Helpful resources for clearer thinking and better writing!
AP English 11 Summer summary assignment #2 (A-L)
Post your summary #2 here by Noon, Aug 1, if your last name begins with A-L
31 comments:
J3R3MY_C0R_5518
said...
Summary: "California's Future Homeowners" by Peter Schrag http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-schrag-immigrants-20110727,0,2305335.story
J3R3MY_C0R_5518
In “California’s Future Homeowners,” Peter Schrag asks Californians to invest more interest and time in Latino immigrants, who he believes will be the future of the state. First, he acknowledges the growing number of Latino and other immigrant homeowners in California. Then, he encourages California to offer job opportunites and “higher education” to incoming immigrants. Lastly, he states that the ethnic divide between “white homeowners and young Latinos” may be an obstacle for immigrants who need programs and services.
First of all, Schrag observes the “dramatic generational and ethnic changes” in California homeownership. According to Schrag, the number of older, white homeowners has diminished due to “relocation, assisted living, or rental housing.” Also, he notes that in the last decade, Latino homeowners accounted for more than “78% of the growth in California’s homeownership.”
Next, Schrag states his belief that Latino immigrants could serve as replacements for “retiring Californians” in the future. He speculates that the recent drop in illegal immigration could be a result of the drop in Mexico’s birthrate and the nation’s improved economy. He reasons that rather than closing the border, the US should focus on “opening opportunities” such as job offers and higher education for immigrants and their children.
Finally, Schrag believes the “critical economic and social nexus” between older white homeowners and young Latino and immigrant homeowners presents an obstacle for the state of California. According to Harvard economist Alberto Alesina, because of the great “ethnic gap,” voters are more reluctant to support taxes that pay for “education, social welfare, and health programs” that benefit young immigrants.
In conclusion, Schrag believes that Californians should support Latinos and other immigrants because of their role in homeownership as well as their ability to replace older citizens in various skilled jobs. He states that California should be worrying less about the amount of illegal immigrants rather than “the education and training of those already here.”
daniTHEelaHERRer-uh5552 Medical myths don't die easily By Aaron E. Carroll and Rachel C. Vreeman, Special to CNN
Aaron E. Carroll and Rachel C. Vreeman, pediatricians and health services researchers at the Indiana University School of Medicine, discuss the dangers of the most “common knowledge” treatments believed to heal wounds and cure colds in “Medical Myths Don’t Die Easily.” The pair explains the risks of using hydrogen peroxide and vitamin E for healing a simple knee scrape. Additionally, they argue that “green snot” does not mean patients need antibiotics and cold weather does not cause colds. Moreover, they mention the importance of “evidence-based medicine” that prove to both doctors and patients that many of their “solutions” are causing more damage than actual healing.
Carroll and Vreeman define the common “knee-scrape” cure, used by pediatricians and moms worldwide, by using hydrogen peroxide for “clean[ing]”, leaving the wound “uncovered” to “heal faster,” and vitamin E cream for “prevent[ing]… unsightly scars.” Although the treatment is common and seems to be “doing the job”, Carroll and Vreeman suggest otherwise. Multiple randomized, controlled studies, “the best kind of research” in Carroll and Vreeman’s point of view, show that the hydrogen peroxide causes cellular damage and slower healing, as it bubbles and stings. Additionally, a moist, covered environment is actually best for wound healing; leaving the wound uncovered, however, simply dries it out. Furthermore, vitamin E does not improve scar sizes, thickness or appearance whatsoever. In most cases though, vitamin E causes rashes that may, or may not, lead to infections. According to Carroll and Vreeman this specific treatment is only the beginning and doctors might be causing more petrifying damage without notice.
For instance, Carroll and Vreeman explain, doctors usually suggest antibiotics as soon as they notice “green snot”. Research, however, shows that “green snot” is not a particular “sign” for antibiotics at all. In fact antibiotics can cause unnecessary allergic reactions and contribute to “antibiotic-resistant bacteria” problems known to the majority of the US population. Carroll and Vreeman additionally point out that these treatments are habitually believed because they have a “grain” of truth to them. For example, although there is a “peak” in cold weather and flu viruses in the United States, cold weather does not “make you sick.”
Many other myths, according to Carroll and Vreeman, simply sound reasonable. For instance, crunches should “flatten” your stomach, or the toilet is the “dirtiest thing” in the bathroom. Hearing the same myths repeatedly from the people you trust the most, i.e. doctors, parents and friends, turns them into facts. Carroll and Vreeman exclaim that when myths stop patients form getting flu shots, vaccinated, or taking medications appropriately the consequences are dangerous.
Carroll and Vreeman lastly address their idea that “evidence” can conquer belief, focusing on studies that determine whether or not approaches to medical practices and procedures are effective. The pair dispute the many physicians that assume medical ideas do not need re-examination, they suggest doctors and patients everywhere need to “examine the evidence” maintaining medical decision making, recognizing whether practice is based on “tradition, anecdote or art, as opposed to science.” Using rigorous research skills Carroll and Vreeman studied “76 commonly held beliefs” about health and found several to be “ just plain wrong” (i.e. artificial sweeteners do not “cause cancer”, cheese cannot cause constipation, eating eggs does not result in “high cholesterol”, etc), reminding both physicians, patients, and moms to “question” the medical “falsehoods” they might “unwittingly support.”
Thus, “Medical myths don’t die easily” proves the many hidden dangers involved in unproven treatments commonly used to heal and cure. Carroll and Vreeman emphasize the dangers of the customary “knee scrape” cure and the ‘not-so-dangerous’ “green snot.” Moreover, they clear the air on other infamous medical myths. In conclusion, Carroll and Vreeman verify that although it is difficult to diverge from common beliefs, even after they are proven wrong, “evidence-based medicine” may direct future treatments and policies, allowing for a much safer, healthier and happier United States.
Summary: “White Flight- to the City” by Gregory Rodriguez http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rodriguez-whitecities-20110725,0,7955238.column
In “White Flight- to the City,” Gregory Rodriguez comments on the new trend of affluent white families moving into “inner city” neighborhoods and whether or not this change is beneficial. First, Rodriguez presents statistics showing that Washington, for the first time since the 1960s, has lost its black majority population and likewise, in Los Angeles, the city’s white population has “stabilized and even increased in the central city.” “On one level,” observes Rodriguez, “this story is about race and class, but the more profound shift in the U.S. urban experience will be cultural.”
First, Rodriguez notes that in the past, a newcomer to a big city was most likely “a country bumpkin obliged to make his way among the sophisticates,” but that now, the “in-migration” is coming from the suburbs, whose citizens are already financially well off and “capable of wielding cultural power in their new neighborhoods.” In addition, these people appear to be bringing their suburban tastes with them and “remaking the city in their image.”
Next, Rodriguez elaborates on the “urban experience,” which was once characterized by “serendipity and the clash of high and low.” The suburbs, as a result, were created to provide inhabitants with “a soothing homogeneity and a predictable middle-of-the-road sensibility”; a contrast to the tensions that exist blocks apart in cities such as Los Angeles between, for example, skid row and the opera house.
Finally, Rodriguez proceeds to explain that as a result of the incoming suburban families, “developers seek to tame stark differences and impose some standardization on the city.” Specifically, in Manhattan, there is the remake of Times Square; once “the epitome of the juxtaposition of grime and glitz,” this famous area is now, in the words of geographers Neil Smith and Deborah Cowen, "dense with suburban, clean, white middle-class faces and bodies with the odd 'exotic' mixed in." In Washington, a massive new apartment complex stands on the “once-scruffy, quickly gentrifying H Street.”
“Will suburbanization dull cities' liberal edge or dampen the spirit of tolerance that diversity demands?”, asks Rodriguez. Although this new trend might diminish our cities, “better-heeled residents might also demand improved schools, broaden the tax base and require cities to become more family friendly.” Rodriguez thus concludes that “in the midst of this inexorable change,” it’s best to hope for “a way to transplant the benefits of the suburbs without undermining the essential complexities and contrasts of the city.”
"Show, Don't Tell" By Dahlia Lithwick http://www.slate.com/id/2295331/pagenum/all/#p2
In “Show, Don’t Tell,” Dahlia Lithwick questions Justice Anthony Kennedy’s choice to include photographic evidence of overcrowded Californian prisons as an addition to his 48-page argument, stating that 32,000 inmates must be released or relocated over the next two years. Lithwick states that these photos may sway opinion’s on the “morality of the overcrowding,” but whether they should is, according to her, the more important question.
The appeal that Lithwick focuses on is comprised of two class-action suits. The first, which dates back to 1990, argues for better prison conditions for prisoners with serious mental health problems; the second, for prisoners in need of serious medical attention. Finally, by 2009, a three-judge panel ordered California to reduce its capacity significantly with in the next two years. However in two years, after failing to fix the overcrowding, the state argued that, along with other contributing factors, they just weren’t given enough time. According to Lithwick, there are still terrible conditions in prison such as “200 prisoners living in a gymnasium,” only monitored by two or three officers and all sharing one toilet. This has led to an increased suicide rate among the prisoners, which results in even more inhumane treatment, as suicidal inmates are practically “caged” for nearly 24 hours without a toilet.
Lithwick quotes Kennedy when arguing that this treatment “likens to torture or lingering death.” To emphasize the severity of this situation, during the case, Kennedy pulls out three black and white photographs as examples of the previous described conditions. Lithwick doesn’t doubt that these “horrifying” photos will have an impact on those who agree with Kennedy, but she questions his ethics of using visuals in order to conjure an emotional response rather than strictly sticking to the facts.
She mentions that in the past, a use of a visual accompaniment during a trial was not uncommon. During such cases as the 2007 Scott vs. Harris case an audio-visual tape was used to sway the courts opinion, as was a newspaper advertisement in the 1997 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan case. However, this approach, when used by Kennedy as a way to justify his case, was, in Lithwick’s opinion, unnecessary.
Lithwick concludes by stating that, in Kennedy’s instance, words were enough. Also, stating that by using photos of a room crowded with “huge tattooed men” viewers might react with terror instead of sympathy, causing them to not their release into their communities. According to Lithwick, if the right words are used, there is no real need for photographic evidence.
"obama like FDR? Not at all, it turns out." by Alexander Heffner http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-like-fdr-not-at-all-it-turns-out/2011/07/20/gIQAgSXYTI_story.html
In the article, “Obama like FDR? Not at all, it turns out “, Alexander Heffner argues against the claim that the nations current president greatly resembles Franklin Roosevelt. Heffner recalls when Obama was getting into office, “historians and columnists reveled in the comparison(s)” between the two men presidencies. But, now close to the end of his term, obama proved he wasn’t similar the “champion of liberal reform”, FDR. Heffner validates this by comparing the different styles of politics that both men practice, as well as interviewing historians and professors who have the same opinion.
Heffner begins by outlining the biggest accomplishments in both Obama’s and FDR’s presidencies. In doing this, readers can compare for themselves the drastic contrasts between the two. FDR, “the father of reform “ biggest accomplishments started “from his first day in office.” Roosevelt is known for policies such as the new deal, social security, and the start of the Second World War. On the other hand, besides the 2009 recovery act, Obama has acted “neither boldly nor persistently” during his presidency to “the scale of FDR’s initiatives.”
Next, by quoting historians and authors, Heffner gives more accountability to his opinion. For example, Heffner quotes biographer Jean Edward Smith, who points out that “Obama lacks Roosevelt’s killer instinct.” This shows that Obama’s political persona of “cool rationalism” cannot be compared to the “liberal lion of the 20th century”, Roosevelt. Another biographer, Alan Brinkly, states that FDR would “attack his opponents” to “strengthen his political position.” In contrast, obama has a “reasonable, conciliatory rhetoric” that allows fellow politicians to gain the upper hand.
While the two presidents have some “superficial similarities”, (attending Harvard law school, talented speakers) In Heffner’s opinion and that of well know historians, Obama does not resemble the president who took the united states out of depression. Heffner states that Obama “gets credit” for one accomplishment, “steps toward universal health coverage.” But, to be compared to the legacy of Roosevelt government, he has not “live[d] up to his billing as the next FDR”. In conclusion by using historical facts and opinions from important scholars, Heffner’s opinion is legitimized, and gives a new view on the president.
“Why Medical School Tuition Should be Free” By Peter B. Bach and Robert Kocher http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/29/opinion/29bach.html
In "Why Medical School Tuition Should Be Free," authors Peter B. Bach and Robert Kocher argue for an approach that "is certain to raise objections" but addresses the "looming shortage of primary care doctors.” The authors believe by charging only specialty training courses to make money for free medical school, doctors, who currently "graduate owing more than $155,000" for tuitions, will no longer “shun” the idea of becoming a primary care doctor.
The authors argue that the current medical school tuition not only “[burdens]” students with great debts, but also “[discourages]” prospective students from going to medical school. They follow by stating the few students who do choose the medical field often pursue the specialist’s career, in favor over that of a primary care’s, “where there are incentives to give expensive treatments and order expensive tests” and thus earn grand salaries that will “relieve [them] of the burden of student debt” sooner. Bach and Kocher feel certain that free medical school will attract “a larger pool of competent primary care doctors” and eventually, stunt the growing void of primary care doctors.
Both Bach and Kocher propose that charging specialty training courses will sufficiently "offset most if not all" of the estimated $2.5 billion bill for free medical school "without the government's help." The authors agree that although such a proposition "seem[s] like a lot to ask of future specialists" to pay the $50,000 tuition, they justify saying specialists are still “assured highly lucrative jobs” with median salaries of $325,000 per year. Consequently, Bach and Kosher also state that "organizations that license specialty training programs and medical school associations" must create a system that will "redistribute specialty training fees and medical school subsidies" for hospitals that "[are] not associated with medical schools” and urge medical schools not to "start raising tuitions just because people other than their students are footing the bill." Furthermore, the authors acknowledge that "a large shift" of doctors away from specialty training towards primary care can "weaken the ability of [their] plan to remain self-financed;" however, they firmly believe that the benefits to the nation's health care system "would make any needed tuition subsidies well worth it."
Finally, Bach and Kocher retaliates any objections toward and doubts about the quality of free medical school. Responding to critics “who might object to providing free medical education” when there are students who have to pay for other advanced studies, the authors retort saying “the process of training doctors is unlike any other” for no other fields involve the well-being of patients and most of the costs for medical training ‘are already borne by [taxpayers and the Medicare system].” Furthermore, since medical students "would still be required to pass the various licensing examinations and complete patient care rotations," the authors boast that "nothing in [their] plan would diminish the quality of medical education" and "if anything," free tuition would actually "increase the quality of the applicants" and encourage "the creativity of medical schools in developing curriculums."
In conclusion, the authors feel that “taking the counterintuitive step of making medical education free, while charging those doctors who want to gain specialty training,” will “gradually shift the work force away from specialties and toward primary care.” Bach and Kocher insist that free medical school is the “straightforward” and better way to paying for medical training” and “[addressing] the looming shortage of primary care doctors.”
Summary #2: "Why We Need The Tabloids" by Ryan Linkof" JayTeeFreedman321
In “Why We Need the Tabloids”, Ryan Linkof argues that although newspaper tabloids “can be irritating, provocative, ethically questionable and even …highly illegal”, when practiced correctly and legally, they play a fundamental role in Western culture. Recently, Rupert Murdoch, the CEO of News Corp., stated he “did not support an absolute right to privacy” when it comes to journalism. Linkof commended Murdoch for this statement and believes that although intrusiveness may be indecent, it is not reason to “tighten restrictions or create new laws to prevent it”.
Linkof defines the methods of the tabloids as a matter of “degree, not kind”. By this, he means that the news of the tabloids may be of little importance and mere gossip most of the time, but that, Linkof says, is a matter of taste, “and the tabloids certainly never claimed to be tasteful”. Tabloids often cross the line of what is acceptable and moral, but only because of the public desire to find a story that shows “behind the façade of public life”. Like in the case of the extramarital affair of John Edwards, the tabloids are often the first to break important news stories and are not just “peddling mere gossip”.
Linkof explains that the tabloids also “exist to break down the barriers of access that keep social elites at a remove from ordinary people”. Linkof provides the example of the recent “painfully choreographed and highly-policed” red carpet arrival of William and Kate Middleton at a polo match and that intrusive journalists provide a link between them and “ordinary people”. This is fundamental in democratic cultures that are divided by the “demands of a mass society and the persistence of social and economic inequality.”
The tabloids are consistently testing the boundaries of journalism. Tabloids, according to Linkof, can help to “mitigate some of the central tensions in democratic society” and act as an important player in modern culture. The idea that tabloids are made by “degraded, low-minded people” and supply idiotic gossip remains a matter of taste. Within limits, states Linkof, tabloids will most likely remain an important and “basic feature of popular culture in the West”.
William Pannapacker, "Overeducated, Underemployed"
http://www.slate.com/id/2300107/pagenum/all/#p2
Contemporary grad schools for humanities are rigged to exploit inexperienced grad students and William Pannapacker, author of "Overeducated, Underemployed," tries to provide a solution. Currently, most education programs "are unconcerned about what happens to students after they graduate." For most of these students, a "doctorate in English that probably took...10 years to earn is something...to hide like a prison term" while they also work to pay off "about $40,000 to $100,000 in loans." To solve the issues that so many plague grad students, Pannapacker outlines a step-by-step plan.
First, those in charge of high education in the humanities need to "get organized" Given that these grad programs lack a "centralized leadership," Pannapacker feels it is wisest to "assemble a group of representatives from a range of universities, colleges, foundations, and national organizations" so that all of these collectives work as a community. Pannapacker aims to have these groups work towards fixing problems like: "the lack of learning among undergraduates, the declining respect accorded the humanities, a viciously exploitative academic employment system, and an unconscionable waste of talent."
Secondly, students need to know what's going on in their school and their prospective job paths; "reliable, up-to-date information about the employment practices of individual universities," "independantly verified information about individual graduate programs" and "accurate, realistic, and up-to-date advising...focused on their interests" help these students better prepare for their prospective careers. Pannapacker supports students and their right to know about the "acceptance rates, financial support, teaching requirements, time-to-degree, attrition rates, and, most important, job placement" of their chosen program and better inform them about the different factors in their completing education. Additionally, Pannapacker proposes grad programs deal with "real careers" and "stop stigmatizing everything besides tenure-track positions at research universities that almost no one will get." Instead of tailoring education to "the labor needs of universities," Pannapacker pushes for graduate schools to undergo a "redesign" and emphasize real-world applications, including: "professional training, including internships and networking opportunities, and working with other departments and programs."
Lastly, Pannapacker warns that students themselves must not allow his/her "love for the humanities make [him/her] vulnerable to ongoing exploitation." Rather than stay out the entire duration of their grad school, Pannapacker suggests that students should instead focus on "accumulat[ing] work experiences and contacts that will enable [he/she] to support [himself/herself]" and reject the "dubious promises about future rewards" that will keep them chained to the "academic labor system."
Pannapacker admits that "in order to reform higher education, many of us will have to leave it, perhaps temporarily," but he believes that the humanities that these grad students care so much about "will be more likely to flourish outside of the academe than in it."
Article: GOP Needs To Grow Up, Get Back To Work By Roland S. Martin Site: http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/03/26/martin.republicans.cooperation/index.html
In the article, “GOP Needs To Grow Up, Get Back To Work,” political analyst Roland Martin comments that because Congress recently passed health care reform, thereby giving Democrats a long awaited victory, the Republicans have turned into “pouty kids” and are halting political progress by deciding to “no longer cooperate” with the Democratic Party. Martin argues that in order for Capital Hill to continue fixing America’s urgent problems, such as health care, education, and immigration laws, the GOP must stop acting like “spoiled brats” and “get back to work.”
Martin begins by chastising the leading Republican Party members for expressing their “displeasure with legislation” in a childish and immature manner. Specifically, Martin calls Senator John McCain “dumb” for saying that he would not cooperate with the Democrats for “the rest of the year,” despite the fact that McCain often boasts his willingness to “work across the aisle.” Additionally, Martin compares Senator Lindsey Graham, who claimed that because Democrats got their way that “Legislation was dead,” to a little kid who loses a game and then “take[s] their ball and go[es] home,” implying that Graham is acting immaturely and not handling the situation as he should.
Martin continues by saying that despite the anger that the Republicans may be feeling, there are still “crucial issues” facing the American people that must be dealt with right away. For example, Martin points out that there are an estimated “12 million” people who are “in the nation illegally” and are negatively affecting the economy, schools, and hospitals. Additionally, he adds that there are “massive changes” that must be made to the “No Child Left Behind Act” in order for the unions to be satisfied, and for education to function at its greatest potential. Martin states that these issues must not be put “on the back burner” because the Republicans have a “burr under [their] saddle,” but rather Congress should be focused on solving these “vital issues” whether the GOP are “in the game” or not.
Martin demands that the Republicans, due to their stubbornness to work with the Democrats, must begin to take a more active roll in solving America’s problems, if the United States is going pull itself out of the “shambles” and continue to thrive. Specifically, Martin suggests that the GOP “stop canceling hearings,” stop “threaten[ing] not to engage in legislative negotiations,” and start acting like “grown men and women.” However, if the Republicans fail to participate in the re-building of the Nation’s policies, Martin urges the Democrats to simply “learn to lead and go it alone.” Martin concludes by saying that the only thing that really matters is fixing what is “broken” in America, but in order for that to happen, the political leaders in Washington, namely the GOP, must “grow up and get to work!”
Summary #2: Horns, Harps, and Hubcaps: The classical orchestra needs some new instruments. By J. Bryan Lowder, Slate Magazine http://www.slate.com/id/2297231/
In “Horns, Harps, and Hubcaps,” J. Bryan Lowder argues that the modern classical orchestra is in need of a new and innovative sound. Over the course of the article, he commends Sean Frair’s Clunker Concerto, recently premiered by the American Composers Orchestra, as a forthright answer to Friar’s own question, “How can we make the orchestra sound new?” The Clunker Concerto, which “focused on introducing new instruments into the centuries-old ensemble,” in this case, used car parts as concerto soloists instead of traditional orchestral instruments, challenges the traditional form of the modern-day orchestra, a highly controversial aim from the point of view of many devoted classical music patrons.
Lowder opens the article by describing the elements and ideas behind Friar’s Clunker Concerto, whose performance was a culmination of a six-month collaboration between Friar and the American Composer’s Orchestra (ACO) as a part of the project called “Playing it UNsafe,” with the goal to “reinvent the ways both the composer and the listener approach the modern classical orchestra.” What Lowder finds so fascinating in listening to the piece is that these found car parts from a roughly dissevered Ford Taurus produce sounds more melodious and “piercingly lovely” than an oboe or violins. In an analogy, Lowder describes how, “Wheel wells with padded mallets created tones deep and resonant enough to challenge the horns for majesty,” and how gently scraped brake drums transmit intensity or nervous energy more effectually than even the “trembling violins.” Thus, what distinguishes Friar’s piece from other previous contemporary works with irregular objects used as instruments is that instead of using sounds that merely clash with the traditional palette, Friar makes the unusual objects blend profoundly with the time-honored voices of the orchestra.
Lowder goes on to explain that this concept of bringing new instruments into the orchestra is more controversial than one might expect, because while orchestras do occasionally feature odd instruments in innovative pieces, they are almost never treated as equals to the “venerable old-timers.” However, in launching his main argument, Lowder maintains that the car parts used in Friar’s piece are the leaders and aural inspirations for the ensemble as a whole, “and, amazingly, the piece came off sounding refreshingly new and solidly mature: not a novelty in the least.” But should a car fender deserve to be featured as much as a flute in an orchestral piece? Lowder argues that the classical orchestra could, in fact, benefit from a few new instruments to give a more enhancing, modern sound, especially considering the “somewhat arbitrary development” of the orchestra.
Summary #2: Horns, Harps, and Hubcaps: The classical orchestra needs some new instruments. By J. Bryan Lowder, Slate Magazine http://www.slate.com/id/2297231/
In “Horns, Harps, and Hubcaps,” J. Bryan Lowder argues that the modern classical orchestra is in need of a new and innovative sound. Over the course of the article, he commends Sean Frair’s Clunker Concerto, recently premiered by the American Composers Orchestra, as a forthright answer to Friar’s own question, “How can we make the orchestra sound new?” The Clunker Concerto, which “focused on introducing new instruments into the centuries-old ensemble,” in this case, used car parts as concerto soloists instead of traditional orchestral instruments, challenges the traditional form of the modern-day orchestra, a highly controversial aim from the point of view of many devoted classical music patrons.
Lowder opens the article by describing the elements and ideas behind Friar’s Clunker Concerto, whose performance was a culmination of a six-month collaboration between Friar and the American Composer’s Orchestra (ACO) as a part of the project called “Playing it UNsafe,” with the goal to “reinvent the ways both the composer and the listener approach the modern classical orchestra.” What Lowder finds so fascinating in listening to the piece is that these found car parts from a roughly dissevered Ford Taurus produce sounds more melodious and “piercingly lovely” than an oboe or violins. In an analogy, Lowder describes how, “Wheel wells with padded mallets created tones deep and resonant enough to challenge the horns for majesty,” and how gently scraped brake drums transmit intensity or nervous energy more effectually than even the “trembling violins.” Thus, what distinguishes Friar’s piece from other previous contemporary works with irregular objects used as instruments is that instead of using sounds that merely clash with the traditional palette, Friar makes the unusual objects blend profoundly with the time-honored voices of the orchestra.
Lowder goes on to explain that this concept of bringing new instruments into the orchestra is more controversial than one might expect, because while orchestras do occasionally feature odd instruments in innovative pieces, they are almost never treated as equals to the “venerable old-timers.” However, in launching his main argument, Lowder maintains that the car parts used in Friar’s piece are the leaders and aural inspirations for the ensemble as a whole, “and, amazingly, the piece came off sounding refreshingly new and solidly mature: not a novelty in the least.” But should a car fender deserve to be featured as much as a flute in an orchestral piece? Lowder argues that the classical orchestra could, in fact, benefit from a few new instruments to give a more enhancing, modern sound, especially considering the “somewhat arbitrary development” of the orchestra.
In describing the development of the orchestral instrument family, Lowder describes how the instrumentation as we know it was created in the late 18th century, as a result of several opposing traditions. Different instrumentation was used depending on the type of event, but all of the music performed was “stylistically similar—complicated, multimelody textures in which each instrument (or human voice) was equally important,” and included forbearers of modern-day instruments that we have left behind. However, around the 1760s, musical taste began to change as listeners fell in love with the “Italian opera” instrumentation style, encompassing strings and winds, and how the “lyrical melodies glided over a regular, recognizable chord progression.” This smooth and graceful blending was very different from the complex melodies written during the Baroque era, where instruments such as the “strident, nagging harpsichord” were so prevalent. As composers such as Haydn and Mozart adopted this new style, the primary members of the orchestra, such as the violin, flute, and horn, made the cut, while the harpsichord and recorder were eliminated. What Lowder finds peculiar about this consolidation is “how unwieldy these central instruments are,” how instruments such as oboes and bassoons are so notoriously hard to keep in tune with the rest of the orchestra. Lowder wonders why composers so eagerly “jumped onto the orchestral bandwagon,” and he concludes that because of the immense popularity the sound enjoyed with audiences, composers have followed this instrumental arrangement for nearly 250 years.
The orchestra saw little change again until the 20th century, Lowder states, when composers such as Schoenberg and Varèse introduced new, innovative sounds similar to those used in the Clunker Concerto. However, at this point in time, Lowder argues that the composer and the orchestra split over their stylistic approach; composers became largely progressive and wrote using unfamiliar styles, urging orchestras to perform their uncanny works, while orchestras tended to stick to the “museum pieces,” works by traditional composers such as Mozart, Beethoven, and Brahms. Classical music became virtually inaccessible to the average listener, claims Lowder: contemporary works sound much like a “violent assault of modernism that no one without musical training could hope to be prepared for, much less ‘appreciate,’” especially because the pieces do not reflect any familiar musical structures. On the other hand, he argues, the traditional works are so old-fashioned that some modern audiences may have grown tired of them.
While Lowder commends Philip Glass and John Adams as composers who have somehow made contemporary music coherent and accessible, he again raises his main argument, that the classical orchestra needs to modernize its sound—not completely transform it into something incomprehensible, but simply, “make it new,” by adding a few new instruments or sounds. After all, as Lowder states, emerging developments have broadened music’s range and appeal over time: “Jazz rescued the saxophone from obscurity,” after the orchestra had rejected it as too distinct, and “rock made the guitar the sexiest instrument in history.” Lowder even cites Auto Tune as an “instrumental innovation.” All of these diverse types of music that have evolved in the past century have made the classical orchestra sound amusingly outdated, says Lowder, which is why he celebrates the Clunker Concerto as such a brilliant work, for it keeps the “standard orchestral palette in mind,” while also introducing fresh sounds to revitalize the old form. It is new and exciting, but also familiar, rooted in styles like funk and rock while at the same time keeping with the “continual experience of suspense and surprise that classical music has always championed.”
In “Yale's New Jewish Quota: The university's shameful decision to kill its anti-Semitism institute,” Ron Rosenbaum expresses his opposition toward the closing down of the Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Anti-Semitism (YIISA). Rosenbaum doesn’t believe that Yale has yet given an honest reason for closing down YIISA. Rosenbaum states that “many observers suspect” that a “YIISA conference last August called ‘Global Anti-Semitism: A Crisis of Modernity’” was a turning point in Yale’s support for the initiative. At the conference there were 108 speakers from different countries, and some “dared acknowledge the existence of anti-Semitism in some Islamic cultures.”
Rosenbaum discusses how people were starting to question whether YIISA was focusing more on advocacy against anti-Semitism then on the study of anti-Semitism. Rosenbaum then disputes whether Yale should take issue with any advocacy against anti-Semitism. Rosenbaum supports his argument by saying that “It seems unlikely that Yale tells its cancer researchers not to engage in advocacy against the malignancies they study.” Rosenbaum also believes that Yale—which at one time limited the amount of Jewish students who could attend—“was essentially inventing a new kind of Jewish quota,” by “putting a quota on the anger that Jews could express against those who wish for their extermination.”
Rosenbaum, in addition, expresses his unhappiness toward the fact that the Yale Jewish community has had a “compliant refusal to resist the hastiness of the decision to kill YIISA.” Although Yale will be starting a new program called The Yale Program for the Study of Anti-Semitism (YPSA), Rosenbaum fears that it will not be as effective as YISSA. Maurice Samuel, the man named to be in charge of YPSA, “has focused his academic work on the image of the Jew in 19th-century French literature.” Rosenbaum questions whether “this background is sufficient for the task of examining contemporary anti-Semitism.”
In conclusion, Rosenbaum believes that Yale is killing YIISA because they are under pressure. Rosenbaum suggests that Yale is closing YIISA, in “fear of offending potentially lucrative donors from the Middle East.”
Summary: “The Myth of the Extraordinary Teacher” http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-herman-class-size-20110731,0,3910343.story
Je$$1eD@v!s5522
In “The Myth of the Extraordinary Teacher,” Ellie Herman argues the popular idea that the only thing students need, to excel in their education is an “extraordinary teacher” regardless of classroom size. Herman, a teacher herself, uses real life examples to illustrate her point that smaller classroom size is a major factor in achieving academic success.
Herman begins by expressing the everyday challenges of working as a teacher in an inner city high school. She explains that with 31 students in one of her 5 classes, it’s hard to “ reach all 31 of them” especially because a majority have problems such as, ADD, learning disabilities and even epileptic seizures.
Herman takes issue with Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, who says “the billions spent in the U.S. to reduce class size was a bad idea”and that “the best thing you can do is get children in front of an extraordinary teacher." Herman explains that this is a very “common viewpoint” at the moment due to high tests scores in places where larger classroom sizes are in effect. However, Herman brings up the fact that the students doing well in this situation are the students who can afford tutoring and after school programs. Herman relates this back to herself by saying that regardless of her school’s high test scores and excellent teachers, when it came down to it she felt she was “a whole lot more extraordinary” in her smallest class.
In addition, Herman brings up the fact that with more students in a class, she has less time to spend on grading each assignment and less time to spend with each individual student. Herman explains that with a total of 150 students in her classes “providing individual attention becomes difficult” and spending a generous amount of time on grading assignments is too time consuming. She feels that with smaller classes she would not only have more time to spend grading each student’s assignment, but also more time “to listen, to understand why they're crying or sleeping or not doing homework.”
In conclusion, Herman expresses her deep concern for students, especially underprivileged students, who are not getting the individualized attention they need to succeed in school. She feels that as hard as she works to be a great teacher she’ll “never be excellent” if we continue with large classroom sizes and budget cuts.
"Thomas the Imperialist Tank Engine" by Jessica Roake http://www.slate.com/id/2299653/pagenum/all/#p2
In Jessica Roake’s article “Thomas the Imperialist Tank Engine” she questions some of the inappropriate undercurrents hidden in the well known children’s show. Roake indicates how the show seems to echo some of the main messages of the former British Empire.
Roake begins by pointing out the show’s support for top-down leadership, its male dominated cast of characters, and its drastic punishing of dissenters. She follows up by linking to an article exposing Thomas as anti-Semitic, with its similar stress on “usefulness”. Roake goes on to show how on the Island of Sodor, the consequences of defiance are drastic, with Sir Topham Hatt ruling the Island with a figurative iron fist, and “stepping above one’s stations is a serious offense.” The train’s social hierarchy is shockingly similar to that of the Imperial British Empire, with Thomas and his friends “jockey[ing] for positions just below that of the bullying aristocrat Sir Topham Hatt but [they] never seek to rise to his level.
Finally, Roake discovers an frightening sort of train-racism between the “steamies” and the “ dirty diesels”, finding it suspicious that the lower class of train is painted black. When Sir Topham Hatt offers a “special job” to the most useful engine, and a “Diesel” tries to prove himself by doing the job without permission, he veers off a cliff and loses the cargo, “reinforcing all negative diesel stereotypes”. Though Diesel is saved, everyone grieves the loss of the cargo more than taking pride in saving another’s life.
In conlcusion, even though when HIT bought the franchise in 2003, the “cast of trains has diversified” and “the narratives have softened”, Roake still urges parents to think twice before showing this show to their children because with its perverse values system and odd nostalgia for British Imperialism, stating that “once you have engaged in Thomas cultural criticism, there's no going back”.
Same-sex marriage: Married but unequal http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-nejaime-gay-marriage-20110722,0,1690138.story
According to Douglas NeJaime in his article, “Same-sex marriage: Married but unequal,” New York is actually making things more complicated for America by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Although same-sex marriages are considered legitimate marriages in the state of New York, bear in mind what happens to the marriage when a lesbian or gay married couple moves to another state, for example, California – these marriages become null. Due to this, same-sex couples constantly have to deal with legal issues, and are not receiving the same benefits that heterosexual couples get.
Firstly, homosexual couples that get married in New York and come back to live in California arrive just to “see their marriages evaporate, based...on their sexual orientation.” NeJaime thinks that “unless there is national recognition,” problems and controversies will arise all over America over same-sex marriage. Although same-sex couples that get married in New York receive legitimate marriage licenses, these marriage licenses are not considered valid in California.
Secondly, even if same-sex couples are legally married under state law, the marriage won't be recognised under federal law. Examples of federal benefits that same-sex couples do not get area: “spousal Social Security benefits after a death or the ability to bring a noncitizen spouse into the country.” Homosexual couples in California married before November 2008 are considered to be lawfully married, but any time after that, those marriages are recognised as “something akin to domestic partners,” entitling them to “the rights and benefits of marriage under California law but not the label.” In November 2008, Proposition 8 “amended the California Constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman.” Before the Proposition 8 was passed, the Supreme Court “declared same-sex marriage legal,” but only for a short period time, meaning only same-sex couples that were lucky enough to be able to get married during that “brief window” would “remain legally married in the state's eyes.” Under federal law, all homosexual couples are considered single, although in the state of California, few homosexual couples are legally married.
Lastly, problems are only starting to spring up all over the place: a couple relocates to a state “that refuse to recognise same-sex marriage” will realise that they “have no access to divorce” whatsoever. The way homosexual marriage is viewed in America “highlights the shakiness of a discriminatory system.” Like NeJaime says, in our present day, “[it is] unreasonable to expect that that couples will stay in the states in which they marry.” Couples will get married, “only to find themselves in legal limbo when a new job or family circumstances necessitate a move.”
NeJaime signs off with a sentence that nicely proves his point: Constitutional principles of due process and equal protection cannot tolerate such discriminatory treatment based solely on sexual orientation.
Summary #2: "Why We Need The Tabloids" by Ryan Linkof" JayTeeFreedman321
In “Why We Need the Tabloids”, Ryan Linkof argues that although newspaper tabloids “can be irritating, provocative, ethically questionable and even …highly illegal”, when practiced correctly and legally, they play a fundamental role in Western culture. Recently, Rupert Murdoch, the CEO of News Corp., stated he “did not support an absolute right to privacy” when it comes to journalism. Linkof commended Murdoch for this statement and believes that although intrusiveness may be indecent, it is not reason to “tighten restrictions or create new laws to prevent it”.
Linkof defines the methods of the tabloids as a matter of “degree, not kind”. By this, he means that the news of the tabloids may be of little importance and mere gossip most of the time, but that, Linkof says, is a matter of taste, “and the tabloids certainly never claimed to be tasteful”. Tabloids often cross the line of what is acceptable and moral, but only because of the public desire to find a story that shows “behind the façade of public life”. Like in the case of the extramarital affair of John Edwards, the tabloids are often the first to break important news stories and are not just “peddling mere gossip”.
Linkof explains that the tabloids also “exist to break down the barriers of access that keep social elites at a remove from ordinary people”. Linkof provides the example of the recent “painfully choreographed and highly-policed” red carpet arrival of William and Kate Middleton at a polo match and that intrusive journalists provide a link between them and “ordinary people”. This is fundamental in democratic cultures that are divided by the “demands of a mass society and the persistence of social and economic inequality.”
The tabloids are consistently testing the boundaries of journalism. Tabloids, according to Linkof, can help to “mitigate some of the central tensions in democratic society” and act as an important player in modern culture. The idea that tabloids are made by “degraded, low-minded people” and supply idiotic gossip remains a matter of taste. Within limits, states Linkof, tabloids will most likely remain an important and “basic feature of popular culture in the West”.
Name: GraebababyKingSummary5578 Title: “Should Students Have To Wear Uniforms?" http://ezinearticles.com/?Should-Students-Have-To-Wear-School-Uniforms?&id=25943
Matthew Sirpis’ “Should Students Have to Wear Uniforms?” proposes a very common yet intriguing question, following with strong reasons why students should not have to wear uniforms given to him by a messageboard. According to Matthew, “the great debate continues” and will probably always continue because there is no wrong or right answer. As he says, “there is no definitive answer as it entirely depends upon the persons beliefs.”
As more and more kids in school become gang affiliated, schools believe that it’s safer if they wear school uniforms instead of children’s own clothes. This is the main reason why schools enforce uniforms. “Having a uniform stops gang members from displaying their colors” and limits the chances of having a violent school environment. It “helps instill a sense of pride in the students.”
In this article, Matthew’s shares comments from a message board answering his question. Some are against it and some are all for it: typical responses. One person who wall for it pointed out that having a uniform “sets an example of the school. It is representation the community. It is easy to point out different people. Also there would be more fights/bullly's due to the lack of 'fashion'.” This person proposes a very strong case, although it’s nothing we’ve never heard before.
Another person who was completely against took time to give four solid and valid reasons as to why children should not be forced to wear uniforms: “school uniforms inhibit a students’ individuality,” “a school uniform policy inhibits a student’s freedom of choice,” “there is an issuse of cost,” and a “lack of comfort.” This person gives a stronger case then the last, considering as how they’re all very true.
This question is rhetorical because it’ll never be answered. It’ll only keep starting group discussions or maybe even arguments on what other people think are right.
In “The Myth of the Extraordinary Teacher,” long-time teacher Ellie Herman claims that, while it is extremely important to have excellent teachers, teachers can not be expected to operate as well under difficult conditions. Herman believes that, if there is to be education reform, class sizes should be reduced, which would allow for individualized support of every student. Herman begins her argument by describing the daily struggles her students encounter. For example, she paints a picture of the desperate situations that some of her students deal with; the “boy in front of [her] dutifully tak[ing] notes even though he has” a learning disability, and the girl who “hasn't done homework for weeks, ever since” she was attacked by a “gangbanger.” These students are in a class of “31 students, including two with learning disabilities, one who just moved here from Mexico, one with serious behavior problems, 10 who flunked [the] class last year and are repeating, seven who test below grade level, three who show up halfway through class every day, one who almost never comes,” and a “braniac” who’s “bored” with the class. Herman struggles to reach all of these different kids, but it’s hard when she has so many students who are all so different. That problem according to Herman is ignored by people like Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, who recently downplayed the importance of class size claiming that “the best thing you can do is get children in front of an extraordinary teacher.” This “myth of the extraordinary teacher” is, according to Herman, “the common viewpoint at the moment,” and is based on the claim that in “Japan and South Korea, students score higher in reading and math, often with larger classes.” Herman disagrees with this view, arguing that smaller class sizes matter. She points out that “a huge percentage of students in Japan and South Korea pay for after-school tutoring to make up for a lack of individualized attention” that they are subjected to in those larger classes recommended by Duncan. She also notes that “Finland, with the best scores in the world, has average class sizes in the 20s.” Herman then returns to her own experiences, detailing some of the ways she tries to cope with the burden of being an “extraordinary teacher.” For example, she gave up her “freewheeling discussion[s]” and instead peppers “the room with rapid-fire questions.” In addition, she can only spend “five or 10 minutes on each essay” that her students hand in, responding to them with only a short comment and “a rubric...for the whole class.” She claims that this “highly structured environment” alienates some of her “smartest kids”—“the artists, the rebels, the class clowns.” Herman’s biggest problem with “the myth of the extraordinary teacher” is that it asserts that “the makeup of the class, the nature of each student and the number of students are immaterial as long as [she’s] at the top of [her] game.” Towards the end of her essay, Herman’s argument shifts away from the importance of small class sizes to the division between the rich and the poor. She points to “the children of the wealthy, who can pay for individual attention in tutoring or private schools with small classes,” unlike “children growing up in poverty.” She believes that every child deserves “not only an extraordinary teacher but a teacher who has time to read their work, to listen, to understand why they're crying or sleeping or not doing homework.” However, she also believes that teachers can never “be excellent” in all of these ways “if we continue to slash education budgets and cut teachers.” Although Herman’s argument is not particularly convincing, relying heavily on pathos, shifting its focus, and never really advocating for any particular action or stand, it does expose the difficulties a teacher faces when operating in an overcrowded class.
Summary: “The Myth of the Extraordinary Teacher" by Ellie Herman Je$$1eD@v!s5522
In “The Myth of the Extraordinary Teacher,” Ellie Herman argues the popular idea that the only thing students need, to excel in their education is an “extraordinary teacher” regardless of classroom size. Herman, a teacher herself, uses real life examples to illustrate her point that smaller classroom size is a major factor in achieving academic success.
Herman begins by expressing the everyday challenges of working as a teacher in an inner city high school. She explains that with 31 students in one of her 5 classes, it’s hard to “ reach all 31 of them” especially because a majority have problems such as, ADD, learning disabilities and even epileptic seizures.
Herman takes issue with Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, who says “the billions spent in the U.S. to reduce class size was a bad idea”and that “the best thing you can do is get children in front of an extraordinary teacher." Herman explains that this is a very “common viewpoint” at the moment due to high tests scores in places where larger classroom sizes are in effect. However, Herman brings up the fact that the students doing well in this situation are the students who can afford tutoring and after school programs. Herman relates this back to herself by saying that regardless of her school’s high test scores and excellent teachers, when it came down to it she felt she was “a whole lot more extraordinary” in her smallest class.
In addition, Herman brings up the fact that with more students in a class, she has less time to spend on grading each assignment and less time to spend with each individual student. Herman explains that with a total of 150 students in her classes “providing individual attention becomes difficult” and spending a generous amount of time on grading assignments is too time consuming. She feels that with smaller classes she would not only have more time to spend grading each student’s assignment, but also more time “to listen, to understand why they're crying or sleeping or not doing homework.”
In conclusion, Herman expresses her deep concern for students, especially underprivileged students, who are not getting the individualized attention they need to succeed in school. She feels that as hard as she works to be a great teacher she’ll “never be excellent” if we continue with large classroom sizes and budget cuts.
Summary: “The Myth of the Extraordinary Teacher" by Ellie Herman Je$$1eD@v!s5522
In “The Myth of the Extraordinary Teacher,” Ellie Herman argues the popular idea that the only thing students need, to excel in their education is an “extraordinary teacher” regardless of classroom size. Herman, a teacher herself, uses real life examples to illustrate her point that smaller classroom size is a major factor in achieving academic success.
Herman begins by expressing the everyday challenges of working as a teacher in an inner city high school. She explains that with 31 students in one of her 5 classes, it’s hard to “ reach all 31 of them” especially because a majority have problems such as, ADD, learning disabilities and even epileptic seizures.
Herman takes issue with Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, who says “the billions spent in the U.S. to reduce class size was a bad idea”and that “the best thing you can do is get children in front of an extraordinary teacher." Herman explains that this is a very “common viewpoint” at the moment due to high tests scores in places where larger classroom sizes are in effect. However, Herman brings up the fact that the students doing well in this situation are the students who can afford tutoring and after school programs. Herman relates this back to herself by saying that regardless of her school’s high test scores and excellent teachers, when it came down to it she felt she was “a whole lot more extraordinary” in her smallest class.
In addition, Herman brings up the fact that with more students in a class, she has less time to spend on grading each assignment and less time to spend with each individual student. Herman explains that with a total of 150 students in her classes “providing individual attention becomes difficult” and spending a generous amount of time on grading assignments is too time consuming. She feels that with smaller classes she would not only have more time to spend grading each student’s assignment, but also more time “to listen, to understand why they're crying or sleeping or not doing homework.”
In conclusion, Herman expresses her deep concern for students, especially underprivileged students, who are not getting the individualized attention they need to succeed in school. She feels that as hard as she works to be a great teacher she’ll “never be excellent” if we continue with large classroom sizes and budget cuts.
In "Why Medical School Tuition Should Be Free," authors Peter B. Bach and Robert Kocher argue for an approach that "is certain to raise objections" but addresses the "looming shortage of primary care doctors.” The authors believe by charging only specialty training courses to make money for free medical school, doctors, who currently "graduate owing more than $155,000" for tuitions, will no longer “shun” the idea of becoming a primary care doctor.
The authors argue that the current medical school tuition not only “[burdens]” students with great debts, but also “[discourages]” prospective students from going to medical school. They follow by stating the few students who do choose the medical field often pursue the specialist’s career, in favor over that of a primary care’s, “where there are incentives to give expensive treatments and order expensive tests” and thus earn grand salaries that will “relieve [them] of the burden of student debt” sooner. Bach and Kocher feel certain that free medical school will attract “a larger pool of competent primary care doctors” and eventually, stunt the growing void of primary care doctors.
Both Bach and Kocher propose that charging specialty training courses will sufficiently "offset most if not all" of the estimated $2.5 billion bill for free medical school "without the government's help." The authors agree that although such a proposition "seem[s] like a lot to ask of future specialists" to pay the $50,000 tuition, they justify saying specialists are still “assured highly lucrative jobs” with median salaries of $325,000 per year. Consequently, Bach and Kosher also state that "organizations that license specialty training programs and medical school associations" must create a system that will "redistribute specialty training fees and medical school subsidies" for hospitals that "[are] not associated with medical schools” and urge medical schools not to "start raising tuitions just because people other than their students are footing the bill." Furthermore, the authors acknowledge that "a large shift" of doctors away from specialty training towards primary care can "weaken the ability of [their] plan to remain self-financed;" however, they firmly believe that the benefits to the nation's health care system "would make any needed tuition subsidies well worth it."
Finally, Bach and Kocher retaliates any objections toward and doubts about the quality of free medical school. Responding to critics “who might object to providing free medical education” when there are students who have to pay for other advanced studies, the authors retort saying “the process of training doctors is unlike any other” for no other fields involve the well-being of patients and most of the costs for medical training ‘are already borne by [taxpayers and the Medicare system].” Furthermore, since medical students "would still be required to pass the various licensing examinations and complete patient care rotations," the authors boast that "nothing in [their] plan would diminish the quality of medical education" and "if anything," free tuition would actually "increase the quality of the applicants" and encourage "the creativity of medical schools in developing curriculums."
In conclusion, the authors feel that “taking the counterintuitive step of making medical education free, while charging those doctors who want to gain specialty training,” will “gradually shift the work force away from specialties and toward primary care.” Bach and Kocher insist that free medical school is the “straightforward” and better way to paying for medical training” and “[addressing] the looming shortage of primary care doctors.”
(This is my second attempt at posting. If the first one is already there, please just humor my current state of paranoia!)
Article: GOP Needs To Grow Up, Get Back To Work By Roland S. Martin Site: http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/03/26/martin.republicans.cooperation/index.html
In the article, “GOP Needs To Grow Up, Get Back To Work,” political analyst Roland Martin comments that because Congress recently passed health care reform, thereby giving Democrats a long awaited victory, the Republicans have turned into “pouty kids” and are halting political progress by deciding to “no longer cooperate” with the Democratic Party. Martin argues that in order for Capital Hill to continue fixing America’s urgent problems, such as health care, education, and immigration laws, the GOP must stop acting like “spoiled brats” and “get back to work.”
Martin begins by chastising the leading Republican Party members for expressing their “displeasure with legislation” in a childish and immature manner. Specifically, Martin calls Senator John McCain “dumb” for saying that he would not cooperate with the Democrats for “the rest of the year,” despite the fact that McCain often boasts his willingness to “work across the aisle.” Additionally, Martin compares Senator Lindsey Graham, who claimed that because Democrats got their way that “Legislation was dead,” to a little kid who loses a game and then “take[s] their ball and go[es] home,” implying that Graham is acting immaturely and not handling the situation as he should.
Martin continues by saying that despite the anger that the Republicans may be feeling, there are still “crucial issues” facing the American people that must be dealt with right away. For example, Martin points out that there are an estimated “12 million” people who are “in the nation illegally” and are negatively affecting the economy, schools, and hospitals. Additionally, he adds that there are “massive changes” that must be made to the “No Child Left Behind Act” in order for the unions to be satisfied, and for education to function at its greatest potential. Martin states that these issues must not be put “on the back burner” because the Republicans have a “burr under [their] saddle,” but rather Congress should be focused on solving these “vital issues” whether the GOP are “in the game” or not.
Martin demands that the Republicans, due to their stubbornness to work with the Democrats, must begin to take a more active roll in solving America’s problems, if the United States is going pull itself out of the “shambles” and continue to thrive. Specifically, Martin suggests that the GOP “stop canceling hearings,” stop “threaten[ing] not to engage in legislative negotiations,” and start acting like “grown men and women.” However, if the Republicans fail to participate in the re-building of the Nation’s policies, Martin urges the Democrats to simply “learn to lead and go it alone.” Martin concludes by saying that the only thing that really matters is fixing what is “broken” in America, but in order for that to happen, the political leaders in Washington, namely the GOP, must “grow up and get to work!”
In “The Archbishop vs. the Governor: Gay Sera, Sera”, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd attacks New York archbishop Timothy Dolan for his position against the proposed amendment allowing same-sex marriage in New York State. Dowd’s argument is interesting in that she never actually states her own opinion about gay marriage itself; but rather she takes the approach of supporting the idea by attacking the people who are against it. Most of the arguments Dowd makes fall under the general category of attacking the church for its hypocrisy, especially at a time when so many of it’s priests have been found to have engaged in same-sex pedophiliac abuse, and when it protests against the government’s right to define concepts it feel it has the soul authority to define.
Dowd’s argument uses rhetorical repetition language to place Archbishop Dolan’s beliefs under suspicion. Early in her article, Dowd states that Dolan has been “ferocious in fighting against marriage between same-sex couples, painting it as a perversity against nature.” In the very next paragraph Dowd takes this language and uses it for her own purpose to demand that the church become “ferocious in fighting against the true perversity against nature: the unending horror of pedophile priests and the children who trusted them.” Dowd goes on to assert that it its hypocritical for a church which states that marriage between a man and woman is “hard-wired” and should therefore be protected no matter what, and to refuse to “acknowledge that homosexuality may be hardwired by God in nature as well.” She also claims that it is hypocritical for the church to lobby against gay marriage when the church itself has become “a haven for gay priests” who act against their congregations because no sexual outlets are available to them.
Dowd also feels it is hypocritical for Dolan and the church to protest against government involvement with the definition of what marriage is. She mocks Dolan for comparing the same-sex marriage amendment to a “communiqué” from China or North Korea, where the “government can dictate the size of families, who lives and who dies, and what the very definition of ‘family’ and ‘marriage’ means.” Her next comment- “Yeah. Not like the Vatican” essentially says that the Catholic Church does exactly the same thing. Dolan is angry at the government for trying to do.
Overall, Dowd implicitly supports New York’s amendment in favor of gay-marriage (which eventually passed earlier this summer) not by directly defending it but rather by attacking the hypocrisy of Archbishop Dolan and other major opponents of the bill. As she states at the end of her column “Dolan acts like getting married (when done by gays) is a self-indulgent act of hedonism when it’s really a leap of faith and a promise of fidelity.”
Summary: “Public health: Not vaccinated? Not acceptable” by David Ropeik DevBaladshaaaw5500 http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ropeik-vaccines-20110718,0,4240440.story
In “Public health: Not vaccinated? Not acceptable,” David Ropeik suggests that the government needs to make it so that fewer people opt out of getting vaccinated so that we can avoid major outbreaks of disease. Specifically, he remarks that more people should get vaccinated because there is “overwhelming evidence” to the fact that as vaccination rates decline, the number of disease outbreaks grows. He also states that people who are afraid of getting vaccinated are putting other people at risk by spreading diseases. Finally, he suggests that the government enforce some laws that will push more people to get vaccinated, therefore reduce the number of disease outbreaks.
Initially, Ropeik states that more people need to be vaccinated since “the evidence is overwhelming that declining vaccination rates are contributing to outbreaks of disease.” The World Health Organization reports the outbreaks in countries like France, Belgium, Germany and Spain where vaccination rates have gone down. For example, the organization reported that there have already been “334 measles cases in England and Wales this year, compared to 33 all of last year.” In addition, there have been 118 cases in the U.S. as of mid-May, “compared with 56 cases a year from 2001 to 2008.” Both of these examples, as Ropeik explains, show that places that have lower vaccination rates have more disease outbreaks.
Ropeik mentions that people who don’t get vaccinated because they’re worried about the risks actually end up putting everyone else in danger of getting sick. Specifically, unvaccinated people who are sick and visit hospitals increase the risk of people there being exposed to it, therefore cause the disease to spread. For instance, a woman from Switzerland who had never been vaccinated for measles visited Tucson in 2008; she became “symptomatic” and went to the local hospital to seek medical attention. She ended up causing 14 people to catch the measles, seven of which caught it while visiting healthcare facilities, as well as cost “two local hospitals a total of nearly $800,000, and the state and local health departments tens of thousands more” to “quarantine and treat the sick” as well as inform those who might have been exposed. Also in 2008, a study in Michigan found that places with “‘exemption clusters’ of parents who didn’t vaccinate their children” were three times more likely to “have outbreaks of whooping cough than areas where the vaccination rates matched the state average.” Moreover, this shows that the chances of diseases spreading are much higher when people opt out of vaccination.
Thus, Ropeik understands that there are some people who won’t get over their fear of vaccinations; however, to protect public health, he suggests that the government implement some laws that will hopefully get more people to get vaccinated. For instance, he recommends that it should be “harder to opt out of vaccination,” or perhaps there should be “restrictions on the community and social activities” that unvaccinated people can participate in. He also proposes that there should be “higher healthcare and insurance costs for unvaccinated people,” or “healthy behavior” discounts for vaccinated people. He realizes that these ideas have their downsides; however, he believes that through “careful thought” and “open democratic discussion” the government can actually get more people to get vaccinated, thus “protect public health from those who choices about vaccines are putting the rest of us at risk.”
Summary: “Public health: Not vaccinated? Not acceptable” by David Ropeik DevBaladshaaaw5500 http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ropeik-vaccines-20110718,0,4240440.story
In “Public health: Not vaccinated? Not acceptable,” David Ropeik suggests that the government needs to make it so that fewer people opt out of getting vaccinated so that we can avoid major outbreaks of disease. Specifically, he remarks that more people should get vaccinated because there is “overwhelming evidence” to the fact that as vaccination rates decline, the number of disease outbreaks grows. He also states that people who are afraid of getting vaccinated are putting other people at risk by spreading diseases. Finally, he suggests that the government enforce some laws that will push more people to get vaccinated, therefore reduce the number of disease outbreaks.
Initially, Ropeik states that more people need to be vaccinated since “the evidence is overwhelming that declining vaccination rates are contributing to outbreaks of disease.” The World Health Organization reports the outbreaks in countries like France, Belgium, Germany and Spain where vaccination rates have gone down. For example, the organization reported that there have already been “334 measles cases in England and Wales this year, compared to 33 all of last year.” In addition, there have been 118 cases in the U.S. as of mid-May, “compared with 56 cases a year from 2001 to 2008.” Both of these examples, as Ropeik explains, show that places that have lower vaccination rates have more disease outbreaks.
Ropeik mentions that people who don’t get vaccinated because they’re worried about the risks actually end up putting everyone else in danger of getting sick. Specifically, unvaccinated people who are sick and visit hospitals increase the risk of people there being exposed to it, therefore cause the disease to spread. For instance, a woman from Switzerland who had never been vaccinated for measles visited Tucson in 2008; she became “symptomatic” and went to the local hospital to seek medical attention. She ended up causing 14 people to catch the measles, seven of which caught it while visiting healthcare facilities, as well as cost “two local hospitals a total of nearly $800,000, and the state and local health departments tens of thousands more” to “quarantine and treat the sick” as well as inform those who might have been exposed. Also in 2008, a study in Michigan found that places with “‘exemption clusters’ of parents who didn’t vaccinate their children” were three times more likely to “have outbreaks of whooping cough than areas where the vaccination rates matched the state average.” Moreover, this shows that the chances of diseases spreading are much higher when people opt out of vaccination.
Thus, Ropeik understands that there are some people who won’t get over their fear of vaccinations; however, to protect public health, he suggests that the government implement some laws that will hopefully get more people to get vaccinated. For instance, he recommends that it should be “harder to opt out of vaccination,” or perhaps there should be “restrictions on the community and social activities” that unvaccinated people can participate in. He also proposes that there should be “higher healthcare and insurance costs for unvaccinated people,” or “healthy behavior” discounts for vaccinated people. He realizes that these ideas have their downsides; however, he believes that through “careful thought” and “open democratic discussion” the government can actually get more people to get vaccinated, thus “protect public health from those who choices about vaccines are putting the rest of us at risk.”
The Washington Post Valerie Strauss Report: Why We Need Arts Education
In Reporting: Why We Need Arts Education (not only to improve test scores), author Valerie Strauss discusses the contents of a presidentially-appointed committee’s report on the numerous benefits of reinstating and promoting arts education in public schools nationwide. The report, entitled Reinvesting in Arts Education: Winning America’s Future through Creative Schools, was released by President Obama’s Committee on the Arts and the Humanities, and is the first official document to consider comprehensive federal arts education data from the past decade. In her essay, Strauss describes the main points and specific suggestions offered by the report, and shares her supportive opinion of them. She first presents five points from the report which are meant to “serve as a blueprint for schools to increase arts education…and integrate arts into an array of…subjects”. The five points include general suggestions such as “develop(ing) the field of arts integration” and “expand(ing) in-school opportunities for teaching artists”. In response, Strauss strongly agrees, saying that in the present climate of education cut-backs and in an era where arts are pushed aside to make room for standardized testing, “what the report advocates makes a great deal of sense”. Strauss quickly moves on to the next section of the report, discussing the connection between arts education and standardized test scores. The report’s first chapter makes “The Case” that arts education improves test scores, specifically in math and English. The report also specifies several other “instrumental outcomes” from arts education, including “the spatial-temporal reasoning skills developed by music instruction”, the “development of habits of mind including problem solving, critical and creative thinking…of social competencies (and of) student motivation and engagement” as a result of arts integration into daily education as well. In the next several paragraphs of her essay, Strauss strays from the original document to her own poor opinions of the report’s apparent need to prove itself by “research…from standardized test scores”. For instance, she is quick to emphasize that it is a “sign of the times” that the report justifies its claims by means of the test scores from standardized tests “two paragraphs….into the first chapter”. She deplores the current situation, complaining that “today…we have to have ‘research’ to prove things that are self-evident”, such as the obvious fact that “engaging (kids) through the arts is much easier than trying to get them to memorize facts”. However, Strauss states sadly that “because there is no standardized test attached to (arts education)…it is looked on as much less important”. She also points out that advocates of physical education, like those of arts education, now feel strongly compelled to link PE to higher test scores, “(a)s if helping kids to stay physically healthy isn’t a good enough outcome on its own” . In conclusion, Strauss reiterates her frustration with the absurd need to validate everything through so-called “research” and standardized test scores, but nevertheless makes it clear that she still thinks “the report is useful” and fully supports the aim and contents of it as a whole. Finally, she expresses a sincere hope that ” since the committee…is appointed by President Obama, and…the panel’s honorary chair is First Lady Michelle Obama…maybe someone will actually pay attention in regard to future education policy”.
Alyssa Garcia Article: Blood, Justice and Corruption: Why the Chinese Love Their Death Penalty By: Tang Biao Originally from the “Economic Observer” converted by “World Crunch” http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2075010-2,00.html
In “Blood,Justice and corruption” Tang Biao argues that the execution of major political party members in China may not be the best way to solve a problem, no matter if they are corrupt.Throughout the course of this article it is explained how many corrupt officials there actually are in china and what the overall public’s form of punishment is. It is also explained that because execution is so big Chinese officials have decided, instead, to make the most of their reign and take their corrupt ways to then next level. so, Tang Biao asks, is it really worth it?
He has decided no, its not. Although, these corrupt officials continue to be taken to court when they have wronged Tang Biao says that the verdict is always the same, despite the differences in unlawful acts. Not only this but the residents of China are constantly pushing for the same punishment, not understanding that, in the end, they are only hurting their country. Anyway, while in court the corrupt officials must recite a series of confessions in court repeating that they have “lowered their personal standards” instead of getting to the “root” of their corruptions and having to answer questions like “why?”, Tang Biao states.
Tang Biao also explains how if these political party members are getting a “political education” then things “would have been solved by now”. In his view the “corruption lies elsewhere” and maybe there should be less control and more supervision in the government of China. He would like to see more freedom of press and elections to better the system but, apparently, no one in China is demanding those kinds of rights. He goes on to further explain the fact that corruption is now a majority in the rule of china and the few honest members are scarce. So, while they are there they are being overpowered by the many injustices in the system and, if the are not taken care of soon, these few great leaders will become overshadowed by the masses of the corrupt.
Tang Biao goes on to argue that while the death penalty may not be the best punishment for certain cases he can see how it can make citizens feel secure. On the other hand, it is also unjust to have such a strong punishment for Officials who were tainted by the usual views of society. So why would they be judged so harshly? is it not the same allure that most people have nowadays with benefits of money, and ultimate security for their families now and in many generations to come? He continues to defend corrupt officials view and explain how they have not always been so mislead.
On top of all this the death penalty is also a very wide umbrella for officials already teetering on the edge of strong accusations. it is so easy in China, to be portrayed as a corrupt official that, Tang Biao states, once an official makes one wrong move all the blame is likely to fall on them making for a not so justifiable punishment. The Chinese Continue to be so wrapped up in their view of “right and wrong” that they lose sight of what may be the best way to handle situations. Tang Bio concludes with saying that the “Chinese people are too bloodthirsty to give up the death penalty as the state’s favorite method of sweet revenge”.
In the article “Is Fear of Failure Holding You Back?” Russell Bishop argues that failure is often accommodated with fear of failing. Bishop begins with first explaining the top reason why humans fear failing in the first place and not success. He then states how deleterious it is to limit decisions due to that fear, and finishes with how failure should be thought of as success, or a path to success. Bishop addresses fear of criticism one of the bigger reasons why there is fear of failure. He points out, for example, that people often say “to ‘take a risk’ but [they] really” don’t want “to risk anything. Bishop adds that he has “seen this kind of take-a-risk-but-you-better-succeed thinking all over the place,” although many claim to know that “’nothing ventured, nothing gained’ is true.” This feeds the possibility that mankind just can’t “stomach [the] downside possibility.” Moving forward, Bishop explains how fear of taking risks and fear of failing could easily retain success. For instance, he quotes Dr. Regina Dugan at DARPA who says that “’failure is not the problem,’” it is “’the fear of failure that is the limiting factor’” because “risks” can “help you improve.” In addition, Bishop also elaborates on Dugan’s theory that losing one’s nerve for “the big failure” is dangerous, “because the nerve… for the big success is the exact same nerve.” However, Bishop states that risk taking and stomaching that fear of failure is often rewarding whether success is fast to come or not. Bishop claims on the road to success, there is not really failure, but steps to success. Bishop takes Albert Einstein, for example, who had failed “over 1,000 combinations of gas and filament” just for one success that is so valuable today. Bishop then exemplifies that Einstein did not see these failures as failures, but as steps to discovering the lightbulb. Moreover Bishop adds that had the great scientist thought of each failed experience that way, people “might still be working by candlelight.” In conclusion, Bishop urges his audience to be persistent, and see failure as merely a process to greater things. He warns of criticism that will always be there to “jump all over” failure at the first sign of “slippage,” but encourages all to acknowledge the good in learning, which always includes failing once in a while.
31 comments:
Summary: "California's Future Homeowners" by Peter Schrag
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-schrag-immigrants-20110727,0,2305335.story
J3R3MY_C0R_5518
In “California’s Future Homeowners,” Peter Schrag asks Californians to invest more interest and time in Latino immigrants, who he believes will be the future of the state. First, he acknowledges the growing number of Latino and other immigrant homeowners in California. Then, he encourages California to offer job opportunites and “higher education” to incoming immigrants. Lastly, he states that the ethnic divide between “white homeowners and young Latinos” may be an obstacle for immigrants who need programs and services.
First of all, Schrag observes the “dramatic generational and ethnic changes” in California homeownership. According to Schrag, the number of older, white homeowners has diminished due to “relocation, assisted living, or rental housing.” Also, he notes that in the last decade, Latino homeowners accounted for more than “78% of the growth in California’s homeownership.”
Next, Schrag states his belief that Latino immigrants could serve as replacements for “retiring Californians” in the future. He speculates that the recent drop in illegal immigration could be a result of the drop in Mexico’s birthrate and the nation’s improved economy. He reasons that rather than closing the border, the US should focus on “opening opportunities” such as job offers and higher education for immigrants and their children.
Finally, Schrag believes the “critical economic and social nexus” between older white homeowners and young Latino and immigrant homeowners presents an obstacle for the state of California. According to Harvard economist Alberto Alesina, because of the great “ethnic gap,” voters are more reluctant to support taxes that pay for “education, social welfare, and health programs” that benefit young immigrants.
In conclusion, Schrag believes that Californians should support Latinos and other immigrants because of their role in homeownership as well as their ability to replace older citizens in various skilled jobs. He states that California should be worrying less about the amount of illegal immigrants rather than “the education and training of those already here.”
daniTHEelaHERRer-uh5552
Medical myths don't die easily
By Aaron E. Carroll and Rachel C. Vreeman, Special to CNN
Aaron E. Carroll and Rachel C. Vreeman, pediatricians and health services researchers at the Indiana University School of Medicine, discuss the dangers of the most “common knowledge” treatments believed to heal wounds and cure colds in “Medical Myths Don’t Die Easily.” The pair explains the risks of using hydrogen peroxide and vitamin E for healing a simple knee scrape. Additionally, they argue that “green snot” does not mean patients need antibiotics and cold weather does not cause colds. Moreover, they mention the importance of “evidence-based medicine” that prove to both doctors and patients that many of their “solutions” are causing more damage than actual healing.
Carroll and Vreeman define the common “knee-scrape” cure, used by pediatricians and moms worldwide, by using hydrogen peroxide for “clean[ing]”, leaving the wound “uncovered” to “heal faster,” and vitamin E cream for “prevent[ing]… unsightly scars.” Although the treatment is common and seems to be “doing the job”, Carroll and Vreeman suggest otherwise. Multiple randomized, controlled studies, “the best kind of research” in Carroll and Vreeman’s point of view, show that the hydrogen peroxide causes cellular damage and slower healing, as it bubbles and stings. Additionally, a moist, covered environment is actually best for wound healing; leaving the wound uncovered, however, simply dries it out. Furthermore, vitamin E does not improve scar sizes, thickness or appearance whatsoever. In most cases though, vitamin E causes rashes that may, or may not, lead to infections. According to Carroll and Vreeman this specific treatment is only the beginning and doctors might be causing more petrifying damage without notice.
For instance, Carroll and Vreeman explain, doctors usually suggest antibiotics as soon as they notice “green snot”. Research, however, shows that “green snot” is not a particular “sign” for antibiotics at all. In fact antibiotics can cause unnecessary allergic reactions and contribute to “antibiotic-resistant bacteria” problems known to the majority of the US population. Carroll and Vreeman additionally point out that these treatments are habitually believed because they have a “grain” of truth to them. For example, although there is a “peak” in cold weather and flu viruses in the United States, cold weather does not “make you sick.”
Many other myths, according to Carroll and Vreeman, simply sound reasonable. For instance, crunches should “flatten” your stomach, or the toilet is the “dirtiest thing” in the bathroom. Hearing the same myths repeatedly from the people you trust the most, i.e. doctors, parents and friends, turns them into facts. Carroll and Vreeman exclaim that when myths stop patients form getting flu shots, vaccinated, or taking medications appropriately the consequences are dangerous.
Carroll and Vreeman lastly address their idea that “evidence” can conquer belief, focusing on studies that determine whether or not approaches to medical practices and procedures are effective. The pair dispute the many physicians that assume medical ideas do not need re-examination, they suggest doctors and patients everywhere need to “examine the evidence” maintaining medical decision making, recognizing whether practice is based on “tradition, anecdote or art, as opposed to science.” Using rigorous research skills Carroll and Vreeman studied “76 commonly held beliefs” about health and found several to be “ just plain wrong” (i.e. artificial sweeteners do not “cause cancer”, cheese cannot cause constipation, eating eggs does not result in “high cholesterol”, etc), reminding both physicians, patients, and moms to “question” the medical “falsehoods” they might “unwittingly support.”
Thus, “Medical myths don’t die easily” proves the many hidden dangers involved in unproven treatments commonly used to heal and cure. Carroll and Vreeman emphasize the dangers of the customary “knee scrape” cure and the ‘not-so-dangerous’ “green snot.” Moreover, they clear the air on other infamous medical myths. In conclusion, Carroll and Vreeman verify that although it is difficult to diverge from common beliefs, even after they are proven wrong, “evidence-based medicine” may direct future treatments and policies, allowing for a much safer, healthier and happier United States.
Summary: “White Flight- to the City” by Gregory Rodriguez
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rodriguez-whitecities-20110725,0,7955238.column
In “White Flight- to the City,” Gregory Rodriguez comments on the new trend of affluent white families moving into “inner city” neighborhoods and whether or not this change is beneficial. First, Rodriguez presents statistics showing that Washington, for the first time since the 1960s, has lost its black majority population and likewise, in Los Angeles, the city’s white population has “stabilized and even increased in the central city.” “On one level,” observes Rodriguez, “this story is about race and class, but the more profound shift in the U.S. urban experience will be cultural.”
First, Rodriguez notes that in the past, a newcomer to a big city was most likely “a country bumpkin obliged to make his way among the sophisticates,” but that now, the “in-migration” is coming from the suburbs, whose citizens are already financially well off and “capable of wielding cultural power in their new neighborhoods.” In addition, these people appear to be bringing their suburban tastes with them and “remaking the city in their image.”
Next, Rodriguez elaborates on the “urban experience,” which was once characterized by “serendipity and the clash of high and low.” The suburbs, as a result, were created to provide inhabitants with “a soothing homogeneity and a predictable middle-of-the-road sensibility”; a contrast to the tensions that exist blocks apart in cities such as Los Angeles between, for example, skid row and the opera house.
Finally, Rodriguez proceeds to explain that as a result of the incoming suburban families, “developers seek to tame stark differences and impose some standardization on the city.” Specifically, in Manhattan, there is the remake of Times Square; once “the epitome of the juxtaposition of grime and glitz,” this famous area is now, in the words of geographers Neil Smith and Deborah Cowen, "dense with suburban, clean, white middle-class faces and bodies with the odd 'exotic' mixed in." In Washington, a massive new apartment complex stands on the “once-scruffy, quickly gentrifying H Street.”
“Will suburbanization dull cities' liberal edge or dampen the spirit of tolerance that diversity demands?”, asks Rodriguez. Although this new trend might diminish our cities, “better-heeled residents might also demand improved schools, broaden the tax base and require cities to become more family friendly.” Rodriguez thus concludes that “in the midst of this inexorable change,” it’s best to hope for “a way to transplant the benefits of the suburbs without undermining the essential complexities and contrasts of the city.”
"Show, Don't Tell"
By Dahlia Lithwick
http://www.slate.com/id/2295331/pagenum/all/#p2
In “Show, Don’t Tell,” Dahlia Lithwick questions Justice Anthony Kennedy’s choice to include photographic evidence of overcrowded Californian prisons as an addition to his 48-page argument, stating that 32,000 inmates must be released or relocated over the next two years. Lithwick states that these photos may sway opinion’s on the “morality of the overcrowding,” but whether they should is, according to her, the more important question.
The appeal that Lithwick focuses on is comprised of two class-action suits. The first, which dates back to 1990, argues for better prison conditions for prisoners with serious mental health problems; the second, for prisoners in need of serious medical attention. Finally, by 2009, a three-judge panel ordered California to reduce its capacity significantly with in the next two years. However in two years, after failing to fix the overcrowding, the state argued that, along with other contributing factors, they just weren’t given enough time. According to Lithwick, there are still terrible conditions in prison such as “200 prisoners living in a gymnasium,” only monitored by two or three officers and all sharing one toilet. This has led to an increased suicide rate among the prisoners, which results in even more inhumane treatment, as suicidal inmates are practically “caged” for nearly 24 hours without a toilet.
Lithwick quotes Kennedy when arguing that this treatment “likens to torture or lingering death.” To emphasize the severity of this situation, during the case, Kennedy pulls out three black and white photographs as examples of the previous described conditions. Lithwick doesn’t doubt that these “horrifying” photos will have an impact on those who agree with Kennedy, but she questions his ethics of using visuals in order to conjure an emotional response rather than strictly sticking to the facts.
She mentions that in the past, a use of a visual accompaniment during a trial was not uncommon. During such cases as the 2007 Scott vs. Harris case an audio-visual tape was used to sway the courts opinion, as was a newspaper advertisement in the 1997 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan case. However, this approach, when used by Kennedy as a way to justify his case, was, in Lithwick’s opinion, unnecessary.
Lithwick concludes by stating that, in Kennedy’s instance, words were enough. Also, stating that by using photos of a room crowded with “huge tattooed men” viewers might react with terror instead of sympathy, causing them to not their release into their communities. According to Lithwick, if the right words are used, there is no real need for photographic evidence.
"obama like FDR? Not at all, it turns out." by Alexander Heffner
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-like-fdr-not-at-all-it-turns-out/2011/07/20/gIQAgSXYTI_story.html
In the article, “Obama like FDR? Not at all, it turns out “, Alexander Heffner argues against the claim that the nations current president greatly resembles Franklin Roosevelt. Heffner recalls when Obama was getting into office, “historians and columnists reveled in the comparison(s)” between the two men presidencies. But, now close to the end of his term, obama proved he wasn’t similar the “champion of liberal reform”, FDR. Heffner validates this by comparing the different styles of politics that both men practice, as well as interviewing historians and professors who have the same opinion.
Heffner begins by outlining the biggest accomplishments in both Obama’s and FDR’s presidencies. In doing this, readers can compare for themselves the drastic contrasts between the two. FDR, “the father of reform “ biggest accomplishments started “from his first day in office.” Roosevelt is known for policies such as the new deal, social security, and the start of the Second World War. On the other hand, besides the 2009 recovery act, Obama has acted “neither boldly nor persistently” during his presidency to “the scale of FDR’s initiatives.”
Next, by quoting historians and authors, Heffner gives more accountability to his opinion. For example, Heffner quotes biographer Jean Edward Smith, who points out that “Obama lacks Roosevelt’s killer instinct.” This shows that Obama’s political persona of “cool rationalism” cannot be compared to the “liberal lion of the 20th century”, Roosevelt. Another biographer, Alan Brinkly, states that FDR would “attack his opponents” to “strengthen his political position.” In contrast, obama has a “reasonable, conciliatory rhetoric” that allows fellow politicians to gain the upper hand.
While the two presidents have some “superficial similarities”, (attending Harvard law school, talented speakers) In Heffner’s opinion and that of well know historians, Obama does not resemble the president who took the united states out of depression. Heffner states that Obama “gets credit” for one accomplishment, “steps toward universal health coverage.” But, to be compared to the legacy of Roosevelt government, he has not “live[d] up to his billing as the next FDR”. In conclusion by using historical facts and opinions from important scholars, Heffner’s opinion is legitimized, and gives a new view on the president.
“Why Medical School Tuition Should be Free”
By Peter B. Bach and Robert Kocher
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/29/opinion/29bach.html
In "Why Medical School Tuition Should Be Free," authors Peter B. Bach and Robert Kocher argue for an approach that "is certain to raise objections" but addresses the "looming shortage of primary care doctors.” The authors believe by charging only specialty training courses to make money for free medical school, doctors, who currently "graduate owing more than $155,000" for tuitions, will no longer “shun” the idea of becoming a primary care doctor.
The authors argue that the current medical school tuition not only “[burdens]” students with great debts, but also “[discourages]” prospective students from going to medical school. They follow by stating the few students who do choose the medical field often pursue the specialist’s career, in favor over that of a primary care’s, “where there are incentives to give expensive treatments and order expensive tests” and thus earn grand salaries that will “relieve [them] of the burden of student debt” sooner. Bach and Kocher feel certain that free medical school will attract “a larger pool of competent primary care doctors” and eventually, stunt the growing void of primary care doctors.
Both Bach and Kocher propose that charging specialty training courses will sufficiently "offset most if not all" of the estimated $2.5 billion bill for free medical school "without the government's help." The authors agree that although such a proposition "seem[s] like a lot to ask of future specialists" to pay the $50,000 tuition, they justify saying specialists are still “assured highly lucrative jobs” with median salaries of $325,000 per year. Consequently, Bach and Kosher also state that "organizations that license specialty training programs and medical school associations" must create a system that will "redistribute specialty training fees and medical school subsidies" for hospitals that "[are] not associated with medical schools” and urge medical schools not to "start raising tuitions just because people other than their students are footing the bill." Furthermore, the authors acknowledge that "a large shift" of doctors away from specialty training towards primary care can "weaken the ability of [their] plan to remain self-financed;" however, they firmly believe that the benefits to the nation's health care system "would make any needed tuition subsidies well worth it."
Finally, Bach and Kocher retaliates any objections toward and doubts about the quality of free medical school. Responding to critics “who might object to providing free medical education” when there are students who have to pay for other advanced studies, the authors retort saying “the process of training doctors is unlike any other” for no other fields involve the well-being of patients and most of the costs for medical training ‘are already borne by [taxpayers and the Medicare system].” Furthermore, since medical students "would still be required to pass the various licensing examinations and complete patient care rotations," the authors boast that "nothing in [their] plan would diminish the quality of medical education" and "if anything," free tuition would actually "increase the quality of the applicants" and encourage "the creativity of medical schools in developing curriculums."
In conclusion, the authors feel that “taking the counterintuitive step of making medical education free, while charging those doctors who want to gain specialty training,” will “gradually shift the work force away from specialties and toward primary care.” Bach and Kocher insist that free medical school is the “straightforward” and better way to paying for medical training” and “[addressing] the looming shortage of primary care doctors.”
Summary #2: "Why We Need The Tabloids" by Ryan Linkof"
JayTeeFreedman321
In “Why We Need the Tabloids”, Ryan Linkof argues that although newspaper tabloids “can be irritating, provocative, ethically questionable and even …highly illegal”, when practiced correctly and legally, they play a fundamental role in Western culture. Recently, Rupert Murdoch, the CEO of News Corp., stated he “did not support an absolute right to privacy” when it comes to journalism. Linkof commended Murdoch for this statement and believes that although intrusiveness may be indecent, it is not reason to “tighten restrictions or create new laws to prevent it”.
Linkof defines the methods of the tabloids as a matter of “degree, not kind”. By this, he means that the news of the tabloids may be of little importance and mere gossip most of the time, but that, Linkof says, is a matter of taste, “and the tabloids certainly never claimed to be tasteful”. Tabloids often cross the line of what is acceptable and moral, but only because of the public desire to find a story that shows “behind the façade of public life”. Like in the case of the extramarital affair of John Edwards, the tabloids are often the first to break important news stories and are not just “peddling mere gossip”.
Linkof explains that the tabloids also “exist to break down the barriers of access that keep social elites at a remove from ordinary people”. Linkof provides the example of the recent “painfully choreographed and highly-policed” red carpet arrival of William and Kate Middleton at a polo match and that intrusive journalists provide a link between them and “ordinary people”. This is fundamental in democratic cultures that are divided by the “demands of a mass society and the persistence of social and economic inequality.”
The tabloids are consistently testing the boundaries of journalism. Tabloids, according to Linkof, can help to “mitigate some of the central tensions in democratic society” and act as an important player in modern culture. The idea that tabloids are made by “degraded, low-minded people” and supply idiotic gossip remains a matter of taste. Within limits, states Linkof, tabloids will most likely remain an important and “basic feature of popular culture in the West”.
William Pannapacker, "Overeducated, Underemployed"
http://www.slate.com/id/2300107/pagenum/all/#p2
Contemporary grad schools for humanities are rigged to exploit inexperienced grad students and William Pannapacker, author of "Overeducated, Underemployed," tries to provide a solution. Currently, most education programs "are unconcerned about what happens to students after they graduate." For most of these students, a "doctorate in English that probably took...10 years to earn is something...to hide like a prison term" while they also work to pay off "about $40,000 to $100,000 in loans." To solve the issues that so many plague grad students, Pannapacker outlines a step-by-step plan.
First, those in charge of high education in the humanities need to "get organized" Given that these grad programs lack a "centralized leadership," Pannapacker feels it is wisest to "assemble a group of representatives from a range of universities, colleges, foundations, and national organizations" so that all of these collectives work as a community. Pannapacker aims to have these groups work towards fixing problems like: "the lack of learning among undergraduates, the declining respect accorded the humanities, a viciously exploitative academic employment system, and an unconscionable waste of talent."
Secondly, students need to know what's going on in their school and their prospective job paths; "reliable, up-to-date information about the employment practices of individual universities," "independantly verified information about individual graduate programs" and "accurate, realistic, and up-to-date advising...focused on their interests" help these students better prepare for their prospective careers. Pannapacker supports students and their right to know about the "acceptance rates, financial support, teaching requirements, time-to-degree, attrition rates, and, most important, job placement" of their chosen program and better inform them about the different factors in their completing education. Additionally, Pannapacker proposes grad programs deal with "real careers" and "stop stigmatizing everything besides tenure-track positions at research universities that almost no one will get." Instead of tailoring education to "the labor needs of universities," Pannapacker pushes for graduate schools to undergo a "redesign" and emphasize real-world applications, including: "professional training, including internships and networking opportunities, and working with other departments and programs."
Lastly, Pannapacker warns that students themselves must not allow his/her "love for the humanities make [him/her] vulnerable to ongoing exploitation." Rather than stay out the entire duration of their grad school, Pannapacker suggests that students should instead focus on "accumulat[ing] work experiences and contacts that will enable [he/she] to support [himself/herself]" and reject the "dubious promises about future rewards" that will keep them chained to the "academic labor system."
Pannapacker admits that "in order to reform higher education, many of us will have to leave it, perhaps temporarily," but he believes that the humanities that these grad students care so much about "will be more likely to flourish outside of the academe than in it."
Article: GOP Needs To Grow Up, Get Back To Work
By Roland S. Martin
Site: http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/03/26/martin.republicans.cooperation/index.html
In the article, “GOP Needs To Grow Up, Get Back To Work,” political analyst Roland Martin comments that because Congress recently passed health care reform, thereby giving Democrats a long awaited victory, the Republicans have turned into “pouty kids” and are halting political progress by deciding to “no longer cooperate” with the Democratic Party. Martin argues that in order for Capital Hill to continue fixing America’s urgent problems, such as health care, education, and immigration laws, the GOP must stop acting like “spoiled brats” and “get back to work.”
Martin begins by chastising the leading Republican Party members for expressing their “displeasure with legislation” in a childish and immature manner. Specifically, Martin calls Senator John McCain “dumb” for saying that he would not cooperate with the Democrats for “the rest of the year,” despite the fact that McCain often boasts his willingness to “work across the aisle.” Additionally, Martin compares Senator Lindsey Graham, who claimed that because Democrats got their way that “Legislation was dead,” to a little kid who loses a game and then “take[s] their ball and go[es] home,” implying that Graham is acting immaturely and not handling the situation as he should.
Martin continues by saying that despite the anger that the Republicans may be feeling, there are still “crucial issues” facing the American people that must be dealt with right away. For example, Martin points out that there are an estimated “12 million” people who are “in the nation illegally” and are negatively affecting the economy, schools, and hospitals. Additionally, he adds that there are “massive changes” that must be made to the “No Child Left Behind Act” in order for the unions to be satisfied, and for education to function at its greatest potential. Martin states that these issues must not be put “on the back burner” because the Republicans have a “burr under [their] saddle,” but rather Congress should be focused on solving these “vital issues” whether the GOP are “in the game” or not.
Martin demands that the Republicans, due to their stubbornness to work with the Democrats, must begin to take a more active roll in solving America’s problems, if the United States is going pull itself out of the “shambles” and continue to thrive. Specifically, Martin suggests that the GOP “stop canceling hearings,” stop “threaten[ing] not to engage in legislative negotiations,” and start acting like “grown men and women.” However, if the Republicans fail to participate in the re-building of the Nation’s policies, Martin urges the Democrats to simply “learn to lead and go it alone.” Martin concludes by saying that the only thing that really matters is fixing what is “broken” in America, but in order for that to happen, the political leaders in Washington, namely the GOP, must “grow up and get to work!”
Summary #2: Horns, Harps, and Hubcaps: The classical orchestra needs some new instruments.
By J. Bryan Lowder, Slate Magazine
http://www.slate.com/id/2297231/
In “Horns, Harps, and Hubcaps,” J. Bryan Lowder argues that the modern classical orchestra is in need of a new and innovative sound. Over the course of the article, he commends Sean Frair’s Clunker Concerto, recently premiered by the American Composers Orchestra, as a forthright answer to Friar’s own question, “How can we make the orchestra sound new?” The Clunker Concerto, which “focused on introducing new instruments into the centuries-old ensemble,” in this case, used car parts as concerto soloists instead of traditional orchestral instruments, challenges the traditional form of the modern-day orchestra, a highly controversial aim from the point of view of many devoted classical music patrons.
Lowder opens the article by describing the elements and ideas behind Friar’s Clunker Concerto, whose performance was a culmination of a six-month collaboration between Friar and the American Composer’s Orchestra (ACO) as a part of the project called “Playing it UNsafe,” with the goal to “reinvent the ways both the composer and the listener approach the modern classical orchestra.” What Lowder finds so fascinating in listening to the piece is that these found car parts from a roughly dissevered Ford Taurus produce sounds more melodious and “piercingly lovely” than an oboe or violins. In an analogy, Lowder describes how, “Wheel wells with padded mallets created tones deep and resonant enough to challenge the horns for majesty,” and how gently scraped brake drums transmit intensity or nervous energy more effectually than even the “trembling violins.” Thus, what distinguishes Friar’s piece from other previous contemporary works with irregular objects used as instruments is that instead of using sounds that merely clash with the traditional palette, Friar makes the unusual objects blend profoundly with the time-honored voices of the orchestra.
Lowder goes on to explain that this concept of bringing new instruments into the orchestra is more controversial than one might expect, because while orchestras do occasionally feature odd instruments in innovative pieces, they are almost never treated as equals to the “venerable old-timers.” However, in launching his main argument, Lowder maintains that the car parts used in Friar’s piece are the leaders and aural inspirations for the ensemble as a whole, “and, amazingly, the piece came off sounding refreshingly new and solidly mature: not a novelty in the least.” But should a car fender deserve to be featured as much as a flute in an orchestral piece? Lowder argues that the classical orchestra could, in fact, benefit from a few new instruments to give a more enhancing, modern sound, especially considering the “somewhat arbitrary development” of the orchestra.
Summary #2: Horns, Harps, and Hubcaps: The classical orchestra needs some new instruments.
By J. Bryan Lowder, Slate Magazine
http://www.slate.com/id/2297231/
In “Horns, Harps, and Hubcaps,” J. Bryan Lowder argues that the modern classical orchestra is in need of a new and innovative sound. Over the course of the article, he commends Sean Frair’s Clunker Concerto, recently premiered by the American Composers Orchestra, as a forthright answer to Friar’s own question, “How can we make the orchestra sound new?” The Clunker Concerto, which “focused on introducing new instruments into the centuries-old ensemble,” in this case, used car parts as concerto soloists instead of traditional orchestral instruments, challenges the traditional form of the modern-day orchestra, a highly controversial aim from the point of view of many devoted classical music patrons.
Lowder opens the article by describing the elements and ideas behind Friar’s Clunker Concerto, whose performance was a culmination of a six-month collaboration between Friar and the American Composer’s Orchestra (ACO) as a part of the project called “Playing it UNsafe,” with the goal to “reinvent the ways both the composer and the listener approach the modern classical orchestra.” What Lowder finds so fascinating in listening to the piece is that these found car parts from a roughly dissevered Ford Taurus produce sounds more melodious and “piercingly lovely” than an oboe or violins. In an analogy, Lowder describes how, “Wheel wells with padded mallets created tones deep and resonant enough to challenge the horns for majesty,” and how gently scraped brake drums transmit intensity or nervous energy more effectually than even the “trembling violins.” Thus, what distinguishes Friar’s piece from other previous contemporary works with irregular objects used as instruments is that instead of using sounds that merely clash with the traditional palette, Friar makes the unusual objects blend profoundly with the time-honored voices of the orchestra.
Lowder goes on to explain that this concept of bringing new instruments into the orchestra is more controversial than one might expect, because while orchestras do occasionally feature odd instruments in innovative pieces, they are almost never treated as equals to the “venerable old-timers.” However, in launching his main argument, Lowder maintains that the car parts used in Friar’s piece are the leaders and aural inspirations for the ensemble as a whole, “and, amazingly, the piece came off sounding refreshingly new and solidly mature: not a novelty in the least.” But should a car fender deserve to be featured as much as a flute in an orchestral piece? Lowder argues that the classical orchestra could, in fact, benefit from a few new instruments to give a more enhancing, modern sound, especially considering the “somewhat arbitrary development” of the orchestra.
CONTINUED BELOW:
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE:
In describing the development of the orchestral instrument family, Lowder describes how the instrumentation as we know it was created in the late 18th century, as a result of several opposing traditions. Different instrumentation was used depending on the type of event, but all of the music performed was “stylistically similar—complicated, multimelody textures in which each instrument (or human voice) was equally important,” and included forbearers of modern-day instruments that we have left behind. However, around the 1760s, musical taste began to change as listeners fell in love with the “Italian opera” instrumentation style, encompassing strings and winds, and how the “lyrical melodies glided over a regular, recognizable chord progression.” This smooth and graceful blending was very different from the complex melodies written during the Baroque era, where instruments such as the “strident, nagging harpsichord” were so prevalent. As composers such as Haydn and Mozart adopted this new style, the primary members of the orchestra, such as the violin, flute, and horn, made the cut, while the harpsichord and recorder were eliminated. What Lowder finds peculiar about this consolidation is “how unwieldy these central instruments are,” how instruments such as oboes and bassoons are so notoriously hard to keep in tune with the rest of the orchestra. Lowder wonders why composers so eagerly “jumped onto the orchestral bandwagon,” and he concludes that because of the immense popularity the sound enjoyed with audiences, composers have followed this instrumental arrangement for nearly 250 years.
The orchestra saw little change again until the 20th century, Lowder states, when composers such as Schoenberg and Varèse introduced new, innovative sounds similar to those used in the Clunker Concerto. However, at this point in time, Lowder argues that the composer and the orchestra split over their stylistic approach; composers became largely progressive and wrote using unfamiliar styles, urging orchestras to perform their uncanny works, while orchestras tended to stick to the “museum pieces,” works by traditional composers such as Mozart, Beethoven, and Brahms. Classical music became virtually inaccessible to the average listener, claims Lowder: contemporary works sound much like a “violent assault of modernism that no one without musical training could hope to be prepared for, much less ‘appreciate,’” especially because the pieces do not reflect any familiar musical structures. On the other hand, he argues, the traditional works are so old-fashioned that some modern audiences may have grown tired of them.
While Lowder commends Philip Glass and John Adams as composers who have somehow made contemporary music coherent and accessible, he again raises his main argument, that the classical orchestra needs to modernize its sound—not completely transform it into something incomprehensible, but simply, “make it new,” by adding a few new instruments or sounds. After all, as Lowder states, emerging developments have broadened music’s range and appeal over time: “Jazz rescued the saxophone from obscurity,” after the orchestra had rejected it as too distinct, and “rock made the guitar the sexiest instrument in history.” Lowder even cites Auto Tune as an “instrumental innovation.” All of these diverse types of music that have evolved in the past century have made the classical orchestra sound amusingly outdated, says Lowder, which is why he celebrates the Clunker Concerto as such a brilliant work, for it keeps the “standard orchestral palette in mind,” while also introducing fresh sounds to revitalize the old form. It is new and exciting, but also familiar, rooted in styles like funk and rock while at the same time keeping with the “continual experience of suspense and surprise that classical music has always championed.”
Yale's New Jewish Quota
The university's shameful decision to kill its anti-Semitism institute.
By Ron Rosenbaum
Link: http://www.slate.com/id/2298200/pagenum/all/#p2
In “Yale's New Jewish Quota: The university's shameful decision to kill its anti-Semitism institute,” Ron Rosenbaum expresses his opposition toward the closing down of the Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Anti-Semitism (YIISA). Rosenbaum doesn’t believe that Yale has yet given an honest reason for closing down YIISA. Rosenbaum states that “many observers suspect” that a “YIISA conference last August called ‘Global Anti-Semitism: A Crisis of Modernity’” was a turning point in Yale’s support for the initiative. At the conference there were 108 speakers from different countries, and some “dared acknowledge the existence of anti-Semitism in some Islamic cultures.”
Rosenbaum discusses how people were starting to question whether YIISA was focusing more on advocacy against anti-Semitism then on the study of anti-Semitism. Rosenbaum then disputes whether Yale should take issue with any advocacy against anti-Semitism. Rosenbaum supports his argument by saying that “It seems unlikely that Yale tells its cancer researchers not to engage in advocacy against the malignancies they study.” Rosenbaum also believes that Yale—which at one time limited the amount of Jewish students who could attend—“was essentially inventing a new kind of Jewish quota,” by “putting a quota on the anger that Jews could express against those who wish for their extermination.”
Rosenbaum, in addition, expresses his unhappiness toward the fact that the Yale Jewish community has had a “compliant refusal to resist the hastiness of the decision to kill YIISA.” Although Yale will be starting a new program called The Yale Program for the Study of Anti-Semitism (YPSA), Rosenbaum fears that it will not be as effective as YISSA. Maurice Samuel, the man named to be in charge of YPSA, “has focused his academic work on the image of the Jew in 19th-century French literature.” Rosenbaum questions whether “this background is sufficient for the task of examining contemporary anti-Semitism.”
In conclusion, Rosenbaum believes that Yale is killing YIISA because they are under pressure. Rosenbaum suggests that Yale is closing YIISA, in “fear of offending potentially lucrative donors from the Middle East.”
Summary: “The Myth of the Extraordinary Teacher”
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-herman-class-size-20110731,0,3910343.story
Je$$1eD@v!s5522
In “The Myth of the Extraordinary Teacher,” Ellie Herman argues the popular idea that the only thing students need, to excel in their education is an “extraordinary teacher” regardless of classroom size. Herman, a teacher herself, uses real life examples to illustrate her point that smaller classroom size is a major factor in achieving academic success.
Herman begins by expressing the everyday challenges of working as a teacher in an inner city high school. She explains that with 31 students in one of her 5 classes, it’s hard to “ reach all 31 of them” especially because a majority have problems such as, ADD, learning disabilities and even epileptic seizures.
Herman takes issue with Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, who says “the billions spent in the U.S. to reduce class size was a bad idea”and that “the best thing you can do is get children in front of an extraordinary teacher." Herman explains that this is a very “common viewpoint” at the moment due to high tests scores in places where larger classroom sizes are in effect. However, Herman brings up the fact that the students doing well in this situation are the students who can afford tutoring and after school programs. Herman relates this back to herself by saying that regardless of her school’s high test scores and excellent teachers, when it came down to it she felt she was “a whole lot more extraordinary” in her smallest class.
In addition, Herman brings up the fact that with more students in a class, she has less time to spend on grading each assignment and less time to spend with each individual student. Herman explains that with a total of 150 students in her classes “providing individual attention becomes difficult” and spending a generous amount of time on grading assignments is too time consuming. She feels that with smaller classes she would not only have more time to spend grading each student’s assignment, but also more time “to listen, to understand why they're crying or sleeping or not doing homework.”
In conclusion, Herman expresses her deep concern for students, especially underprivileged students, who are not getting the individualized attention they need to succeed in school. She feels that as hard as she works to be a great teacher she’ll “never be excellent” if we continue with large classroom sizes and budget cuts.
"Thomas the Imperialist Tank Engine" by Jessica Roake
http://www.slate.com/id/2299653/pagenum/all/#p2
In Jessica Roake’s article “Thomas the Imperialist Tank Engine” she questions some of the inappropriate undercurrents hidden in the well known children’s show. Roake indicates how the show seems to echo some of the main messages of the former British Empire.
Roake begins by pointing out the show’s support for top-down leadership, its male dominated cast of characters, and its drastic punishing of dissenters. She follows up by linking to an article exposing Thomas as anti-Semitic, with its similar stress on “usefulness”. Roake goes on to show how on the Island of Sodor, the consequences of defiance are drastic, with Sir Topham Hatt ruling the Island with a figurative iron fist, and “stepping above one’s stations is a serious offense.” The train’s social hierarchy is shockingly similar to that of the Imperial British Empire, with Thomas and his friends “jockey[ing] for positions just below that of the bullying aristocrat Sir Topham Hatt but [they] never seek to rise to his level.
Finally, Roake discovers an frightening sort of train-racism between the “steamies” and the “ dirty diesels”, finding it suspicious that the lower class of train is painted black. When Sir Topham Hatt offers a “special job” to the most useful engine, and a “Diesel” tries to prove himself by doing the job without permission, he veers off a cliff and loses the cargo, “reinforcing all negative diesel stereotypes”. Though Diesel is saved, everyone grieves the loss of the cargo more than taking pride in saving another’s life.
In conlcusion, even though when HIT bought the franchise in 2003, the “cast of trains has diversified” and “the narratives have softened”, Roake still urges parents to think twice before showing this show to their children because with its perverse values system and odd nostalgia for British Imperialism, stating that “once you have engaged in Thomas cultural criticism, there's no going back”.
Same-sex marriage: Married but unequal
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-nejaime-gay-marriage-20110722,0,1690138.story
According to Douglas NeJaime in his article, “Same-sex marriage: Married but unequal,” New York is actually making things more complicated for America by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Although same-sex marriages are considered legitimate marriages in the state of New York, bear in mind what happens to the marriage when a lesbian or gay married couple moves to another state, for example, California – these marriages become null. Due to this, same-sex couples constantly have to deal with legal issues, and are not receiving the same benefits that heterosexual couples get.
Firstly, homosexual couples that get married in New York and come back to live in California arrive just to “see their marriages evaporate, based...on their sexual orientation.” NeJaime thinks that “unless there is national recognition,” problems and controversies will arise all over America over same-sex marriage. Although same-sex couples that get married in New York receive legitimate marriage licenses, these marriage licenses are not considered valid in California.
Secondly, even if same-sex couples are legally married under state law, the marriage won't be recognised under federal law. Examples of federal benefits that same-sex couples do not get area: “spousal Social Security benefits after a death or the ability to bring a noncitizen spouse into the country.” Homosexual couples in California married before November 2008 are considered to be lawfully married, but any time after that, those marriages are recognised as “something akin to domestic partners,” entitling them to “the rights and benefits of marriage under California law but not the label.” In November 2008, Proposition 8 “amended the California Constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman.” Before the Proposition 8 was passed, the Supreme Court “declared same-sex marriage legal,” but only for a short period time, meaning only same-sex couples that were lucky enough to be able to get married during that “brief window” would “remain legally married in the state's eyes.” Under federal law, all homosexual couples are considered single, although in the state of California, few homosexual couples are legally married.
Lastly, problems are only starting to spring up all over the place: a couple relocates to a state “that refuse to recognise same-sex marriage” will realise that they “have no access to divorce” whatsoever. The way homosexual marriage is viewed in America “highlights the shakiness of a discriminatory system.” Like NeJaime says, in our present day, “[it is] unreasonable to expect that that couples will stay in the states in which they marry.” Couples will get married, “only to find themselves in legal limbo when a new job or family circumstances necessitate a move.”
NeJaime signs off with a sentence that nicely proves his point: Constitutional principles of due process and equal protection cannot tolerate such discriminatory treatment based solely on sexual orientation.
Summary #2: "Why We Need The Tabloids" by Ryan Linkof"
JayTeeFreedman321
In “Why We Need the Tabloids”, Ryan Linkof argues that although newspaper tabloids “can be irritating, provocative, ethically questionable and even …highly illegal”, when practiced correctly and legally, they play a fundamental role in Western culture. Recently, Rupert Murdoch, the CEO of News Corp., stated he “did not support an absolute right to privacy” when it comes to journalism. Linkof commended Murdoch for this statement and believes that although intrusiveness may be indecent, it is not reason to “tighten restrictions or create new laws to prevent it”.
Linkof defines the methods of the tabloids as a matter of “degree, not kind”. By this, he means that the news of the tabloids may be of little importance and mere gossip most of the time, but that, Linkof says, is a matter of taste, “and the tabloids certainly never claimed to be tasteful”. Tabloids often cross the line of what is acceptable and moral, but only because of the public desire to find a story that shows “behind the façade of public life”. Like in the case of the extramarital affair of John Edwards, the tabloids are often the first to break important news stories and are not just “peddling mere gossip”.
Linkof explains that the tabloids also “exist to break down the barriers of access that keep social elites at a remove from ordinary people”. Linkof provides the example of the recent “painfully choreographed and highly-policed” red carpet arrival of William and Kate Middleton at a polo match and that intrusive journalists provide a link between them and “ordinary people”. This is fundamental in democratic cultures that are divided by the “demands of a mass society and the persistence of social and economic inequality.”
The tabloids are consistently testing the boundaries of journalism. Tabloids, according to Linkof, can help to “mitigate some of the central tensions in democratic society” and act as an important player in modern culture. The idea that tabloids are made by “degraded, low-minded people” and supply idiotic gossip remains a matter of taste. Within limits, states Linkof, tabloids will most likely remain an important and “basic feature of popular culture in the West”.
Name: GraebababyKingSummary5578
Title: “Should Students Have To Wear Uniforms?"
http://ezinearticles.com/?Should-Students-Have-To-Wear-School-Uniforms?&id=25943
Matthew Sirpis’ “Should Students Have to Wear Uniforms?” proposes a very common yet intriguing question, following with strong reasons why students should not have to wear uniforms given to him by a messageboard. According to Matthew, “the great debate continues” and will probably always continue because there is no wrong or right answer. As he says, “there is no definitive answer as it entirely depends upon the persons beliefs.”
As more and more kids in school become gang affiliated, schools believe that it’s safer if they wear school uniforms instead of children’s own clothes. This is the main reason why schools enforce uniforms. “Having a uniform stops gang members from displaying their colors” and limits the chances of having a violent school environment. It “helps instill a sense of pride in the students.”
In this article, Matthew’s shares comments from a message board answering his question. Some are against it and some are all for it: typical responses. One person who wall for it pointed out that having a uniform “sets an example of the school. It is representation the community. It is easy to point out different people. Also there would be more fights/bullly's due to the lack of 'fashion'.” This person proposes a very strong case, although it’s nothing we’ve never heard before.
Another person who was completely against took time to give four solid and valid reasons as to why children should not be forced to wear uniforms: “school uniforms inhibit a students’ individuality,” “a school uniform policy inhibits a student’s freedom of choice,” “there is an issuse of cost,” and a “lack of comfort.” This person gives a stronger case then the last, considering as how they’re all very true.
This question is rhetorical because it’ll never be answered. It’ll only keep starting group discussions or maybe even arguments on what other people think are right.
"The Myth of the Extraordinary Teacher" by Ellie Herman
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-herman-class-size-20110731,0,3910343.story
In “The Myth of the Extraordinary Teacher,” long-time teacher Ellie Herman claims that, while it is extremely important to have excellent teachers, teachers can not be expected to operate as well under difficult conditions. Herman believes that, if there is to be education reform, class sizes should be reduced, which would allow for individualized support of every student.
Herman begins her argument by describing the daily struggles her students encounter. For example, she paints a picture of the desperate situations that some of her students deal with; the “boy in front of [her] dutifully tak[ing] notes even though he has” a learning disability, and the girl who “hasn't done homework for weeks, ever since” she was attacked by a “gangbanger.” These students are in a class of “31 students, including two with learning disabilities, one who just moved here from Mexico, one with serious behavior problems, 10 who flunked [the] class last year and are repeating, seven who test below grade level, three who show up halfway through class every day, one who almost never comes,” and a “braniac” who’s “bored” with the class. Herman struggles to reach all of these different kids, but it’s hard when she has so many students who are all so different.
That problem according to Herman is ignored by people like Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, who recently downplayed the importance of class size claiming that “the best thing you can do is get children in front of an extraordinary teacher.” This “myth of the extraordinary teacher” is, according to Herman, “the common viewpoint at the moment,” and is based on the claim that in “Japan and South Korea, students score higher in reading and math, often with larger classes.” Herman disagrees with this view, arguing that smaller class sizes matter. She points out that “a huge percentage of students in Japan and South Korea pay for after-school tutoring to make up for a lack of individualized attention” that they are subjected to in those larger classes recommended by Duncan. She also notes that “Finland, with the best scores in the world, has average class sizes in the 20s.”
Herman then returns to her own experiences, detailing some of the ways she tries to cope with the burden of being an “extraordinary teacher.” For example, she gave up her “freewheeling discussion[s]” and instead peppers “the room with rapid-fire questions.” In addition, she can only spend “five or 10 minutes on each essay” that her students hand in, responding to them with only a short comment and “a rubric...for the whole class.” She claims that this “highly structured environment” alienates some of her “smartest kids”—“the artists, the rebels, the class clowns.” Herman’s biggest problem with “the myth of the extraordinary teacher” is that it asserts that “the makeup of the class, the nature of each student and the number of students are immaterial as long as [she’s] at the top of [her] game.”
Towards the end of her essay, Herman’s argument shifts away from the importance of small class sizes to the division between the rich and the poor. She points to “the children of the wealthy, who can pay for individual attention in tutoring or private schools with small classes,” unlike “children growing up in poverty.” She believes that every child deserves “not only an extraordinary teacher but a teacher who has time to read their work, to listen, to understand why they're crying or sleeping or not doing homework.” However, she also believes that teachers can never “be excellent” in all of these ways “if we continue to slash education budgets and cut teachers.” Although Herman’s argument is not particularly convincing, relying heavily on pathos, shifting its focus, and never really advocating for any particular action or stand, it does expose the difficulties a teacher faces when operating in an overcrowded class.
Summary: “The Myth of the Extraordinary Teacher" by Ellie Herman
Je$$1eD@v!s5522
In “The Myth of the Extraordinary Teacher,” Ellie Herman argues the popular idea that the only thing students need, to excel in their education is an “extraordinary teacher” regardless of classroom size. Herman, a teacher herself, uses real life examples to illustrate her point that smaller classroom size is a major factor in achieving academic success.
Herman begins by expressing the everyday challenges of working as a teacher in an inner city high school. She explains that with 31 students in one of her 5 classes, it’s hard to “ reach all 31 of them” especially because a majority have problems such as, ADD, learning disabilities and even epileptic seizures.
Herman takes issue with Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, who says “the billions spent in the U.S. to reduce class size was a bad idea”and that “the best thing you can do is get children in front of an extraordinary teacher." Herman explains that this is a very “common viewpoint” at the moment due to high tests scores in places where larger classroom sizes are in effect. However, Herman brings up the fact that the students doing well in this situation are the students who can afford tutoring and after school programs. Herman relates this back to herself by saying that regardless of her school’s high test scores and excellent teachers, when it came down to it she felt she was “a whole lot more extraordinary” in her smallest class.
In addition, Herman brings up the fact that with more students in a class, she has less time to spend on grading each assignment and less time to spend with each individual student. Herman explains that with a total of 150 students in her classes “providing individual attention becomes difficult” and spending a generous amount of time on grading assignments is too time consuming. She feels that with smaller classes she would not only have more time to spend grading each student’s assignment, but also more time “to listen, to understand why they're crying or sleeping or not doing homework.”
In conclusion, Herman expresses her deep concern for students, especially underprivileged students, who are not getting the individualized attention they need to succeed in school. She feels that as hard as she works to be a great teacher she’ll “never be excellent” if we continue with large classroom sizes and budget cuts.
Summary: “The Myth of the Extraordinary Teacher" by Ellie Herman
Je$$1eD@v!s5522
In “The Myth of the Extraordinary Teacher,” Ellie Herman argues the popular idea that the only thing students need, to excel in their education is an “extraordinary teacher” regardless of classroom size. Herman, a teacher herself, uses real life examples to illustrate her point that smaller classroom size is a major factor in achieving academic success.
Herman begins by expressing the everyday challenges of working as a teacher in an inner city high school. She explains that with 31 students in one of her 5 classes, it’s hard to “ reach all 31 of them” especially because a majority have problems such as, ADD, learning disabilities and even epileptic seizures.
Herman takes issue with Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, who says “the billions spent in the U.S. to reduce class size was a bad idea”and that “the best thing you can do is get children in front of an extraordinary teacher." Herman explains that this is a very “common viewpoint” at the moment due to high tests scores in places where larger classroom sizes are in effect. However, Herman brings up the fact that the students doing well in this situation are the students who can afford tutoring and after school programs. Herman relates this back to herself by saying that regardless of her school’s high test scores and excellent teachers, when it came down to it she felt she was “a whole lot more extraordinary” in her smallest class.
In addition, Herman brings up the fact that with more students in a class, she has less time to spend on grading each assignment and less time to spend with each individual student. Herman explains that with a total of 150 students in her classes “providing individual attention becomes difficult” and spending a generous amount of time on grading assignments is too time consuming. She feels that with smaller classes she would not only have more time to spend grading each student’s assignment, but also more time “to listen, to understand why they're crying or sleeping or not doing homework.”
In conclusion, Herman expresses her deep concern for students, especially underprivileged students, who are not getting the individualized attention they need to succeed in school. She feels that as hard as she works to be a great teacher she’ll “never be excellent” if we continue with large classroom sizes and budget cuts.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/29/opinion/29bach.html
In "Why Medical School Tuition Should Be Free," authors Peter B. Bach and Robert Kocher argue for an approach that "is certain to raise objections" but addresses the "looming shortage of primary care doctors.” The authors believe by charging only specialty training courses to make money for free medical school, doctors, who currently "graduate owing more than $155,000" for tuitions, will no longer “shun” the idea of becoming a primary care doctor.
The authors argue that the current medical school tuition not only “[burdens]” students with great debts, but also “[discourages]” prospective students from going to medical school. They follow by stating the few students who do choose the medical field often pursue the specialist’s career, in favor over that of a primary care’s, “where there are incentives to give expensive treatments and order expensive tests” and thus earn grand salaries that will “relieve [them] of the burden of student debt” sooner. Bach and Kocher feel certain that free medical school will attract “a larger pool of competent primary care doctors” and eventually, stunt the growing void of primary care doctors.
Both Bach and Kocher propose that charging specialty training courses will sufficiently "offset most if not all" of the estimated $2.5 billion bill for free medical school "without the government's help." The authors agree that although such a proposition "seem[s] like a lot to ask of future specialists" to pay the $50,000 tuition, they justify saying specialists are still “assured highly lucrative jobs” with median salaries of $325,000 per year. Consequently, Bach and Kosher also state that "organizations that license specialty training programs and medical school associations" must create a system that will "redistribute specialty training fees and medical school subsidies" for hospitals that "[are] not associated with medical schools” and urge medical schools not to "start raising tuitions just because people other than their students are footing the bill." Furthermore, the authors acknowledge that "a large shift" of doctors away from specialty training towards primary care can "weaken the ability of [their] plan to remain self-financed;" however, they firmly believe that the benefits to the nation's health care system "would make any needed tuition subsidies well worth it."
Finally, Bach and Kocher retaliates any objections toward and doubts about the quality of free medical school. Responding to critics “who might object to providing free medical education” when there are students who have to pay for other advanced studies, the authors retort saying “the process of training doctors is unlike any other” for no other fields involve the well-being of patients and most of the costs for medical training ‘are already borne by [taxpayers and the Medicare system].” Furthermore, since medical students "would still be required to pass the various licensing examinations and complete patient care rotations," the authors boast that "nothing in [their] plan would diminish the quality of medical education" and "if anything," free tuition would actually "increase the quality of the applicants" and encourage "the creativity of medical schools in developing curriculums."
In conclusion, the authors feel that “taking the counterintuitive step of making medical education free, while charging those doctors who want to gain specialty training,” will “gradually shift the work force away from specialties and toward primary care.” Bach and Kocher insist that free medical school is the “straightforward” and better way to paying for medical training” and “[addressing] the looming shortage of primary care doctors.”
(This is my second attempt at posting. If the first one is already there, please just humor my current state of paranoia!)
Article: GOP Needs To Grow Up, Get Back To Work
By Roland S. Martin
Site: http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/03/26/martin.republicans.cooperation/index.html
In the article, “GOP Needs To Grow Up, Get Back To Work,” political analyst Roland Martin comments that because Congress recently passed health care reform, thereby giving Democrats a long awaited victory, the Republicans have turned into “pouty kids” and are halting political progress by deciding to “no longer cooperate” with the Democratic Party. Martin argues that in order for Capital Hill to continue fixing America’s urgent problems, such as health care, education, and immigration laws, the GOP must stop acting like “spoiled brats” and “get back to work.”
Martin begins by chastising the leading Republican Party members for expressing their “displeasure with legislation” in a childish and immature manner. Specifically, Martin calls Senator John McCain “dumb” for saying that he would not cooperate with the Democrats for “the rest of the year,” despite the fact that McCain often boasts his willingness to “work across the aisle.” Additionally, Martin compares Senator Lindsey Graham, who claimed that because Democrats got their way that “Legislation was dead,” to a little kid who loses a game and then “take[s] their ball and go[es] home,” implying that Graham is acting immaturely and not handling the situation as he should.
Martin continues by saying that despite the anger that the Republicans may be feeling, there are still “crucial issues” facing the American people that must be dealt with right away. For example, Martin points out that there are an estimated “12 million” people who are “in the nation illegally” and are negatively affecting the economy, schools, and hospitals. Additionally, he adds that there are “massive changes” that must be made to the “No Child Left Behind Act” in order for the unions to be satisfied, and for education to function at its greatest potential. Martin states that these issues must not be put “on the back burner” because the Republicans have a “burr under [their] saddle,” but rather Congress should be focused on solving these “vital issues” whether the GOP are “in the game” or not.
Martin demands that the Republicans, due to their stubbornness to work with the Democrats, must begin to take a more active roll in solving America’s problems, if the United States is going pull itself out of the “shambles” and continue to thrive. Specifically, Martin suggests that the GOP “stop canceling hearings,” stop “threaten[ing] not to engage in legislative negotiations,” and start acting like “grown men and women.” However, if the Republicans fail to participate in the re-building of the Nation’s policies, Martin urges the Democrats to simply “learn to lead and go it alone.” Martin concludes by saying that the only thing that really matters is fixing what is “broken” in America, but in order for that to happen, the political leaders in Washington, namely the GOP, must “grow up and get to work!”
Summary 2: "The Archbishop vs. the Governor: Gay Sera, Sera
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/opinion/19dowd.html?ref=maureendowd
In “The Archbishop vs. the Governor: Gay Sera, Sera”, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd attacks New York archbishop Timothy Dolan for his position against the proposed amendment allowing same-sex marriage in New York State. Dowd’s argument is interesting in that she never actually states her own opinion about gay marriage itself; but rather she takes the approach of supporting the idea by attacking the people who are against it. Most of the arguments Dowd makes fall under the general category of attacking the church for its hypocrisy, especially at a time when so many of it’s priests have been found to have engaged in same-sex pedophiliac abuse, and when it protests against the government’s right to define concepts it feel it has the soul authority to define.
Dowd’s argument uses rhetorical repetition language to place Archbishop Dolan’s beliefs under suspicion. Early in her article, Dowd states that Dolan has been “ferocious in fighting against marriage between same-sex couples, painting it as a perversity against nature.” In the very next paragraph Dowd takes this language and uses it for her own purpose to demand that the church become “ferocious in fighting against the true perversity against nature: the unending horror of pedophile priests and the children who trusted them.” Dowd goes on to assert that it its hypocritical for a church which states that marriage between a man and woman is “hard-wired” and should therefore be protected no matter what, and to refuse to “acknowledge that homosexuality may be hardwired by God in nature as well.” She also claims that it is hypocritical for the church to lobby against gay marriage when the church itself has become “a haven for gay priests” who act against their congregations because no sexual outlets are available to them.
Dowd also feels it is hypocritical for Dolan and the church to protest against government involvement with the definition of what marriage is. She mocks Dolan for comparing the same-sex marriage amendment to a “communiqué” from China or North Korea, where the “government can dictate the size of families, who lives and who dies, and what the very definition of ‘family’ and ‘marriage’ means.” Her next comment- “Yeah. Not like the Vatican” essentially says that the Catholic Church does exactly the same thing. Dolan is angry at the government for trying to do.
Overall, Dowd implicitly supports New York’s amendment in favor of gay-marriage (which eventually passed earlier this summer) not by directly defending it but rather by attacking the hypocrisy of Archbishop Dolan and other major opponents of the bill. As she states at the end of her column “Dolan acts like getting married (when done by gays) is a self-indulgent act of hedonism when it’s really a leap of faith and a promise of fidelity.”
Summary: “Public health: Not vaccinated? Not acceptable” by David Ropeik
DevBaladshaaaw5500
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ropeik-vaccines-20110718,0,4240440.story
In “Public health: Not vaccinated? Not acceptable,” David Ropeik suggests that the government needs to make it so that fewer people opt out of getting vaccinated so that we can avoid major outbreaks of disease. Specifically, he remarks that more people should get vaccinated because there is “overwhelming evidence” to the fact that as vaccination rates decline, the number of disease outbreaks grows. He also states that people who are afraid of getting vaccinated are putting other people at risk by spreading diseases. Finally, he suggests that the government enforce some laws that will push more people to get vaccinated, therefore reduce the number of disease outbreaks.
Initially, Ropeik states that more people need to be vaccinated since “the evidence is overwhelming that declining vaccination rates are contributing to outbreaks of disease.” The World Health Organization reports the outbreaks in countries like France, Belgium, Germany and Spain where vaccination rates have gone down. For example, the organization reported that there have already been “334 measles cases in England and Wales this year, compared to 33 all of last year.” In addition, there have been 118 cases in the U.S. as of mid-May, “compared with 56 cases a year from 2001 to 2008.” Both of these examples, as Ropeik explains, show that places that have lower vaccination rates have more disease outbreaks.
Ropeik mentions that people who don’t get vaccinated because they’re worried about the risks actually end up putting everyone else in danger of getting sick. Specifically, unvaccinated people who are sick and visit hospitals increase the risk of people there being exposed to it, therefore cause the disease to spread. For instance, a woman from Switzerland who had never been vaccinated for measles visited Tucson in 2008; she became “symptomatic” and went to the local hospital to seek medical attention. She ended up causing 14 people to catch the measles, seven of which caught it while visiting healthcare facilities, as well as cost “two local hospitals a total of nearly $800,000, and the state and local health departments tens of thousands more” to “quarantine and treat the sick” as well as inform those who might have been exposed. Also in 2008, a study in Michigan found that places with “‘exemption clusters’ of parents who didn’t vaccinate their children” were three times more likely to “have outbreaks of whooping cough than areas where the vaccination rates matched the state average.” Moreover, this shows that the chances of diseases spreading are much higher when people opt out of vaccination.
Thus, Ropeik understands that there are some people who won’t get over their fear of vaccinations; however, to protect public health, he suggests that the government implement some laws that will hopefully get more people to get vaccinated. For instance, he recommends that it should be “harder to opt out of vaccination,” or perhaps there should be “restrictions on the community and social activities” that unvaccinated people can participate in. He also proposes that there should be “higher healthcare and insurance costs for unvaccinated people,” or “healthy behavior” discounts for vaccinated people. He realizes that these ideas have their downsides; however, he believes that through “careful thought” and “open democratic discussion” the government can actually get more people to get vaccinated, thus “protect public health from those who choices about vaccines are putting the rest of us at risk.”
Summary: “Public health: Not vaccinated? Not acceptable” by David Ropeik
DevBaladshaaaw5500
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ropeik-vaccines-20110718,0,4240440.story
In “Public health: Not vaccinated? Not acceptable,” David Ropeik suggests that the government needs to make it so that fewer people opt out of getting vaccinated so that we can avoid major outbreaks of disease. Specifically, he remarks that more people should get vaccinated because there is “overwhelming evidence” to the fact that as vaccination rates decline, the number of disease outbreaks grows. He also states that people who are afraid of getting vaccinated are putting other people at risk by spreading diseases. Finally, he suggests that the government enforce some laws that will push more people to get vaccinated, therefore reduce the number of disease outbreaks.
Initially, Ropeik states that more people need to be vaccinated since “the evidence is overwhelming that declining vaccination rates are contributing to outbreaks of disease.” The World Health Organization reports the outbreaks in countries like France, Belgium, Germany and Spain where vaccination rates have gone down. For example, the organization reported that there have already been “334 measles cases in England and Wales this year, compared to 33 all of last year.” In addition, there have been 118 cases in the U.S. as of mid-May, “compared with 56 cases a year from 2001 to 2008.” Both of these examples, as Ropeik explains, show that places that have lower vaccination rates have more disease outbreaks.
Ropeik mentions that people who don’t get vaccinated because they’re worried about the risks actually end up putting everyone else in danger of getting sick. Specifically, unvaccinated people who are sick and visit hospitals increase the risk of people there being exposed to it, therefore cause the disease to spread. For instance, a woman from Switzerland who had never been vaccinated for measles visited Tucson in 2008; she became “symptomatic” and went to the local hospital to seek medical attention. She ended up causing 14 people to catch the measles, seven of which caught it while visiting healthcare facilities, as well as cost “two local hospitals a total of nearly $800,000, and the state and local health departments tens of thousands more” to “quarantine and treat the sick” as well as inform those who might have been exposed. Also in 2008, a study in Michigan found that places with “‘exemption clusters’ of parents who didn’t vaccinate their children” were three times more likely to “have outbreaks of whooping cough than areas where the vaccination rates matched the state average.” Moreover, this shows that the chances of diseases spreading are much higher when people opt out of vaccination.
Thus, Ropeik understands that there are some people who won’t get over their fear of vaccinations; however, to protect public health, he suggests that the government implement some laws that will hopefully get more people to get vaccinated. For instance, he recommends that it should be “harder to opt out of vaccination,” or perhaps there should be “restrictions on the community and social activities” that unvaccinated people can participate in. He also proposes that there should be “higher healthcare and insurance costs for unvaccinated people,” or “healthy behavior” discounts for vaccinated people. He realizes that these ideas have their downsides; however, he believes that through “careful thought” and “open democratic discussion” the government can actually get more people to get vaccinated, thus “protect public health from those who choices about vaccines are putting the rest of us at risk.”
The Washington Post
Valerie Strauss
Report: Why We Need Arts Education
In Reporting: Why We Need Arts Education (not only to improve test scores), author Valerie Strauss discusses the contents of a presidentially-appointed committee’s report on the numerous benefits of reinstating and promoting arts education in public schools nationwide. The report, entitled Reinvesting in Arts Education: Winning America’s Future through Creative Schools, was released by President Obama’s Committee on the Arts and the Humanities, and is the first official document to consider comprehensive federal arts education data from the past decade. In her essay, Strauss describes the main points and specific suggestions offered by the report, and shares her supportive opinion of them.
She first presents five points from the report which are meant to “serve as a blueprint for schools to increase arts education…and integrate arts into an array of…subjects”. The five points include general suggestions such as “develop(ing) the field of arts integration” and “expand(ing) in-school opportunities for teaching artists”. In response, Strauss strongly agrees, saying that in the present climate of education cut-backs and in an era where arts are pushed aside to make room for standardized testing, “what the report advocates makes a great deal of sense”.
Strauss quickly moves on to the next section of the report, discussing the connection between arts education and standardized test scores. The report’s first chapter makes “The Case” that arts education improves test scores, specifically in math and English. The report also specifies several other “instrumental outcomes” from arts education, including “the spatial-temporal reasoning skills developed by music instruction”, the “development of habits of mind including problem solving, critical and creative thinking…of social competencies (and of) student motivation and engagement” as a result of arts integration into daily education as well.
In the next several paragraphs of her essay, Strauss strays from the original document to her own poor opinions of the report’s apparent need to prove itself by “research…from standardized test scores”. For instance, she is quick to emphasize that it is a “sign of the times” that the report justifies its claims by means of the test scores from standardized tests “two paragraphs….into the first chapter”. She deplores the current situation, complaining that “today…we have to have ‘research’ to prove things that are self-evident”, such as the obvious fact that “engaging (kids) through the arts is much easier than trying to get them to memorize facts”. However, Strauss states sadly that “because there is no standardized test attached to (arts education)…it is looked on as much less important”. She also points out that advocates of physical education, like those of arts education, now feel strongly compelled to link PE to higher test scores, “(a)s if helping kids to stay physically healthy isn’t a good enough outcome on its own” .
In conclusion, Strauss reiterates her frustration with the absurd need to validate everything through so-called “research” and standardized test scores, but nevertheless makes it clear that she still thinks “the report is useful” and fully supports the aim and contents of it as a whole. Finally, she expresses a sincere hope that ” since the committee…is appointed by President Obama, and…the panel’s honorary chair is First Lady Michelle Obama…maybe someone will actually pay attention in regard to future education policy”.
Alyssa Garcia
Article: Blood, Justice and Corruption: Why the Chinese Love Their Death Penalty
By: Tang Biao
Originally from the “Economic Observer” converted by “World Crunch”
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2075010-2,00.html
In “Blood,Justice and corruption” Tang Biao argues that the execution of major political party members in China may not be the best way to solve a problem, no matter if they are corrupt.Throughout the course of this article it is explained how many corrupt officials there actually are in china and what the overall public’s form of punishment is. It is also explained that because execution is so big Chinese officials have decided, instead, to make the most of their reign and take their corrupt ways to then next level. so, Tang Biao asks, is it really worth it?
He has decided no, its not. Although, these corrupt officials continue to be taken to court when they have wronged Tang Biao says that the verdict is always the same, despite the differences in unlawful acts. Not only this but the residents of China are constantly pushing for the same punishment, not understanding that, in the end, they are only hurting their country. Anyway, while in court the corrupt officials must recite a series of confessions in court repeating that they have “lowered their personal standards” instead of getting to the “root” of their corruptions and having to answer questions like “why?”, Tang Biao states.
Tang Biao also explains how if these political party members are getting a “political education” then things “would have been solved by now”. In his view the “corruption lies elsewhere” and maybe there should be less control and more supervision in the government of China. He would like to see more freedom of press and elections to better the system but, apparently, no one in China is demanding those kinds of rights. He goes on to further explain the fact that corruption is now a majority in the rule of china and the few honest members are scarce. So, while they are there they are being overpowered by the many injustices in the system and, if the are not taken care of soon, these few great leaders will become overshadowed by the masses of the corrupt.
Tang Biao goes on to argue that while the death penalty may not be the best punishment for certain cases he can see how it can make citizens feel secure. On the other hand, it is also unjust to have such a strong punishment for Officials who were tainted by the usual views of society. So why would they be judged so harshly? is it not the same allure that most people have nowadays with benefits of money, and ultimate security for their families now and in many generations to come? He continues to defend corrupt officials view and explain how they have not always been so mislead.
On top of all this the death penalty is also a very wide umbrella for officials already teetering on the edge of strong accusations. it is so easy in China, to be portrayed as a corrupt official that, Tang Biao states, once an official makes one wrong move all the blame is likely to fall on them making for a not so justifiable punishment. The Chinese Continue to be so wrapped up in their view of “right and wrong” that they lose sight of what may be the best way to handle situations. Tang Bio concludes with saying that the “Chinese people are too bloodthirsty to give up the death penalty as the state’s favorite method of sweet revenge”.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russell-bishop/fear-of-failure_b_879866.html
In the article “Is Fear of Failure Holding You Back?” Russell Bishop argues that failure is often accommodated with fear of failing. Bishop begins with first explaining the top reason why humans fear failing in the first place and not success. He then states how deleterious it is to limit decisions due to that fear, and finishes with how failure should be thought of as success, or a path to success.
Bishop addresses fear of criticism one of the bigger reasons why there is fear of failure. He points out, for example, that people often say “to ‘take a risk’ but [they] really” don’t want “to risk anything. Bishop adds that he has “seen this kind of take-a-risk-but-you-better-succeed thinking all over the place,” although many claim to know that “’nothing ventured, nothing gained’ is true.” This feeds the possibility that mankind just can’t “stomach [the] downside possibility.”
Moving forward, Bishop explains how fear of taking risks and fear of failing could easily retain success. For instance, he quotes Dr. Regina Dugan at DARPA who says that “’failure is not the problem,’” it is “’the fear of failure that is the limiting factor’” because “risks” can “help you improve.” In addition, Bishop also elaborates on Dugan’s theory that losing one’s nerve for “the big failure” is dangerous, “because the nerve… for the big success is the exact same nerve.” However, Bishop states that risk taking and stomaching that fear of failure is often rewarding whether success is fast to come or not.
Bishop claims on the road to success, there is not really failure, but steps to success. Bishop takes Albert Einstein, for example, who had failed “over 1,000 combinations of gas and filament” just for one success that is so valuable today. Bishop then exemplifies that Einstein did not see these failures as failures, but as steps to discovering the lightbulb. Moreover Bishop adds that had the great scientist thought of each failed experience that way, people “might still be working by candlelight.”
In conclusion, Bishop urges his audience to be persistent, and see failure as merely a process to greater things. He warns of criticism that will always be there to “jump all over” failure at the first sign of “slippage,” but encourages all to acknowledge the good in learning, which always includes failing once in a while.
Post a Comment