Article about Beagles

There was an article in the Austin Statesman on February 18, about whether or not a Beagle is a good dog to have as a pet. You can take a look at http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/consumer/entries/2008/02/18/is_a_beagle_right_for_your_fam_1.html. I first thought, is this really news. I then noticed that the article is pretty much just a repressing of an article that appeared in Newsday. This article pretty much just consists of quoting most of that article. With my opinion aside, it's funny that this spurred 5 people to comment. Less than half of the articles which allow comments, get commented on. This article got comments when other, more hard hitting, topics did not. The comments are all just about how much people like their beagles.

Meeker taking on City Hall

There was an article, on February 6th, in the Austin Statesmen, concerning a candidate in a local election, Jason Meeker. You can check it out at http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/cityhall/entries/2008/02/06/meeker_taking_on_city_hall.html. What jumped out at me in the comments, was the second comment. It was pretty hostile. Here's the second comment. It's a little longer, but you can skim it to see the gist of the hostility.

"What this boy Jason has not figured out is that there are a whole lot more folks in Austin who are Walmart shoppers who vote than anti-Walmart shoppers who vote. H.E.B. can’t buy you the election Jason and the political operatives you are surrounding yourself with are all outsiders like you because they have never figured out how to negotiate or compromise. They dig the fight for the fight’s sake and really don’t seem to be affected by the outcome as long as there is still one person left who will slap them on the back and say, “give the big money boys hell”! Jason, you are just the errand boy for these folks and they will drop you like a bad transmission at AAMCO when this is over in May. You are going to be the poster boy for wasting taxpayer money! Enjoy the next 90 days til election day because it will be the most miserable time of your life and the misery won’t come from your competitors, it will come from angry taxpayers looking for someone to take the fall."

I also was surprised to see the third commenter's handle is just "booger". I don't get how you can talk politics while reffering to yourself as booger. The language people use can be a little hilarious. I'll leave you with a nice line from one of the comments

"Mc”Meeker ain’t got no game based upon his quotes in this fine article"

Comments on Article about Obama rally in Austin

In the Austin Statesmen, there was a small article on February 23rd, about the Obama rally in Austin, http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/politics/entries/2008/02/23/cleaning_up_after_the_rally.html. The article doesn't go into policy or anything that Obama spoke about. It mostly just stated that there was a rally, Obama spoke, and it focussed on how fast they were able to clean up after the rally. This warrented 25 commonts as of 3PM on February 24th. Practically right off the bat, the second comment addressed one reader's negative views about Obama stating

"In the debate,Hillary said that she will introduce COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM within the first hundred days of her presidency. Unlike Obama, Hillary is for universal health care. Hillary supports the Latinos!"

The comments go on to be mostly a debate about each readers particular views about the candidates on a variety of issues. Obviously some of the readers are more informed than others, but that's not what surprises me. What surprises me is that almost no one addressed the article. They chose an article that wasn't really about anything controvertial, and decided that there was the place to start a largish debate. There was even a comment thrown in stating

"Nader 2008 www.votenader.org"

First off, I'm surprised that Nader would run. I'm a big fan of Ralph Nader as well, but what does he have to do with the article? If you go and read the article, it really doesn't have the substance to substantiate this level of debate.

Letter to the editor about Barak Obama

Dear Editor,

It brightens my opinion of this country to see that Senator Obama has so much support. The fact that he seems to actually stand for something positive, and seeing so many young people believe in something is great, but I don't have 100% faith that either of those will stay true after electing a President Obama. I do believe that our world image will increase. Firstly it's because Obama is a charismatic, nice, guy. The world liked Bill Clinton, even when he was bombing other countries. The second reason is because he's not an old white man. I know our other democratic option is not an old white man either, but I don't think the rest of the world would view electing Hilary as much of a step towards equality. Electing Hilary would be solidifying the Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton dynasty. That's 25 years of being run by two families. Isn't being run by two parties bad enough? Electing Barak Obama would be a much larger step towards equality. He's not white, he hasn't lived in the US his whole life, and his name sounds like he's muslim, even though he isn't. It would be much harder to convince an Iraqi child to give his life to destroy Barak Obama than George Bush. I feel that rest of the world would see a President Obama, as America taking a step for the better, and another President Clinton as more of the same.

Letter to the editor concerning instating a driving test for the elderly

Dear Editor,

I am whole heartedly in support of Governor Patrick's proposition to retest elderly drivers. I understand that elderly people are protective of their licenses, since they assure independence. I do feel that the safety risk justifies feelings being hurt. Whether they decide to test everyone when they reach a certain age, or instate tests throughout your life, there's no need to hesitate. The elderly drivers who are able bodied behind the wheel, will not need to worry about the test. The only ones who really need to worry are those who won't pass the test, and those are the drivers who shouldn't be on the road. Driving in a car is one of the most dangerous things we do on a daily basis, and anything that's going to make it safer is worth it.

Santa Clause Letter

This is in response to the letter asking about Santa Claus to the New York Sun on September 21, 1897. I think the author did a great job with this response. He covered his bases on both sides. I like how he wrote it to sound nice to a child, and answer the question, but at the same time he wrote it much more for the adult to read. I don't think anyone would be bothered by this response. If he had come out and said no, there would be a lot of negative response. If he came out and said yes without the type of explanation that he gave, there would have probably been some negative response. I also found it strange that the editor actually responded to the letter. Other than Dear Abby, I don't think I've seen the editor respond to a letter. Ussually they just print the letter. I'd be curious to see if any other papers have done something like this more recently. If they did, I can't imagine the response could be much different in content. If it was they'd be opening themselves up for criticism.

New York Times Suggestions For Letter Writers

This is in response to the article in the New York Times by Thomas Feyer, addressing tips to help those writing letters to the editor. The first thing that crossed my mind is whether or not this was only printed once. Though most letter writers probably do at least glance at the page everyday, but maybe not. It might be affective enough to print it once, but surely they will have to print this kind of article at least once a year, if they have a need to print it once. The second thing that jumped out at me was that the author suggests keeping things concise, which is a good suggestion, but this article is not very concise. It could be a quarter of the length. He does do a great job at making it very clear and easy to read, but it's quite long. They probably could've printed an extra letter or two, that issue, if this article was compacted the way it could have been. I also wonder whether or not this really made a difference in what they recieved.

Lincoln Letter

This is in repsonse to the letter to the editor that Abraham Lincoln sent to Horace Greeley of the New York Tribune, on August 22, 1862. It's interesting to see that the president would actually write a letter to a newspaper. Back then, newspapers were the biggest media outlet. There was no radio, television, internet, ect. Considering the options, sending letters to newspapers was the largest possible forum. I know that now the president could never send a letter to the editor, but I am surprised at how many larger politicians seem to. This was mentioned numerous times in our readings. I imagine that newspapers today do you get letters signed George Bush, claiming that they are the president, by either people making a joke or perhaps someone who's mentally challenged. I think if a newspaper were to get a letter from the president, it would have to have an official seal that looked convincing, in order to even consider the possibility of printing it.