1. Locate an editorial from a major, reputable newspaper or other credible source.
2. In the comments section, post the link to the editorial.
3. In that same comment, write a letter to the author that explains why you do or don't agree with his/her viewpoint. Take your time, and treat it as if you were actually going to send it!
The San Francisco Chronicle
ReplyDelete"Why California Will Stay Blue" by Jane Junn
Link: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/11/08/EDB51G823E.DTL
Dear Jane Junn,
Your article “Why California Will Stay Blue” discusses the reason for California favoring the democratic side in the midterm elections. I agree with your stance of demographics playing a major role in this trend of California “staying blue.” However, I do not agree that Meg Whitman would have had a chance to persuade the trend of new voters.
I agree with the position that many people in California are of minority groups, but unfortunately, only one third participated in the elections. However, the participation of the younger generation drove the elections towards the democrats side. The younger generation is stepping up to create change, and Meg Whitman’s policy on immigration did not support change. Thus, more people were in favor of Jerry Brown.
Additionally, I disagree that Meg Whitman could have persuaded voters to her side. She may have had a large sum to spend on advertising, but an ad cannot change voter’s political beliefs in such a short span of time. I agree that her immigration policy caused her to lose support, but even if she had opted for a reasonable stance on immigration Brown would have still gained most of the votes. The demographics of California abide in support of this claim because the majority are in favor of reforming immigration, and allowing immigrants a pathway towards citizenship.
Thank you for taking your time, and patience to hear my point of view.
Sincerely,
Xiomara Valdizon
The Crossroad Nation
ReplyDeleteDavid Brooks
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/09/opinion/09brooks.html
Dear David Brooks,
You explain the lack of effort our government is actually putting into America, and I agree with you. It is true that Bill Gate was going to build that bridge but he didn’t specify the type of land that was at the end of the bridge. And when Obama states that he is going to make a ‘new foundation’ he doesn’t necessarily make it clear in what foundation he is talking about.
However, I disagree with you on the part that America holds the best universities. Yes, it may be true, but most students are not accomplishing that education offered by and American university because mainly our economic system is not supporting us very much. You state that America was in production a hundred years ago, but you might want to check again, because till this day, America is still in production.
You made strong point in this article and have good back up arguments. I agree with some arguments you made, but I also disagree with you. But overall, I believe America does need the change, and maybe someone will just bring it home for us. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Gladis Rojas
The LA Times
ReplyDeleteHow to Tackle Childhood Obesity?
Alexandra Le Tellier
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2010/11/how-to-tackle-childhood-obesity.html#comments
Dear Alexandra Le Tellier,
I agree with you when you state that the government has to set regulations in fast food industry. The obesity problem in our country is rapidly increasing and it is only a matter of time before the government steps in to control the problem. The fast food industry's marketing strategy is aimed at the children with the promotional toys they give away.Although some may say that the government should stay out our personal lives, it is only for our own good. Allowing the government to set guidelines for the foods we eat is the most efficient way to solve our country's obesity problem. Thank you for taking time to hear my point.
Sincerely, Jenny Cardenas
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2010/11/how-to-tackle-childhood-obesity.html#comments
ReplyDeleteDear Alexandra Le Tellier,
In this article you believe the government should set regulations against fast food industries. I strongly disagree with this point. Childhood obesity is not caused by McDonald's happy meals, but rather by parents poor choice to give their child these meals in the first place. Instead of regulating what fast food industries put inside their meals, the government should be creating various sports and physical programs for children to get involved in instead. Our government has enough issues to deal with, and child obesity is not something that will be solved on Capital Hill. It can only be fought in each home by the conscience decision of a parent to feed their child healthier food. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Francesca Skradski
LA Times
ReplyDeleteHow to Tackle Childhood Obesity
Alexandra Le Tellier
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/
Dear Alexandra
RIGHT ON! It is about time that something has been done with the Mc.Donalds corporation and their slick, disgusting ways of making a few extra dollars. What they and other fast food companies have been doing for years, of putting in toys to attract children to their establishments, is just plain wrong. All these big corporate scam artists care about is making that next dollar off of the next family who has given into their convenient "food." Not only is it creating an obese, unhealthier growing generation, but it is so unfair to the parents who have little time to fix meals and satisfy their hungry children. It seems like fast food is the only way, and then once kids eat it there's a toy at the end of the road. a HAPPY ending for little Johnny every night after his meal right? WRONG! The meals are all filled with fatty, greasy items, usually accompanied by a sugary drink. Then too make things better (WORSE) the kids see that happy little figurine in their happy little bag that keeps them coming back with their parents' happy little money bag. It was time that there was a stop to this, and it was time that Mc.Donalds got put put in the headlines for what their horribly processed, unhealthy foods have been doing to children all over. Maybe when Mickey Dee's puts some fresher, healthier items on their menu for children AND adults, they wont get criticized for making the USA obese OR their stupid little plastic toys taken away :] Anyways, thanks for hearing me out, and keep up the good work.
-Kyle Guthrie
Isidoro Medrano
ReplyDeleteLos Angeles Times
“Solving homelessness will require cooperation”
Link: “http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-unemployment-20101109,0,4828000.story ”
Dear Editor,
After having read the article, “Solving homelessness will require cooperation,” I strongly agree with the two points you make: the idea that homelessness will only be resolved through working together, and that the approach taken by “Business Leaders Task Force on Homelessness,” is to aggressive especially in our current economic state.
Homelessness has been a problem in our society for decades now, and we have seen different plans to end it ,by the government and non-profit organizations, but they have all failed or done very little for homelessness. I think the failure is due to them approaching the issue in different perspectives. If all the different organizations and governments were to work together to end homelessness in the same manner they would have much more success then if they all approached it differently and at different times.
The newest organization which is trying to put an end to homelessness through an aggressive plan is Business Leaders Task Force on Homelessness who plan to house all the homeless. I see this as an extremely aggressive plan because they plan to place those homeless in a permanent house in the next 5 years. As we can all imagine this takes up a lot of money, and in our current economic state this might not be seen as our best option.
http://www.latimes.com/theguide/mothers-day/sns-parenting-teen-safety-behind-wheel,0,1570982.story
ReplyDeleteLos Angeles Times
Crystal Arellano
Dear Sue Hubbard,
In your article, “Keeping your Teen Safe Behind the Wheel” published in the Los Angeles Times, you explain the importance of keeping the roads safe from teenage drivers. You advocate about driving contracts between new teenage drivers and their parents and although it can be a positive act for not only the driver but also those in the roads. I disagree with the statement that limiting a teen from driving will cause fewer accidents. It was not a credible sentence because you never gave the reader the source from where the evidence came from. You also point out the “statistics” of the accidents and deaths in 2007, but theses facts were not referred to a source. Therefore the rest of the article was not interesting because I felt that I was reading something that was not real and build upon lies.
I believe that with practice a teen will gradually be able to become aware of the roads and learn how to be a better driver. Everyone has a starting point and it is unfair that teenager are the one being picked on for the accidents occurring. Not only do teenagers need to be presented with the laws of their states but also other drivers. Teenagers are the better drivers, because they are more afraid of messing up and getting in trouble with the law at an early age. Thank you for your time and hearing my point of view.
Sincerely Crystal Arellano
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-bloom-food-waste-20101107,0,2596256.story
ReplyDeleteDear Jonathan Bloom,
I completely agree with you when you say that America needs to cut down how much food we waste every day. A lot of people think that they should waste a lot of money in order to become "green." However, one could become green right from their home without wasting money. There are simple steps that someone can take to waste less food. For example, just composting leftover food could help create soil, instead of the food going to waste. America thinks that going green is all about buying the right bulbs or even buying solar panels, but there are steps that one can take to help the environment without hurting their pocket. I think the points that you make are very valid. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Liliana Diaz
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe New York Times
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/10/opinion/10wed1.html?hp
(*I cannot find the author's name)
Dear Author,
The article you wrote on "States Out of Balance," discuss the future effects about the recent increase of elected Republican governors of various states. I agree with how you explain Republicans will keep our nation unbalanced by cutting taxes. Cutting back on higher education and services for the poor and elderly will ultimately effect our nation. The numbers of unemployment will increase and revenues will be less than expected. I believe governments of America should raise taxes in order to balance out our deficits and you have a good point in explaining this. Our nation needs to provide jobs in order to gain taxes. Republicans believe that Democratic governments waste money on programs/services that are insufficient to our economy but I disagree. If Republicans slash out Medicaid, what will citizens of lower incomes turn to? Republicans should think about our nation as a whole and should not leave any other groups out of the loop. Tax increases may sound risky, but it is a way to help our economy flourish and balance out our debt. Thank you for listening to my point of view.
Sincerely,
Bernadette Tuazon
Jennifer Melo
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/08/AR2010110806993.html?sid=ST2010110807290
Dear Petula Dvorak:
Your recent article about Christian Taylor whose birthday was celebrated a few months after he committed suicide correlates with a lot of bullying and cyber bullying stories seen on the news. Lately, many high school and college students have ended their torment (of being bullied) by taking their own lives away. I agree that bullying shouldn’t be tolerated and I would like to add that it needs to stop soon. A lot of young people have a good idea what bullying is because they have seen it or experienced it; since it is a major problem there should be mediators specialized in solving and preventing harassment.
No matter how someone has been affected by bullying, it is a good idea to talk to an adult. Even though it's hard to talk to grown-ups sometimes, they can help. Unfortunately, the majority of people who are bullied fail to seek help. Sometimes even the victims who talk to an adult don’t get help in exchange. In Taylor’s case, the school and sheriff’s office didn’t see bullying as something problematic and avoided it. If the adults in Taylor’s life would have helped him, he would be celebrating his 17 birthday with his family and his friends. Scenarios like this should persuade people to stop the spread of even the smallest thing that will hurt the feelings of other. Teenagers or students should not consider death as a solution to bullying problems.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-toy-20101102,0,6181163.story
ReplyDeleteDear Editor,
Your argument proves to be reasonable and understanding. The ban on promotional toys is absurd and I agree with the fact that it is the parents' responsibility to determine whether they should buy their child the meal. I also like the point you bring attention to about food substitutions. They are always alternatives when it comes to fast food, other places to eat at, and even if they choose to eat at a particular fast food chain, there are usually healthier food options to choose from. You tie up your argument with a convincing point, that "San Francisco could more effectively encourage childhood slimness by setting up tempting new recreational offerings at its parks, and encouraging kids to exercise" all viable options that can the city has the ability to pursue.
I leave you with a question. Regarding fast food consumers in general, what are your thoughts on food chains that use promotional tools such as the McDonald's Monopoly game to encourage the purchase of certain items on the menu. The foods that contain these game pieces are usually the least nutritional for you and promote greater quantities of consumption.
Thank you for your time in both writing a sound argument and reading this letter.
Sincerely,
Andrew Williams
Kimberly Romero
ReplyDeleteLA TIMES
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-tuition-20101110,0,4326616.storyhttp://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-tuition-20101110,0,4326616.story
Dear Editor,
I want to say that I strongly agree with your thoughts. I just want to say that I come from a low income family and let us say that paying for school is completely horrific when you can barely put food on the table. Raising the tuition for Cal states and UCs is ridiculous! I think it is quite unfair that these budget cuts are going to hurt our education. What is really upsetting is that fewer people will be able to afford this new price tag and also another thing less people will get the opportunity to get an education. The lack of money is going to decrease the value of our education since we wont be able to make the most of it.
So I'm asking you a favor right now if you could be so kind. What do you think will happen happen if budget cuts continue to keep growing the way they are and what you think should be done?
Sincerely,
Kimberly Romero
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2010-11-09-editorial09_ST1_N.htm
ReplyDeleteDear Editor,
I disagree with your point that parents should be able to trust that the fast foods that their children are eating are good for them. Businesses are there to make money, and they will do whatever it takes to make money, it is up to parents to decide whether their kids should be eating fast foods. Government money does not need to be wasted on incentives to make fast food restaurants healthier, if anything it should be spent on helping parents learn how to balance their childrens' meals. You should not blame businesses for marketing toys to children in order to get them to ask their parents to buy them the meal, you should be blaming the parents who give in to their children's demands. If children were taken out to eat their "happy meals" in moderation then we would not have an obesity problem, it is because children are continually being fed junk food and the fact that they live in a generation where indoor technology can provide them entertainment that has led to their obesity. Might I suggest parents buy toys to offer their kids when they finish all of their vegetables, possibly toys that involve going outside and being active.
Sincerely,
Randy Ou
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2010/11/how-to-tackle-childhood-obesity.html
ReplyDeleteDear Alexandra Le Tellier,
I completely agree that childhood obesity has become a very serious epidemic in society and it has to be stopped in some type of way. McDonalds is one of the main fast food corporations which has been a cause to this issue and has been linked with childhood obesity. McDonald’s labels their products as "happy meals" but what is truly "happy" about them, so far the only smile that has been put on faces is the corporations face which is ranking in all the money. The ones being truly affected by this are the consumers, gaining pound by pound and not being able to stop that craving sensation of McDonalds. There should be a stop to childhood obesity, with Americans becoming less and less healthy it is simply a matter of time until everyone is lacking physical fitness. Hopefully these fast food tycoons will realize how much damage they are causing and put a stop to such unhealthy choices on their menus. I certainly agree with your article one hundred percent and I must say you are doing an excellent job. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Frank Machado
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/us/politics/03ballot.html?scp=7&sq=PROP%2019&st=cse
ReplyDeleteDear Mark Lacey,
In you most recent post, you referred to the state of California, as the drug state.In the article, you imply that the state takes part in drug trafficking. . Your article faces an opposing threat to people who think clear in respect to their view of the economy, and the California's budget. There are people who look down on the idea of legalizing Marijuana, since it goes against moral beliefs and values. I agree to some extent that the state faces a tough challenge when trying to deal with drug smuggling. I am happy that the drug proposition was not passed, just because if it had, it would give more reasons for people to obtain and use, possibly leading to a large number of car accidents and all the rest of possible infractions.
Regards,
Jorge Perez
link: www.nytimes.com/2010/11/10nyregion/10holocaust.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=a1?
ReplyDeleteDear Mosi Secret,
I have read your article U.S. Says Holocaust Fund Was Defrauded. I agree with your article on that some Funds can be defrauded, and that the defendants should pay for their crimes. Your article has led me to wonder how many scholarship funds, and social security funds are defrauded every year. People hire other people to fake their identification, but how could it be possible that most of the defendants accused of this crime were part of the claims conference. I feel that they were taken favorites, or taking advantage to defraud more than 46 million dollars as you stated. Your article was interesting. It is possible thata small percentage of funds are defrauded but people that have committed those acts should pay for their crimes.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-unemployment-20101109,0,4828000.story
ReplyDeletedear La times,
I had the opportunity to read your article regarding unemployment and the payroll that buisness' must satisfy. I agree with the fact that the state should not be bumping up taxes for the employers and buisneses that pay the unemployment tax. Instead our state should be doing more to encourage and create more job opportunities for the unemployed. Our state deficit will not benefit in any way by tax increases and giving more away. The econoy should be stimulated by increased number of jobs and buisnesses. Some people may argue that jobs are tough to create quickly, so the temporary solution is to tax. Taxing has not done anything thus far, so obviously that is not the solution. The state should begin creating jobs now and focussing on the one solution rather than exploring other possibilities.
From,
Cody Bills