Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Blog #9

ENC 1101:

Visit the discussion board in Blackboard, where you will post blog #9, and there you will find instructions.


ENC 1102:

Blog on the movie we watched in class "On Skid Row". Begin with a personal reaction to the video then move on into a discussion regarding the elements of the videos argument by first identifying the videos purpose, genre, and audience, the rhetorical strategies used including appeals to ethos, logos, pathos, the evidence they use to support their argument and in your opinion how effective the video is. In addition detail its strengths and/or weaknesses.

Thursday, November 6, 2008

The Most Expensive Social Issue in our History

On November 4th United States citizens not only voted for the next president of our country, but also on state representatives, judges as well as ammendments. One of those ammendments, in particular, has now become one of the most expensive social issues in our history as defenders on both sides of the issue rallied for support.


Florida Ammendment 2 stated: "This amendment protects marriage as the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife and provides that no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized."

Two existing Florida statutes already prohibited same-sex marriage:
Florida Statute 741.212(1) defines marriage as the legal union between one man and one woman and provides that the term "spouse" applies only to a member of such union (FL. Stat. 741.212(1),(3)).
Florida also adopted a Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1997 which was codified as Florida Statute 741.212. The amendment as written includes a clause prohibiting judges from overturning the law. This is a response to what happened in Massachusetts, where a judge overturned that state's law banning same-sex marriage.

Amendment 2 was approved on election day with 62.1% of the vote. Voters in 26 states other states have also passed constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage. Three others states including Florida, Arizona (Proposition 102)and California (Proposition 8) proposed these amendments on the November ballot. And in Arkansas voters passed by 57% an ammendment making it illegal for any individual cohabiting outside of a valid marriage to adopt or provide foster care to children. (In other words if you are not married you can not adopt or provide foster care children.) This ammendment was passed in an effort to prohibit same sex couples from adopting or providing foster care but as a result also affects heterosexual couples as well as single adults who want to parent.


What makes the California ammendment interesting is that on September 2nd 2005 California Senate approved bill #19 21-15 approving same-sex marriage and on September 6, the California State Assembly followed suit with a vote of 41-35, making California's legislature the first in the nation to approve a same-sex marriage bill without court pressure.

California continues to allow domestic-partner registration, a right similar to civil unions found in other states which grants "same-sex couples all state-level rights and obligations of marriage — in areas such as inheritance, income tax, insurance and hospital visitation" but does not apply to "federal-level rights of marriage that cannot be granted by states".


In Florida supporters of Ammendment 2 argued that the amendment would protect children by ensuring that only the form of marriage between a man and a woman would ever be celebrated in Florida, that the Florida statute that already provides for a single form of marriage could be overturned by a court on constitutional grounds if this ammendement was not passed and that if the amendment fails, school children could be indoctrinated in the gay lifestyle.


Opponents argue that health care and pension benefit plans which cover unmarried couples, even heterosexual older couples, living together and which are now legally valid may be adversely affected. In addition they argue that Article I of the Florida Constitution, known as the Declaration of Rights, establishes rights, but this amendment would instead limit the right to marry. There are already other Florida Laws that expressly prohibit homosexual unions, so this amendments purpose is much larger than that and if passed will be used to restrict all relationships that are not a legal marriage under Florida's Statutes. Opponents also say that elderly people in the state who, after being widowed, have subsequently chosen a domestic partnership in order to retain certain benefits, will be adversely impacted by the measure.


In her blog, TheDailyBeast.com, Melissa Etheridge, who exchanged vows with her longtime partner in a 2003 ceremony, declared she wouldn't pay her taxes because she argues that her marriage with Tammy Lynn Michaels is no longer recognized as such under Prop 8, therefore, “she and I are not allowed the same right under the state constitution as any other citizen. Okay, so I am taking that to mean I do not have to pay my state taxes because I am not a full citizen...I mean that would just be wrong, to make someone pay taxes and not give them the same rights, sounds sort of like that taxation without representation thing from the history books,” Melissa adds that she and other gay citizens “will not rest until we have the full rights of any other citizen. It is that simple, no fearful vote will ever stop us, that is not the American way. Come to think of it, I should get a federal tax break too...”


Let me "wallow in complexity" for a little.

Is this a moral argument or a civil rights argument? Was our country not founded on the premise that all people are created equal therefore we are all entitled to equal rights and equal opportunities? Where does the definition of marriage come from? The church? And if so what about seperation of church and state? Would a word change suffice to grant all individual equal rights such as using "civil unions" or "domestic partnership" rather than "marriage"? The people of this country have fought long and hard over the years to enforce and protect our civil rights, so why is this issue any different from womens rights, the right to vote, desegregation? The Florida ammendment clearly states "no other union" will be recognized therefore that couple is not entitled to the same rights as those who get "married". What are the unintended consequences of these laws, particularly the Arkansas law that claims you are unfit to raise a child unless you are married? What evidence exists that "married" couples provide a safer, more secure, happier home for children? What happens when those couples get divorced? How different are divorce's raising children as single parents from a woman or man who adopts a child a single parent? I'm left with so many questions and a need for answers. What are your thoughts?

Saturday, November 1, 2008

NCLB; Something to be proud of!

Many of you discussed that Education was an important issue for you in these elections. Perhaps it is an issue that should be of importance to you all the time, and not just now seeing as we live in a society that values entertainment higher than education and as of lately, because of the economy of the country, people have shifted their attentions away from all issues to this one. But perhaps Education has a lot more to do with economy than we would like to believe. What's the price you're paying on education?

More importantly though, now that most of you are getting ready to vote for the first time in your life, it's important that you educate yourself on issues like these. Do you know where your presidential candidate favorite stands on Education and NCLB? Here's a balancing act video of where the two candidates stand on the issue of Education. Perhaps you are thinking it doesn't matter now that the elections are about to be over, but perhaps it is of importance to keep a focus on this issue, no matter who wins. After all, you are in college and maybe you have siblings in elementary or middle or high school.

Soon after Bush took Presidency he enacted the "No Child Left Behind" act and oh what a marvelous thing. Equal education for all. Right? Sure, if that's what you want to believe. We need to hold our schools and teachers accountable. Great! Right? Sure. We need to ensure our children are Literate. Yeah! Why didn't anyone think of this before?? Well, they did, this was just a new twist to it.

Is this perhaps a way to make it "fair" for all, to prevent children from struggling in school, to help children "believe" that they are succeeding when they really are not because the schools have the ability of lowering standards according to the demographics. Perhaps this is the best thing for our nations education, or perhaps it's the reason why we are the one of the worst in education?

Poet Lamont Carey voices his thoughts on the issue:

So, arguing whether or not this act was a good one really has to be dissected and analyzed. But one thing that I tend to always believe, is that if the government or a bunch of beuracratic politicians came up with the idea, chances are it's not going to work very well. But hey, you never know right, one of these days they might actually prove us wrong.

In the case of "No Child left Behind", it is in my humble opinion, that the best judges of this act would have to be the ones who deal with it every single day in the classroom trying to "abide" by it: TEACHERS.

Below you'll find a clip of a young teacher making an argument against "No Child Left Behind". She makes a fair and objective argument, as she does not pointing the finger at Bush or other politicians but rather keeps her focus on the plan itself. Rather than ranting and complaining she analyzes and interprets and concedes to certain points in the Act (which is really important when you are trying to pursuade your viewers to agree with you). It's starts off a bit wierd which could lead to a horrible introduction and turn viewers away or it could be a grasping introduction that makes viewers want to keep watching. You be the judge of that.

NCLB; A teachers argument