I Can Do This On My Own

When I was six I had a grand maul seizer, and the doctors told me and my family that I have central epilepsy and dyslexic. So from the time that I can remember I’ve had teachers and therapists telling me that I was not normal, and that I needed special help to read and understand what I was reading. My mother and father put a lot of time into helping me get over this problem, but the schools and the programs they had me in were far too easy for me. To put it plainly for you the first time that I ever really rote anything was in spring 2007, but I graduated high school in 2002. I never learned a thing about writing in school. From my freshmen year to my senior year we only worked on periods and capitals.

In the letters to the editor I found a really good article that talked a lot about the problems that I can relate to. I agree with the letter in more ways than I can put down in words about how robed I was in school. Now that I’m in a college writing class I know that I was more than capable of performing as well as my peers, and wish that I would have refused the help the school was trying to offer me. In reality their help was only there to make sure that I passed and got out on time. I know that what they did for me was not worth my time, and no amount of testing would have changed that outcome.

Ms. Napp offered a really simple way to prevent this from happening to others like me. She said that if we just had the students read for 30min. a day out loud with an adult to help as needed, and she learned this over a summer vacation with her own children. It will be rather hard for me accept help now that I’m in college, because how help has tricked me into thinking that I needed it in the past. I will not allow someone to tell me that I’m a special needs student ever again. I have proven to myself that I’m better than average, and will continue to the best that I can without special recourses.

Immigration: Practical or Impractical Solutions

The article that I read today posed dome rather good points in regards to immigration. The asked if it would be practical to give drivers licenses to illegal immigrants, or would it be better to keep them off the books and deport the ones we catch? I myself would like know that the person driving next to me on the overly crowded freeway was a registered driver, had insurance and took the necessary tests to earn their drivers licenses. Wouldn’t that be more appropriate, or should we continue to perform the pointless catch and return program that we currently have going. When all that happens is they immigrants come back. Is  the American people not an understanding people, do we not respect and feel compaction for who are less fortunate than us. Then why must we feel so much hatred for what we do not understand?

The article that I read presents three ways of handling this problem. The first one the author proposed is, “deport them all.” And the second is, “find out who they are. Distinguish between criminals and people who just want to work. Get them on the books. Make them pay what they owe- all their taxes and a fine. And focus on catching and deporting the bad people.” The third is what is currently going on, “catch the few you can, and harass and frighten the rest. Treat the entire group as de facto class of criminals, and disrupt or shout down anyone or any plan as abetting their evildoing.” Its obvious witch one makes the most sense when you compare them side by side like that. The second one is without a doubt the best means to end this madness.

Do Men Make Better Writers Than Women?

Verlyn Klinkenborg wrote a rather interesting article that discussed the process that the author says happens with both men and women. The narrative approach that the author used to explain the problem that most all young writhers goes through gives a very personal feeling for the reader. The author describes what defines a young writer, and gives some questioning examples to put you into the young writers apologetic approach. The author says is because the young writers are not sure that their views are important.

The author visited a western Minnesota school called Gustavus Adolphus that is perched on a hill just above St. Peter. Then the author spent a couple of days sitting in on classes and visiting. The author describes how polite the students were in class, and talks about some of the questions that were posed to to her at the lunch table by a few young women. These young women asked the author, “A young women asked me if I noticed a difference between the writing of men and the writing of women. The answer is no, but it’s a good question.” Shaping of authority is what the author said be the defining point at which an author finds themselves. The author also said, “I’ve often noticed a habit of polite self-negating among female my students, a self-deprecatory way of talking.” The author believes this is to, “help create a sense of shared spaces, a shared social connection. It sounds like the language of constant apology.” I find this to be very interesting, and suppose that it would have a lot to do with where a person is from, and how that person was raised. The author continues this thought by explaining how this helps to develop a young writer. When the author said, “This way of talking is conventional, and perhaps socially placating, it has a way of defining a young writer-a young women writer- in negative way.” Some of the students that asked the author questions said that writhing with out the apologetic fashion would make them sound to tough and masculine. The author said that this is the problem with talking about writing it always leads to talking about live. I think that these young writers just need to realize that everyone has a perception and their perception counts. You can not go through live thinking that your views and perception doesn’t count, and this goes for both men and especially women. What the future world be without confident young women and men to take us to the next level of equality?

The President’s Veto.

President Bush said he’s “Putting Poor Children first”, but the editorial and the letters to the editor in the N.Y. Times said differently. The article that I read does a lot of Bush bashing, which is a very common thing these days. The problem with the way that the author performed this attack is that he was attacking Bush almost as much as he was attacking the issue, which is logically flawed. The best example of this is right in the first paragraph where the author said, “That explanation would have been believable if Mr. Bush had actually been putting poor children first. On far too many occasions, the president has sacrificed the interests of poor children to what he deems higher budgetary or ideological priorities.” It’s obvious that the author was using past poor decisions to promote his own beliefs.

Bush definitely was not putting poor children first with his diction to veto the S-chip. The S-chip would have given health coverage for thousands more children, and he author makes a good point    when it comes to proving Bush wrong. The author stated, “The bill that the president has vetoed would in fact, “put poor children first.” He then fallowed this statement up by saying that Senator Hutch estimated that 92 percent of the children that would benefit from the bill would be from families that are below twice the poverty level. Sounds to me like that would be the poorer portion of the nation. So how is it possible that the president of our nation could not see that, and was Bush’s explanation really that, or was it an excuse? How many more ways can Bush find to ruin his leadership? 

The letters to the editor maid some very good reinforcing points to the bushing on this page, and It’s makes me wonder that if Bush could read would he read the editorials? The placement of the letters was quite interesting. They first put a rather harsh letter that when t on about how we should be ashamed of what the Bush administration was doing. Then the letter went on to accuse the administration of using things like scare tactics, mislabeling and rhetoric apparently to scare Americans into believing that this bill would create a government run health care system. The next article is where it gets interesting. This one never even mentioned Bush, or any of his cronies. This guy was actually for removing the S-chip because he says that it is nothing but “political ploy and marginal fix to the cost/availability/inefficiency crises that is American heath care.”  I agree with this guy more then any of them. He brought the out of our favorite game-Bush bashing-and took a good look at the heath care system as a hole. I would like propose a few questions: what could solve a heath care system that is in shambles, and what would happen if the an administration tried to tackle the pharmaceutical giants, and in what way would we the people treat a future administration that would propose a nation heath care system? 

The Duck Has Landed: But Considering the Opposition, Hope Is the only Good Tydings.

“The Attorney General Nominee” Bush’s nominee Mr. Mukasey looking like the man thats gong to get the job, but his testimony was not quite perfect. From what I read today in the editorial of the N.Y. Times is that Mr. Mukasey focused and even spoke well on a few topics-thats more than what we can say about Bush. The author said, “He seemed very committed to the rule of law and to keeping politics out of the Justice Department. He also made good statements about Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and civil rights.” The author also said that he talked allot about the torture that has been going on during interrogations. Mr. Mukasey said that torture is not what America stands for.  Is he implying that we stand for justice, or is just avoiding the question by thrusting it into a national and or global view rather than asserting him self into issues rather isolated incidents? So if its the international view of America that he’s trying to protect shouldn’t he arrest and prosecute those responsible for committing the torture-or at least investigate some more-and those people that allowed it to happen? The article it self took it in another direction by stating, “Mr. Mukasey’s discussion of torture was good as far as it went, but it was too general. The administration has said that it opposes torture, but what matter is how it defines torture.” The “Oxford American Dictionary” defines torture very clearly. “Torture, the infliction of sever pain as a punishment or means of coercion.” If the administration is apposed to torture then why would they need to define it. Seems to me that the word was defined when they came up with the word. In this case I would disagree with the author of this editorial. I do not see how one could define torture in any other way.

“Pressing Mr. Mukasey” The End of a Regime Moves the Last Few Ponds into their Place.

The American Justice Department is on fire in the N.Y. Times editorial. The ever popular Bush administration is placing the last of there ducks into office, and where ever the “Left” is you know the “Right” has a few questions. The author of this editorial posed a number of good questions that should be brought to Mr. Mukasey by the Senate prior to waving him through the pearly gates, handing him the hammer of justice and seating in the Attorney Generals chair.

The burden of being president is something that I would never like to experience myself, but I will be obliged to cast a few stones of my own at this administration. Citing this article will provide me with some high velocity ammunition that i will aim at Mr. Mukasey and the Bush administration.

After eight years of a fumbling administration, I find it hard to accept any one that Bush would recommend for any political seating. So i concur with the author in not wanting to accept a Bush nominee, but it is a fallacy of division by assuming that just because Mukasey was nominated by Bush that he would be just as bad himself. However, the real thing here is not Bush, it’s Mukasey, and to begin the assault I would like to cite the author on of a few of his questions for Mr. Mukasey. The author asked, “The senate needs to know what he intendeds to do to set the Justice Department right. Will he lead an investigation of the still-festering United States attorneys scandal?” Now that we’re getting some were I would like to ask a question myself. What would happen if the Senate asked him how he intends to solve the Black Water scandal. They are mercenaries-correct me if wrong but isn’t that against the law-fighting right along side our armed men and women in Iraq, and I’m sure that they are making double if not more than the enlisted fighters for “FREEDOM”!!! I know that in a capitalist nation the governments role is more like a cheer leader for the economy than it is for justice, and the Bush administration has their “POM POMS” and “HIGH KICKS” stomping to the “GO TEAM GO” cheer for a few team captains in their back pockets, but how long can we allow them to taint our nation’s name with their obvious disregard to the law. I apologize for that tangent, but dose that question not fall under the Attorney Generals jurisdiction? The author posed another good one that I hope that the Senate felt necessary to address, “How will he ensure that his staff’s loyalty is to justice, not to the president’s political team-especially since many of the top lawyers are “loyal Bushies” hired by the old regime?” If you think about it, Bush is simply placing people into position that hopefully wont ruin all of his hard work when he is no longer in office. I hope that this wont happen, but theirs only one thing that I can do help prevent this from continuing, and voting is that weapon. So I urge people to vote, and not allow this problem to continue any longer. It’s in all our best interests to be involved with what our government is up to. So get informed and make decisions, be them for the Left or the Right you need to be involved.

I’m Back In The Editorials Onece Again MUHAHA!

“When Officers Debate About the War.” The letters to the editors are always fun to read. This particular batch was riddled with problems. Most of Americans these days disagree with the war in Iraq, but an officer in the military would not be very forth coming when it comes to bashing the war effort. If he did, wouldn’t that make him a hypocrite? Well none of the letters that i read actually said that they disagreed with the war, but they argued a few points that imposed blame unto the government.

Benjamen Solomon an officer that wrote to the N.Y. Times said, “The problem is basically not numbers but mission.” He continued to argue is point by saying, “Invading and occupying a Muslim country in the Mideast heartland and attempting to impose our American stamp on its society would be certain to trigger violent opposing forces.” I think that their is something just a little wrong with his argument. If I were to say, that spitting on a mans shoe intentionally is wrong because it would result in a swift punch to the face. I would be aruing by adverse consequences, and this exatly what Mr. Solomon was doing. the problem with this Mr. Solomon never told us why we should be helping the Iraqi people in the first place. It’s true that invading the country was probably a bad idea-especially for an unjust war-but doesn’t every republican needs some kind of war or controversy.

blogs, blogs and more blogs: An internet Jihad sells extremism to U.S. viewers with blogs in english

The idea of blogs is a good thing for free speech, and it gives every one who access to the internet a voice, and this toll can be accessed from all over the world. However, Mr. Khan may be taking advantage of this tool. The question in his case is simple, what is the difference between free speech and warmongering? As i was reading this article is made apparent to me that what Mr. Khan was doing was not illegal, and I personally don’t think that there is anything wrong with what Mr. Khan blogs-this is America and he dose have the right to speak his mind to any one that wants to listen-and it’s actually refreshing to know that the media is as messed up on their end, as it is on ours. The thing that gets me is that his hole message only focuses on the militants views on Islam but not the other side by excluding the middle he puts him him self in the ignorant chair for the moment. It’s like saying that if your a cow it’s your duty go to the slaughter house. I my self like chicken, and have a number of Muslim friends, and none of them would agree with this guy’s message.

Another assault on Bushie’s Administration

Once again, the Bush administration has found them the target of the New York Times Editorial page. When called to duty the Bush administration comes with their guns blazing. This time, their aiming at the aliens taking over the country and of course, they have over shot their target. The B.A.’s (Bush administration) new fictional weapon of mass destruction, devised for combating the horde that pelages our working class, would use our Social Security database for immigration enforcement. However, as in every fairy tail there is a night of in shinning armor, and in this case he is Judge Charles R. Breyer of the Northern District of California. The B.A.’s no-match policy would require employers to fire employees if their Social Security number could not be verified with in the first 90 days of employment. Sounds good at first, but our Night judge Breyer of Northern California saw right through the B.A.’s sinister plan.
Our hero, Judge Breyer, noticed a number of problems regarding the ramifications of the B.A.’s plan. It’s good news that the judge put the brakes on this reckless plan; for the no-match rule would have had a crippling affect on the economy by forcing millions of undocumented workers off the books, and inadvertently would have victimized an untold number citizens and legal residents. Thinking of the affects that this would have had on the already understaffed farms of America is unnerving, and how the Social Securities database is full of errors makes me wonder how this would affect legal residents. Even if they were to fix the data base, and pass the bill, it still would not solve the problem. More than likely the alien population would just find off the books employers, and they would get better at creating false documents. Therefore, I concur with the New York Times in believing that the bill would do more to drive up the identity theft rate than it would to prevent illegal immigration.

Hello world!

I enjoy reading the New York times editorial page, and i intend to write my blogs out of the editorial pages of the N.T. times.

“the American dream in reverse.” Is a rather interesting article that discuses the current pressures of home owners in America. The author addresses how the market has changed during the Bush administration, and informs you what is being asked of the administration. I wonder, if the author is blaming the Bush administration for fore closer rate. The articles says that at the start of the administration 67.6 percent of our county were home owners, and they predict that it will be down to 67 percent by 2009, which is about 700,000 fewer home owners. This most certainly not a good thing for the economy, and is definitely cause for the government to provide help for struggling home owner. The article says, “The Wight House established a program to allow an additional 80,000 borrower’s to refinance their loans through the Federal Housing Administration-on top of the 160,000 who were already eligible.”On the other hand, is it not the fault of the buyer them selves, that is the true party that is responsible for the predicament. I do think that it is something that needs to be addressed by the administration, but how many people should they help. Wouldn’t that be just giving people a free rain on the American dream, and what would this say to the people that are not being faced with fore closer.