...ahahahaha, your Will is equal to mine, baby.

And, oh, wow, I have a lot to cover.

First of all, all of the three articles from the last class seemed forceful, but in different ways, which makes sense considering the sources. The news articles are forceful in a "this is what's going on and you can't--or shouldn't--deny it" way, which more or less is what newspapers as a whole try to do. I can't see that much beyond it, though.

"Lingo Jingo" is another story though. It lacks the context of the news and has to stand on it's own. An interesting way of doing that, I think, is the realatively more dense sections framing the problem and the less dense sections that actually offer his position. It put the focus on the argument, for me, in the "oi, I can actually make it through this without getting distracted!" way. That didn't hit me at first, but it works, and anything else is even subtler than that, which I can't catch.

And now the stuff for today.

"The Framing of Immigration" I find intereesting, in that it says calling what's happening an "immigration" problem that needs to be reformed makes it too simple. I... more or less agree with that fact, but in the way that I see practically everything as more complex than anyone says. Exactly what the problem's made up of? I'm not really sure. The author brings up quite a few more ways to look at it, but I doubt that's all the ways. My uninformed opinion would be on the progressive side, to make it easier for those who want to come here as long as the USA has the room and money--because it's their choice, and one my big things is "live and let live", but even after reading all this stuff I don't think I know enough to really decide. ...going to need to think about this more.

Second article firstly results in me going "oooooh, pie charts and other graphs, yay!", but after that. It starts to annoy me with the wording. Firstly, the ongoing mention of "Republicans" and "Democrats" as the two different side of the debate. That certainly puts a overt political spin on it--and though I think it was written to aid politicians, that still really turns me off. However, the constant mention of America as a cohesive whole is even worse. There are many Americas--just in terms of the USA, not even touching the fact that could apply to continents--and the article doesn't acknowledge that. I don't like polarizing, and that's what that article does--yes, I do it, but I freely admit so, which... is different, more or less, because it implies that I'm wording something for other reasons than accuracy and to take it with a grain of salt.

That leads to the talking about laws as a be-all-and-end-all type thing. I... don't agree. Firstly, I haven't read the laws in their entirity--would you expect me to, not knowing where to begin?--but the way they're brought up in public makes them sound way too broad. ...I'm more or less a moral relativist, can't you tell? But that is, of course, just a convienent label that works since I've been working on this for an hour, and I'm still not quite done. Laws... aren't perfect. I don't know if this article is meant to make them sound like they are, but to me it does. Nothing is eternal. ...well, except in some religion, maybe, which I'm not bringing up since that would open a huge can of worms I really don't want to deal with, but in terms of human things, there is no eternal, and the laws should change to reflect that. Laws... aren't as democratic as some people think--since direct democracy would be... well, interesting, but mostly a pain in the ass, considering the size of the nation--so taking them with a grain of salt while realizing that disagreement isn't protection for punishment if they're broken is a good idea, I would say.

...also? Seven of the ten times they had charts or tables, the figures didn't add up. Okay, I understand rounding issues and only wanting to mention the most important--i.e. highest--percents, but that should have been mentioned at some point. Maybe I missed it, but if not? Makes it look sloppy, guys.

ds;bgk I've been writing this for an hour and fifteen minutes, and I don't even have a strong stand on immigration itself.