Obama Wins Debate

In looking through our suggested sources list, I came across a blog by Paul Burka entitled “Burka Blog.” The post that caught my interest was entitled “Obama bounces back” dated Wednesday October 17, 2012. The source that Paul Burka writes for is a well known and well respected magazine called Texas Monthly. He has been on the staff a year after the magazine was founded in 1973. He is a Texas native and has a B.A. in History and a law degree from University of Texas School of Law. Among many other accolades, he has also been a guest on news programs such as MSNBC, Fox, NBC, and CNN to talk about politics. From Mr. Burka’s background it is evident he is well respected in the world of politics.

The audience that the post is directed towards is both Democrats and Republicans. The blog itself is a left leaning one that appeals generally to Democrats. This post heavily relied on its author Mr. Burka to pull off this topic of who won the debate. Paul Burka is known to be unbiased while discussing politics. The audience is both political parties because the post speaks about both candidates and who won regarding each topic. Texas Monthly is a liberal magazine that also appeals to Democrats.

The argument was weighed out evenly and was supported by quotes given by each candidate. Burka is making the argument and assuming that the audience watched the debate. He assumes that the audience is up to date on key issues as well. The basic argument is that “Obama bounces back” from the first debate.

The values the post holds are the public’s concern about tax rates, energy, and women’s issues among other topics. These values grab the audience into the topic because most voters are interested in what the candidates support. The important terms are clear and precise as to what each candidate supports. The final value discussed is family in general. Obama is quoted to be concerned with family issues, whereas it’s stated that Romney doesn’t care about American people. The post makes clear that government should propose their “visions” and follow them through if nominated in November.

The argument is well supported by verifiable facts and hard evidence. Both candidates are discussed evenly. The argument discusses the candidates’ actions to see if their visions are coming to pass, such as Obama discussing the “issue of security in Libya.” Romney backs up his being a caring individual by discussing how well he did as governor of Massachusetts.

I believe the argument is successful to point out how Obama won the debate. But I don’t feel it convinces me that Obama is still the candidate to vote for. Because at the end of the post Mr. Burka leaves the question open that Obama hasn’t discussed what he would do while in office another term. The argument does change my mind about my belief that Romney wasn’t concerned with middle class Americans. By accepting this argument it requires me to rethink my beliefs about the Republican Party and where they stand.

The conclusion keeps the audience on their toes by leaving the thought behind that Obama hasn’t “closed the deal” with the four years he has had in office. I have learned much valuable information from the argument. The political significance of this argument is that it gets members of the Democratic Party to rethink their candidate. This affects who wins the presidential race because Mr. Burka successfully points out main points that both candidates support. Obama may have won the second debate, but he hasn’t reassured us what’s “his vision for his second term.” Despite this well thought out and well supported argument, I still have the question lingering in my mind: Did Obama really win this debate?

Is CPS Adequately Staffed?

I recently read an article entitled “State agency doesn’t have enough workers to protect abused kids” written by the Editorial Board from the Austin American Statesman published Saturday, September 22, 2012. The source being the Austin American Statesman is known to be a credible source for information and news. This article was from the opinion section of the news stories, so that fact may drop its credibility slightly. Generally it means the story is just that, an opinion of the author. The author has to keep the reader’s attention by showing how negligent the state has been in other counties as well. This may have the effect of making the problem appear worse than it truly is.

The intended audience is the “layman” or similar families that are being over looked. It is focused on the regular people that care about children and their welfare.

The argument was well thought out and has strong supporting evidence to back up its claim of the state not having enough workers. The basic argument is that the state Child Protective Service Agency also known as CPS “doesn’t have enough workers to protect abused kids.” The assumption that the argument relies on is that the audience is aware of what CPS actually does in these delinquent cases. There is a brief description given but there is obvious background information that we, the public, are not aware of. The author may have withheld the information to show the CPS as being capable of doing this tedious job but it’s actually more involved than we, the audience, are currently aware of.

The values this article holds are children and family. The author deems these values as important and expects the local government to take care of these two groups. These important terms are very clear and precise for the audience to grab ahold of. The author was smart to make these terms precise and to the point, leading the audience to become locked into the article because it keeps them persuaded. It is an interesting topic, mainly because the general public has similar values when it comes to protecting abused children.

The argument is supported with hard facts that CPS has a huge “backlog” of delinquent cases. The author successfully gives the audience evidence of why the title is legit and doesn’t leave much room to question the claim’s authenticity. These facts and evidence can be verified by researching CPS cases. The author also used a quote from a spokesman for CPS to get the support on what is considered a “delinquent case.” The author does a good job to cover all the bases to the claim.

The argument is successful because it convinced me that the state of Texas really doesn’t have adequate staff for handling the many delinquent cases the CPS office currently has. It changed my mind because I believed that such an agency as the CPS would be fully and competently staffed due to their type of work involving abused children. Accepting this argument doesn’t change my current beliefs, it only confirms my belief that there are children in this state that need help. This made a huge difference on my understanding of the way the political world works. I generally believed that the state and its local government would want to go above and beyond making sure they are staffed and prepared for the children we, as a community, must protect. Children are our future and we must do all we can to keep them safe.