Right or RIGHT?!

Being something of a serious writer (well, a value on coherent thought and argument), reading most blogs is an effort in futility most times. At times it feels like maybe Ray Bradbury was on to something all those years ago a la "A Sound of Thunder." Proper grammar and punctuation has unfortunately fallen far by the wayside in current publications.

Enter Kevin Fulton, new blogger on the republican-leaning site Big Jolly Politics. On his first posting to the site, "Voting is a Moral Obligation," he reaches out to like-minded readers by appealing to their well-documented platform, discussing Abortion, Racism, and Envy. His use of charged language fails to connect to those seeking non-combative information, however, only serving to further the gap between the parties.

With today's focus on the alleged "War On Women" covered by some news sources, and this blog posting seems to verify there is validity to this "war." Mr. Fulton refers to babies as "defenseless" and that Democrats try to convince people that abortion "is a viable method of birth-control." How is telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies NOT a war (of sorts) on the gender? However, this line of thought is directly relatable to the Republican Party base.

As an African-American, the author does have more of a unique view of potential racism within the Republican part. His argument claims there is not rampant racism within his adopted party; rather, the Democratic party was "built on racism." He justifies this theory by attempting to link the modern Democrat with the Southern Democrats responsible for the KKK and other discriminatory groups. Again, this serves to appease his target audience, who are already in agreement with him.

Finally, Mr. Fulton seeks to pin the blame for criminals solely onto the Obama administration's back. The President is (apparently) also responsible for the diviseness currently inhabiting the political discourse. Kevin refers to the "virus of envy" that must surely be blamed on policies enacted in the past four years, as if crime did not exist prior to 2008.

Obviously, the blog posting, being hosted on a Republican-leaning site, reaches out to its intended audience. It provides a view by a minority citizen which attempts to substantiate the positions posed by the Republican party. However, anyone not already of the same line of thought will be turned-off by the charged commentary provided within. His arguments are clear only to those who don't seek to be convinced.

Critiques and Critics

It took a few days to find an editorial that was interesting enough to finish reading (and that was not an endorsement!) Once the editorial board of the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram was onscreen, a particular essay claimed attention. The headline screamed for attention, using exceptionally polarizing language. The critical essay had been found - Absurd Springtown episode shows how swatting students is archaic, wrong and counterproductive.

The author's headline choice makes the argument that corporal punishment in schools is a bad idea. He starts off by saying allowing a grown man to hit a young woman is a crime, as is watching and not stopping the activity. This is a valid point, and using such an example should bring a reader to nod along in agreement.

He cites a credible source to support his argument against corporal punishment, The National Association of Secondary School Principals. He includes a link to the organization's stance on the issue, which breaks down the views and problems with the activity versus non-violent alternatives.

Next, he presents an example of a young woman in Springtown, Texas who was recently paddled for punishment. This is where his argument starts to fall apart. He claims the female was given in-school suspension when a "classmate copied her work without her knowledge." If the infraction was without her knowledge, why was she punished? There is more to that story, and this essay is sparse on details.

The student was given the option to miss two days of school and activities, or she could instead be paddled by the vice-principal, a male. The essay doesn't make it clear where the decision was made, but the student chose to receive the paddling, and a phone call later had the mother's approval. Again, what parent would not want to know the whole story, and if their child was not actually guilty of anything, would allow ANY punishment without proof? There is still information missing.

So imagine the shock of the mother when her daughter gets home that day with bruises and marks on her backside, leading the mother to complain about the girl's treatment. A school board review of the incident was completed, and the findings were shocking. The district violated policy by allowing a male to paddle a female. The district did what they felt was best - changed the rules to enable paddling by the opposite sex, requiring only that someone of the same sex of the offender be in the room.

The author claims this treatment is "Absurd, archaic, wrong, and counter-productive." While he makes gives examples and provides a link agreeing with his stance, he fails to win any arguments. The reader is left feeling confused by the provided schoolgirl example and more annoyed at the inattentive parent than the punishment provided. After all, the mother approved of the paddling, so what right does she have to complain?

The original story can be found here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/09/25/4288392/absurd-springtown-episode-shows.html