind of action by the Supreme Court. He offered MANY solutions that were well thought out. He also had a lot of references and was very well educuated on the topic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)