Comment on "A Better Future For a Trashy State"

 Very good blog! That’s crazy that people would go to a grocery store just outside of Austin in order to continue using plastic bags! That may very well be the epitome of laziness. The blog is very well written, which aside from the information it has, is what makes it so interesting.

I'm not sure if you meant “zerowaste” when you used that term in the blog. Zero waste is the literal recycling of all things. It requires a one hundred percent self sustaining system, much like nature. Zero trash, zero waste. This is almost completely impossible at this day and age, even with strongly enforced legislation. Just remember to be specific when it comes to the central theme of the argument, it could get confusing for all of those people going outside the city limit to use plastic bags :D.

Interesting blog, and a very fun read!

comment on "don't mess with stupid"

 Very interesting post. Growing up as a child in the Texas public school system I felt like we were always made to believe that we were a little extraordinary. We would spend all year preparing for the TAAS, or the TAKS tests, and when we would do well on it, we would be praised as if we just graduated high school. We only ever heard the positive side of the story, which was good scores on the standardized tests. No one ever told us that if other kids around the country took the same test they would score better than us. We were essentially given an over inflated sense of accomplishment, which doesn't fix anything. Shortly after high school as I was hearing all of these statistics I couldn't believe it.

Great post! Great, organized and easy to follow information.

Blog Critique (An Endorsement on Problem Solving and Criminal Justice)

Rachael Farris wrote a blog back in May of 2012 telling Austin citizens to vote for Charlie Baird for Travis County District Attorney. The blog was obviously written strictly as a way to get votes for Charlie Baird, with the use of what I am calling confusing misdirection.

Rachael's blog in its entirety offers only one argument. “CharlieBaird will work to solve the problems that lead to so muchdestruction within our community.” The only problem is that the blog is around 600 words, and that one argument is in the last 100. Having said that you might think maybe the first 500 words are hard facts supporting this argument. Sadly that’s not the case. Now having said that, you might think maybe the first 500 words are mere conjecture, in an attempt to support that argument. Oddly enough no. The first 500 words amounted to an eloquently written story of the horrors and tragedy of east Austin living. The content wasn't even loosely related to the man. The only reference made to Charlie Baird in the entire blog is the quote above.

The blog was more of a lesson in morals, and being active in a struggling community. Its almost like reading a paper without a thesis, that demands something of you upon the conclusion of reading it. It doesn't make sense to write a blog with the goal of gaining votes for Charlie Baird, and then not mentioning him at all, except to say to vote for him. If the blog had purpose it would have offered some facts to support why someone should vote for him, or at the very least make some sort of claim.

The last time I saw such an empty request to vote for someone I was watching Napoleon dynamite. Vote for Pedro!

Editorial Critique (should Texas legalize marijuana)

I just recently read an editorial in the Austin American Statesmen titled “Should Texas consider stakes for pot”.  The article seems to be written in response to the Marijuana Policy Project from Washington DC coming to Texas, with the goal of marijuana legalization in Texas.  The writer’s argument is that Texas should consider legalizing marijuana, or legalizing medical marijuana.

The writer starts the article by providing a couple of statistics to build a foundation that will support the overall argument, giving Gallup polls and Pew Research surveys statistics.  According to that %58 of American’s support the legalization of marijuana.  This was a great way to start the argument that Texas should legalize.  Strong evidence at the start of the argument will develop a sense of trust between the reader and the text.  Also having well known and reputable evidence like a Gallup poll will help reassure the reader that what they reading are true.

The article isn't directed at a certain demographic in particular, it is more of intended for all Texas citizens as it would affect them all.  The assumption is that the Texas legalization of marijuana would benefit all Texans.  The article offers evidence of benefits stemming from tax revenue and reduced punishment, if any, on those caught with the substance.

The article makes several points as to why Texas should legalize marijuana, all of them supported by evidence, but then it also provides some negative implication legalization would have.  It offers this implication with reputable supporting evidence.  This in fact strengthens the argument.  By giving an implication, the writer’s authenticity is preserved, and shows that it is not a biased article, and demonstrates a real pursuit of the issues of legalization.

The article concludes in a sort of neutral way, not calling or demanding for legalization, but asking that the issue be debated. This article was well written, provided a lot of supporting evidence, and clearly argued for the legalization of marijuana in Texas.

Texas voting maps gerrymandered

I just read an article published by the Austin American Statesmen title “Feds: Texas voting maps deliberately discriminated.”  The article talks about the U.S Justice Department claiming that Texas lawmakers crafted electoral maps that marginalized the Hispanic population in an attempt to protect conservative incumbents.

The article is worth reading because it talks about how Texas no longer has to receive permission from Washington to change the way local elections are held.  This allows Texas lawmakers to draw up the voting districts however they want.  This leaves lawmakers open to gerrymander districts as they please.  The article talks about what the courts are doing, and what this mean for the Texas voters.  Great article!