AP English 11 Summer summary assignment #2 (M-Z)

Please post your summary #2 here, by Noon, August 1, if your last name starts with M-Z

48 comments:

irusshrap5637 said...

Summary: “The Reluctant Mormon” by Timothy Egan
2011, Iris Sharp


In “The Reluctant Mormon”, Egan suggests several reasons why the Republican Party does not support Jon Huntsman as a presidential candidate. Although the Republicans already consider Huntsman to be a “heretic for speaking common sense on climate change, gay civil unions and immigration”, Egan argues that Huntsman’s faith in the Mormon religion is what irks Republicans most. Egan also states that Huntsman’s recent reluctance towards the Mormon faith is a ploy to regain favor in the Republican Party.
First, Egan bluntly states, “The core Republican base does not like Mormons.” According to Egan, if Huntsman were “a Jew, a woman, a Catholic or a black” he would not face the kind of suspicion that the Republicans have for Mormons. Also, Egan argues that even Huntsman’s support of Paul Ryan’s plan to turn “Medicare into Vouchercare” is “not enough for the narrow-minded to see him as a true believer.”
Finally, Egan argues the reason Huntsman, a lifelong Mormon, suddenly shows doubt in the Mormon faith is to gain acceptance by the “narrow minded.” When asked were asked if Mormons are Christians “45 percent of white Christian fundamentalist said no”. This, according to Egan, largely influenced Huntsman answer when recently asked if “whether he still belonged to the [Mormon] church”. Huntsman answered, “That’s tough to define.”
In conclusion, Egan exposes the reasons why Republicans won’t support Jon Huntsman, the main reason being his faith in the Mormon Church. According to Egan, Huntsman’s willingness to forgo his faith demonstrates that “the modern Republican Party will force any politician who shows signs of doing actual hard thinking about life and public policy to walk a plank into a sea of craziness.”

Daniel82Wants988Moore said...

Summary: “Executions Should Be Televised” by Zachary B. Shemtob

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/31/opinion/sunday/executions-should-be-televised.html?_r=1&ref=opinion


In “Executions Should be Televised” Zachary Shemtob argues that American executions should be televised or otherwise made public. He explains that if these executions are executed in our name and with our tax dollars, they “ought to be televised?” While most executions are made to be painless, Shemtob also explains that certain lethal injections can cause painful deaths, and that the public should be aware that some executions cause “unnecessary suffering” He also adds that the benefits and costs of “society’s ultimate punishment should be made clear to the American public.

Shemtob begins by telling the story of Georgia citizen Andrew Grant DeYoung, who had been executed earlier this month. DeYoung had convinced he judge to allow the recording of his last moments to obtain evidence on whether or not lethal injections cause “unnecessary suffering.” His wishes were denied by one of his defense lawyers saying, “It’s not for the public to see that.” However, Shemtob explains that evidence of a painful execution was found when another Georgia inmate, Roy Blankeship reportedly “gasped, grimaced, lurched, and jerked his head” upon injection. Shemtob argues that the public should be aware that painful executions are taking place. Additionally, Shemtob feels strongly that if the American people are spending their tax dollars funding executions, they should be allowed to view them.

Shemtob explains how his opposition believes that public executions are “archaic, noxious, even barbarous.” Even though his opposition believe that public executions could drive the public to vote against the death penalty, Shemtob believes it might actually encourage the public to vote for the death penalty.

Zachary Shemtob finishes by explaining that he himself is very “conflicted about the death penalty.” While the public seems split by this moral issue, Shemtob believes that “a democracy demands a citizenry as informed as possible about the costs and benefits of society’s ultimate punishment.”

Loochia-iaZezza25 said...

“U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon's plea: We can't allow Somalia to starve”: By Ban Ki-moon
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-bankimoon-famine-somalia-20110722,0,7583759.story

In “U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon's plea: We can't allow Somalia to starve”, the “secretary-general of all nations” presses for immediate action in ending Somalia’s spreading famine. He explains that the “catastrophic combination of conflict, high food prices and drought” in Somalia has resulted in the starvation of “more than 11 million people”. Ban Ki-moon states that this is a “wake-up call we cannot ignore.”

He references “the harrowing reports” U.N. (United Nations) teams have recorded to further shake the reader. Ki-moon conveys stories of children arriving “alone… malnourished, their parents dead in a foreign land.” One woman who walked for “three week[s]”, Halima Omar, who was once considered well off, however, “barely survives” today, with “four of her six children…dead”. Ban Ki-moon explains that sometimes, even those who reach refugee camps cannot be saved due to their incredibly “weak” condition or lack of medical resources. On a broader perspective, he talks about the challenges “Ethiopia and Kenya” are facing. According to Ki-moon, the largest refugee camp in the world, in Kenya, holds a dangerous “380,000” with many thousands more awaiting registration. “This compounds a food crisis faced by almost 7 million Kenyans and Ethiopians at home” he says.

With strong reason to do so, Ki-moon pushes to focus global attention on this crisis, to “sound the alarm” because fixing this will take a worldwide effort. He states that to save these lives at risk, a daunting “$1.6 billion” is required. Ki-moon “appeal[s]” to “all nations” even those who have not consistently funded his work. However, he explains the U.N. cannot be the only force contributing to end this “nightmare.” He also speaks to the individual citizens of the world, asking them to take part in this effort and suggests “private donations” or even “pushing elected representatives toward a more robust response”.

Although these efforts do help, he explains, there is “real danger we cannot meet all the needs.” U.N forces are having a hard time accessing areas of the country because of “serious security” as well as the “ongoing conflict” in Somalia. Until there is more regional stability, programs he believes could benefit from private contributions like “drought resistant seeds, irrigation, rural infrastructure” and “livestock programs” will have to wait. In the future, he asserts that ensuring early warning systems for such devastations could mean better prevention.

Finally, Ki-moon expresses his belief in “peace”; how essential it is. He deems, “as long as there is conflict in Somalia, we cannot effectively fight famine,” but that by fighting “together” to end conflict, famine can be diminished. Halima Omar told U.N. officials, “Maybe this is our fate--- or maybe a miracle will happen and we will be saved from this nightmare.” “I cannot accept this as her fate” says Ban Ki-moon.

alberto5618 said...

Summary: “When a Fabricator collides with a Predator” by Maureen Dowd
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/opinion/sunday/03dowd.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=maureen&st=Search
In “When a Fabricator meets a Predator” Maureen Dowd states that much to America’s chagrin, the French are almost always right and they may have the answers in the infamous Dominique Strauss-Kahn case. A powerhouse and potential Presidential candidate, Dominique Strauss-Kahn is on trial in New York for allegedly raping a hotel maid there. “They were right about Iraq and America’s rush to war. And they may be right about Dominique Strauss-Kahn and America’s rush to judgment,” she says, but no matter the evidence, it seems that Americans always find a way to discredit French theories. Although in both cases “French credibility was undermined,” we may stand to gain from taking the French perspective before sentencing the chief of the International Monetary Fund.

According to Dowd, the first significant example of sabotaging French judgment occurred during George Bush’s rush into Iraq. France did its best to halt W,’s entry into the middle east, “but we knew that the French government had a history of making special oil deals with Saddam Hussein, and of favoring expediency over principle,” she says. More recently, when the French doubted the authenticity of Dominique’s accuser (whose name has not been released in the US) the NYPD refused to believe them. Dowd says, “France refused to believe that DSK could force himself on a Sofitel maid, but we knew that French society had a history of shielding powerful and talented men accused of scandalous behavior with young women.”

After having once again ignored the French, the prosecution continued, but seven weeks later the D.A. realized the truth. Cyrus Vance Jr. and his team soon discovered that their victim had continually lied to the government and others since arriving in the U.S. In order to get political asylum, the Guinean immigrant told the U.S, government that her husband had been tortured and murdered by Guinean officials and “that she had been gang-raped there,” both accounts of violence proved to be false. “To get a bigger break on her taxes,” Dowd says, “ she claimed a friend’s child as her own.” Later, the alleged victim even lied to the grand jury and called her currently incarcerated drug-dealing boyfriend about whether she stood to make a profit by continuing the endeavor. Even now, rumors are surfacing that the victim is linked to a group of money launderers.

Finally, although many in the law enforcement field believe that Dominique Strauss-Kahn did in fact rape the hotel maid, “…the case relied on her credibility, and that’s gone.” Maureen Dowd likens the case to one, “in which a prostitute is raped. It’s hard to prosecute,” she says, “and the perp can often get away with it.” Dowd ends the piece by saying, “When a habitual predator faces off against a habitual liar, the liar will most likely lose, even if it is the rare case when she is telling the truth.” Perhaps if the Americans had been willing to look past their prejudices of the French, the D.A. and his team could have been spared the embarrassment of putting a “maid who cried rape” on the stand.

alberto5618 said...

Summary: “Can’t we do this Right?” by Thomas Friedman
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/27/opinion/27friedman.html
In “Can’t we do this right,” by Thomas Friedman, he says the only thing he fears more than Republicans and Democrats refusing to agree about the debt ceiling, is “lifting the debt ceiling without a well-thought-out plan and with hasty cuts totaling trillions of dollars over a decade.” He continues by likening the situation to a small business, how could anything thrive with such drastic unplanned cuts and much like a surgeon, “if you cut without a plan, you will almost surely hit an artery or a bone that could really debilitate you.”

Friedman first asks, “What would it look like if we were approaching this problem properly?” and examines how congress dealt with problems when it had a Democratic majority. Two years ago, Congress and Obama would approach situations meticulously and carefully, hearing testimonies from experts and those who could be affected by the imminent decision. The author explains that the lawmakers would have examined a situation from a standpoint of “What world are we living in?” They would have examined such topics as “hyperconnecting of the world, the intensification of globalization and outsourcing, the challenges of energy and climate and the growing automation of the work space,” even analyzing how these trends could help America succeed in the coming years.

According to Friedman, this time-honored tradition is a formula based on five basic pillars: educating the work force, building the best infrastructure, attracting intelligent and dynamic immigrants, creating regulations, which “incentivize risk-taking while curbing recklessness,” and funding research. The author states, that only after we have finished this step may we begin to think about raising taxes and cutting spending.

However some people like Michael Mandelbaum, a foreign policy expert say that, ”we don’t just need a plan for regaining American solvency. We need a plan for maintaining American greatness and sustaining the American dream for another generation.” To achieve his goal, Mandelbaum proposes more cuts to crucial programs and further tax cuts, but also adds that too much cutting “would trigger a backlash against free-market capitalism.” The author uses Mandelbaum to point out the need for tax revenues and the need to “simultaneously shrink the entitlements programs, but still keep them viable, and generate the funds needed to strengthen all five parts of our growth formula.” Anyone who completely discounts either tax-raising or spending cuts is consequently thwarting the “American dream.”

“Alas,” he says, “that is the Tea Party,” a group the author believes is “lacking in any aspiration for American greatness.” The author likens the Tea Party to Hezbollah and begs “sane Republicans” to stand up to them, because after all, “it was not tax cuts that made America great but our unique public-private partnerships across the generations.”

In conclusion, the author says that he would support any politician as long as they comrehend the importance of “hybrid politics …one that requires cutting, taxing and investing as part of a single nation-building strategy,” and if the current political parties don’t step up, then someone new must take their place.
hi

Day-vid Murry-no said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Day-vid Murry-no said...

"THEATER REVIEW; Movie Doll Hits Broadway Without Breaking a Sweat"
by Ben Brantley
http://theater.nytimes.com/mem/theater/treview.html?res=9800e0d6103ef937a3575bc0a9659c8b63

In “Theater Review; Movie Doll Hits Broadway Without Breaking a Sweat”, Ben Brantley praises “the movie star” Melanie Griffith for her performance of Roxie Hart in Broadway’s “Chicago” in 2003, saying that it was “possibly the most convincing” portrayal of Roxie he’s ever seen. Although the cast exudes “illicit pleasure” while performing, Melanie Griffith brought a “still center” to the stage, which fascinated Brantley to the point of admiration.
Brantley begins by describing the qualities of Melanie Griffith’s portrayal of Roxie Hart, saying that she “sweetly hijack[ed] the show from an army of hard-working Broadway veterans without even breaking a sweat”. He also goes on to say that what Griffith “offers is a powerful and instinctive empathy for the part” by bringing a “seductive aura of corrupted innocence” to Roxie Hart. However, while praising her quality performance, he does go on to say how she didn’t give “the most electric or crowd-stirring interpretation ever”, but only because she is inevitably compared to “her predecessors” including Gwen Verdon as the original Roxie Hart, Ann Reinking, the original Roxie Hart in the same revival run of “Chicago” as Melanie Griffith, and Renée Zellweger, who played Roxie Hart in the movie version of “Chicago”.
Brantley continues by saying how the show “has been retailored to Ms. Griffith’s particular talents” when it comes to the choreography, mentioning the fact that “Griffith doesn’t try to emulate the pros”. Brantley states how she contributes “a few hip wiggles and sashays” choreographically, bringing up the idea that Roxie Hart doesn’t have to tire herself by dancing “when the perks of being famous include hiring people to do the tiring stuff for [her]”. Also, Brantley brings up how Griffith’s voice in unlike previous Roxies; she “doesn’t belt or riff” but, instead, she “lets her voice wander wistfully, beguilingly, and conversationally and…perfectly clearly”.
In conclusion, Brantley feels that even with the modifications, the talented predecessors, and for this being Griffith’s debut to Broadway, she brought an extra special feeling and uniqueness to Roxie Hart with her “come-and-get-me composure” and confidence. Brantley ends by saying how Griffith was stunning and “simply and completely Roxie” for bringing such a “heartfelt presence” to the stage.

DutinC-O5651 said...

Summary: The Sleepover Question

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24schalet.html?_r=1#
In the article “The Sleepover Question,” Amy Schalet conducts a study on parents’ views of teenage sex in America, and those of parents in the Netherlands to understand the cultural differences between the two, and observes if one of the moral standpoint leads to a healthier family life than the other. She concludes that the relationship that Dutch families hold, where the parents and the teenager openly discuss a teenager’s sexual life, would ease the “transition into adulthood,” that would otherwise be a painful endeavor for both the parents and child.
Firstly, in Schalet’s study, Schalet presents the lives of two teenagers, Kimberly and Natalie, American and Dutch respectively. Kimberly, at 16 years old, never received sex education from her family, and would never dare tell her parents that she has been having sex with her boyfriend, since that would “shatter [her parents] image of her as their little princess.” On the other hand, Natalie, who is also 16, couldn’t help but tell her parents about the “good news.” At first her father was moderately disappointed, but eventually Natalie and her father made peace, bringing a sense of comfort to Natalie and the household. Schalet believes that Kimberly’s life exemplifies the American teenagers’ life of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” relationship with their parents. Schalet states that Kimberly enjoyed being with her boyfriend, but had to suffer the discomfort of keeping her true feelings a secret life from her parents. In contrast, Schalet explains how Natalie enjoys her boyfriend, but that her parents’ approval is also a “source of pleasure.”
Additionally, Schalet’s observations of the parents’ attitude towards teenage sex show how the two traditions lead to different outcomes in the household. Schalet observed that in America, parents view teenagers as “helpless victims beset by raging hormones,” and that the parents’ job is to protect their children from urge they cannot control. On the other hand, Dutch parents view that teenagers also experience love, and that they are capable of “reasonably assessing their own readiness for sex.” Schalet states that the parents’ attitude toward sex leads to the actions that teenagers like Kimberly and Natalie take. She says that one leads to a closed view of sex, where the teenager feels as if have to separate their explicit sexual lives from their family life, whereas the other leads to an open relationship, where the teenager eagerly tries to “win approval” from their parents.
Schalet finally concludes that an open relationship between the parents and the teenager about sex can lead to many positive consequences. Schalet says that an open relationship would “[open] the way for responsible sex education.” She also states that parents would rather have their child bring company over, than to have them sneak out of the house. Finally Schalet states that an open relationship allows teenagers to embrace love as it should be; “[waking] up next to the person you love.”

hevya_radish said...

Summary: "Winehouse, Breivik and Deadly Ideals" by Andy Martin


In Winehouse, Breivik and Deadly Ideals, Andy Martin finds a common denominator between the two seemingly unrelated current events. He starts the article by commenting on the absurdity of the front-page headlines, and the disconnect between the headlines that are in such close proximity to each other, yet they contain no apparent correlation. Martin states that it is “nothing but a series of non-sequiturs… a bundle of isolated phenomena with no apparent meaning or connection.” Then he focuses in on two particular events which happened to be right next to each other on the front page: the death of Amy Winehouse and the shootings of Anders Behring Breivik.

Martin had difficulty making sense of this “oxymoron”; he believed that they fit into “two discrete moral universes.” Then he had a realization that perhaps the British singers self-destruction and the “mass murder perpetrated by a neo-fascist in Norway” share a destructive preoccupation with the ideals and archetypes of today’s society.

To aid in this theory, Martin describes certain terms used by Emile Durkheim in his work “Suicide”. Used in this book is the idea of anomie, or normlessness. He states that “society is held together and sustained by a network of norms- largely unstated rules of behavior” and that suicide goes against these unstated rules, and would be considered an anomie.

In addition to these ideas there is also something on the opposite end of the spectrum- “a pathological preoccupation with norms” which Martin calls ‘hypernormia’. Martin references Naomi Wolf’s book “The Beauty Myth” which “ascribes our obsession with certain norms of appearance to the rigors of late capitalism.” It talks about the evolutionary roots of societies fascination with beauty, stating that it started with “the shift away from asexual reproduction” and that it derives from the “imperative to distinguish male from female.”

These concepts are deeply rooted into our society, and it is why we all discriminate, it is part of how we survive. Although it is deeply rooted in all of us, taken to extremes it can be very harmful, “it can kill an individual and it can kill en masse.”

In the case of Amy Winehouse she thought of herself as unsatisfactory, separate from the norms of society, in particular with the ideals of beauty. On multiple accounts she commented on her “sub-optimal looks” and she frequently called herself ugly. She was constantly blaming herself, and eventually all of the self-destructive behavior took a toll on her body, ending with death. Martin states that “all songs are highly normative: they lay down the law about how to be” and in the case of Winehouse, her songs suggested that she thought of herself as a failure.

On the other hand, Anders Behring Breivik was a delusional self-lover who wanted European ‘purity’ and as a result went on a spree shooting. Breivik identified himself as a devout Christian who was defending his faith through his “atrocious but necessary” actions. Through analyzing these two very different current events, one can determine that there is “tension between our self-evident diversity”, both on an individual level where one feels as though they don’t fit in, and on a larger scale where one feels as though others don’t belong. In conclusion, when taken to either extreme, the prevalent “concern with or idealization of appearance” has fatal consequences.

Alexxa_R_hehehe said...

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”, Ellie Herman argues that she will never be able to be an amazing teacher under the current education circumstances in California. Although she tries as hard as she can every day, Herman states that she’ll “never be excellent” if California continues “to slash education budgets and cut teachers”.

First, Herman states that her class “has 31 students, including two with learning disabilities, one who just moved here from Mexico, one with serious behavior problems, 10 who flunked this class last year and are repeating, seven who test below grade level, three who show up halfway through class every day, and one who almost never comes.” She teaches five periods a day and all of them contain the same wide variety of students. Herman states that it’s her job to reach every student in every class and give them all a lasting education, but right now she “just can’t do it.”

Second, the author proclaims that “It's become a popular fantasy that all you need is a superstar teacher, and that he or she will be just as effective even as budget cuts force us to pack more kids into each classroom.” Herman says that when trying to address the issue of large class sizes the answer she received was that “many countries with high academic achievement” have acknowledged bigger class sizes to “pay talented teachers more and concentrate larger numbers of kids with the best teachers”, and that the most beneficial thing to do is to simply “’get children in front of an extraordinary teacher’”. Herman argues that her large class sizes are extremely frustrating and make it nearly impossible to be anything near “extraordinary”. She says that she is unable to provide individual attention to classes above 25 students (which is most of them) and that her classes are extremely difficult to keep in control. Ms. Herman also says that with over 30 students in each class she has to create a highly structured classroom full of “high-energy routines and structured group activities”. However, the author says that a whole section of her students are “alienated by this highly structured environment: the artists, the rebels, the class clowns — in other words, some of my smartest kids.”

In conclusion, Ellie Herman says that in order for students to have an incredible learning experience, they really need and “deserve to have 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.” She says that in order to help, understand , and teach all of her students she actually needs to know each of her students. The author states that teachers should bring not only “our extraordinariness but our flawed and real and ordinary humanity to this job, which involves a complex and ever-changing web of relationships with children who often need more than we can give them.” Ellie Herman declares that no matter how hard she and her fellow teachers try to be “extraordinary”, this will never happen if we continue to have huge class sizes, “slash education budgets, and cut teachers.”

Madduh_line.STef_an_I said...

Summary: “With Testing, Where Do We Go From Here?” by John Merrow
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-merrow/with-testing-where-do-we_b_902347.html

In “With Testing, Where Do We Go From Here?”, John Merrow discusses the current problem with testing and teaching, and how educators are going about the wrong way trying to solve it. He argues that rather than focusing on stopping cheating, teachers should first confront the bigger problem of how tests now define one’s “educational accomplishment”.

Merrow first talks about how “our obsession with numbers” is ruining “both teaching and learning processes”. He states that teachers no longer have the time to instruct a good writing course; instead they must teach their students how to write “short so-called essays” so that they will pass tests. He criticizes the “constructed response” style of writing, saying that instead of looking at the actual writing involved, the “machine”-like teacher would grade the assignment by “counting the supporting reasons” attached to the “declarative statement”. According to Merrow, this kind of writing will not be useful in the real world. He thinks that educators are “lying to our kids” by teaching to the test, for successful companies such as Microsoft will not hire someone who has been “trained to write that way”. However, Merrow argues that instead of “attacking bubble testing”, people need to question how to proceed with this issue.

Merrow then explains that “subverting the testing system” has not had much success in the past. He gives several examples of schools that were appearing to get a handle on testing, but turned out to be just “plain old cheating”. In one example, he claims, “the system aids and abets the deception”, where the case was that a “loophole” in Florida’s state law hid the fact that “districts” were advising their “low-performing” pupils to “drop out” and attain their GED. Seeing cheating as the issue, many people in the testing enterprise are looking to create “better defenses against cheating”. Educators such as Education Secretary Arne Duncan think that by fixing this issue, “public confidence” will be restored.

However, Merrow “respectfully disagree[s]” with this notion, stating that cheating is only “a symptom of a larger problem”. The fact that the scores of these “simple” and “cheap” tests measure one’s academic achievement is what entices all the artifice and “criminal behavior”, Merrow says. “So where do we go from here?”

In conclusion, Merrow suggests that in order to solve this problem of ineffective teaching and testing, educators need to think of solutions other than banishing testing or changing the way academic accomplishment is measured. He believes that teachers and employers should make a decision as to what they “want our youth to be”, and begin to teach in a way that “encourage[s] those behaviors”. Merrow concludes that it should not be testing that “drive[s] public education”, but “agreed-upon goals that come from the real world”.

Ah.D.Shmith5653 said...

Summary: “Debt ceiling debate reveals fundamental divide over philosophy” by Charles Krauthammer
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/07/29/3802224/debt-ceiling-debate-reveals-fundamental.html

In his article, “Debt ceiling debate reveals fundamental divide over philosophy,” Charles Krauthammer argues about how the clash of the two parties delays an outcome for the debt ceiling controversy. According to him, the problem is not that Washington is broken, however that the two visions, “social democratic vs. limited government,” are in competition. Krauthammer opposes the choices the democrats are making and believes that they shouldn’t be interfering with what conservatives bring forth.

For instance, Krauthammer doesn’t grasp why the Boehner plan for debt reduction wasn’t passed. Although the Heritage Foundation’s advocacy arm calls it “regrettably insufficient,” Krauthammer complains that that’s the only outcome when they only control half a branch. Plus, the plan’s “achievements are significant,” being all cuts and no taxes. He continues about how it’s clean and understandable and how the Republican House should’ve passed it weeks ago. Although being somewhat biased about the Boehner plan, Krauthammer claims that there is no other alternative.

Moreover, Krauthammer antagonizes Obama’s “plan” on the nation’s economic future. He states that Obama’s two “massive” problems are jobs and debt, due to massive spending. He also claims that Obama is desperate to share ownership of his failure: leaving the U.S. with “high and chronic unemployment” and “a staggering debt burden.” Therefore, Krauthammer believes that November 2012 constitutes one chance for conservatives to “restructure government” and change the “ideological course of the country.”

Overall, Krauthammer believes that if the Senate isn’t so stubborn, the debt ceiling crisis can be solved proficiently. If the two parties agree on something, a decision, providing to both parties’ needs, can be made shortly. After all the debates since Obama’s inauguration, from health care reform to financial regulation, Krauthammer sides with the Republicans in solving the debt ceiling dispute.

JuniperWouldBuryTheEvidence5671 said...

JuniperWouldBuryTheEvidence5671

http://www.slate.com/id/2165033/entry/2165035

Christopher Hitchens attacks religious faith in “Religion Poisons Everything” from his book, “God Is Not Great,” stating that, while atheism relies on reason and science, religion cannot logically defend its assertions about the creation of man and the cosmos. Hitchens contends that religion “wholly misrepresents” the stories that should explain origins. With this established, he argues that religion promotes the conflicting concepts “servility and solipism.” Thirdly, according to Hitchens, religion is “both the result and the cause” of sexual repression, and finally, Hitchens maintains that all religion is ultimately based on “wish-thinking.”

Hitchens begins his case by arguing that atheism is altogether better. Atheists, according to Hitchens, respect the pursuit of ideas for ideas' sake, whereas non-atheists search for knowledge that will win them a spot in heaven. Atheists' “principles are not faith” and their “belief is not a belief.” Atheists' lives are not ruled by a belief in heaven or hell.

Hitchens concedes, however, that even athiests are not “immune to the lure of wonder and mystery and awe.” For the non-religious individual, literature instead of scripture feeds the “soul.”
In explaning morals, Hitchens reasons that atheist individuals often act in an ethical manner superior to those of faith. According to Christopher Hitchens, religion has caused innumerable people not just to “conduct themselves no better than others,” but to behave “in ways that would make a brothel keeper or an ethnic cleanser raise and eyebrow.”

Later, Hitchens begins to directly attack the idea of God, stating that it takes far too much effort for individuals to continue affirming the “incredible.” They must conceal all their vanity in order to “pretend” that they are the “personal object[s] of a divine plan.” They can't respect themselves if they are to believe that they live with so much sin. Clearly, Hitchens asserts, God did not make man in His own image; it was the other way around.

Hitchens concludes by accepting the inevitable continuation of religions for as long as humans continue to evolve. He "only" asks the impossible: that religious people “leave [him] alone.” Hitchens knows, however, that this is impossible and consequently “condemns” himself and his readers to the criticism of people of faith.

OddryRowsisYoung5678 said...

Summary: “A Credible Left”
Sennett, Richard. "A Credible Left." The Nation 1 August 2011: 24-26. Print.

In Richard Sennett’s “A Credible Left,” he stresses that liberals must redirect political energy towards activism. According to Sennett, left progressive politicians need to approach politics differently. By gaining credibility and concentrating on society’s problems rather than electoral politics, Richard thinks progressives can renew the “left society.”

In order to be a dependable “voice for reform,” Sennett emphasizes that progressive politicians should act credibly. Specifically, Richard defines credibility as politicians acting more receptively than assertively. Basically, acquiring credibility depends “on the behavior” and “skill” “of officials.” This includes knowing “when to keep silent and how to listen well” and engage with others. Furthermore, once left politicians can respect and recognize opponents despite political differences, the “ardent left” can regain credibility. As “an old lefty,” Sennett worries about a future consisting of “different shades of capitalism.” Nevertheless, “a credible left” can actually gain “trust in the public sphere” in order to start mending the “corrupted state” “colonized” by “the right.

Along with credibility, Richard accentuates that liberal politicians must focus on civil society more than national electoral politics. For example, politicians shouldn’t be impeded by “the mess that is ordinary life,” but rather inspired to make changes “in the name of ordinary people.” However, he isn’t encouraging “touchy-feely good will” politics either. Conversely, he aspires to extinct politics hyped by “the discourse of problem solving,” but energized by reality to make political change. Ideally, instead of seeing politicians who are “adept at arguing and explaining themselves,” they “connect to other people.” To take action of worth, the two divisions of the left, a political left and social left, must come together and set “achievable, if modest, goals” to restore a “left civil society” that actually trusts its politicians!

Essentially, Richard Sennett deems a “changed mindset” imperative to “recover” progressive politics. Namely, he advises liberals that actions speak louder than words: if politicians improve their behavior, regain integrity and operate at a grassroots level, the heart of America’s left can start beating again. In conclusion, Richard claims that setting aside electoral politics will rehabilitate liberal activism.

AmiMatSUSHIta5603 said...

Summary: "Science and Religion:God didn't make man; man made gods" by J. Anderson Thomson and Clare Aukofer

In the highly controversial article “Science and Religion: God didn’t make man; man made gods,” J. Anderson Thomson and Clare Aukofer argue that enough scientific evidence exists to show that God was created by man. They claim that the “building blocks of religion” are actually composed of the adaptive needs for things such as authority figures and imagination. Thomson and Aukofer also claim that traits of morality and reciprocity, said to be “imposed by gods or religion on savage humans,” are merely basic, human “adaptations.”
Thomson and Aukofer begin by denying that God is anything more than a figment of human imagination caused by the need for an authority figure. They argue that because of the powerful human ability to conjure up imaginary situations and even people, it is “easy” to say that many humans may come up with a god that they may pray to. They also state that psychiatrists John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth show evidence of how humans are born with “a powerful need for attachment.” Thomson and Aukofer claim that this need for attachment is reinforced by protectors, beginning with mothers, which would eventually expand into a need for any kind of authority, i.e. a religious leader or God.
Furthermore, they argue that reciprocity and morality are traits that religion “hi-jack.” According to Thomson and Aukofer, the extreme faith in religions and, just as well, the rivalries between religions originates from the human need for reciprocity and not the gods or representatives of the religions. They also claim that Yale psychology professor Paul Bloom says "it is often beneficial for humans to work together … which means it would have been adaptive to evaluate the niceness and nastiness of other individuals" and has also done research proving that even infants can tell that being helpful rather than a hindrance is “right.” Thomson and Aukofer interpret that this show of social “evaluat[ion]” as a “moral response,” therefore proving that religion is not needed to possess morals.
In conclusion, Thomson and Aukofer agree that the more scientific knowledge there is on human psychology, the more people can understand the origins of religions. They believe that the human race can be “better” if there is an overall agreement that religion is man-made and can use “reason” in life.

Serah.Oberhoatsmeall5621 said...

Summary: “Voter ID laws are good protection against fraud” by Kris Kobach
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/voter-id-laws-are-good-protection-against-fraud/2011/07/08/gIQAGnURBI_story.html

In “Voter ID laws are good protection against fraud,” Kansas secretary of state Kris Kobach refutes an editorial criticizing (<possibly reword) Kansas’ Secure and Fair Elections Act. This act “requires that voters present photo identification” when voting in person, that “absentee voters present full driver’s license numbers and have their signatures verified,” and that “voters present proof of citizenship” when registering. Throughout the article, Koback explains his views of the Act’s importance as well as necessity by countering the editorial’s notions against it.
In the beginning, Kobach starts by refuting the editorial’s view that photo ID fraud is a “miniscule” problem. To prove the editorial’s view wrong, Koback attacks the articles theory(S) that there haven’t even been any convictions of voter fraud in Kansas. However, according to Kobach, “of the approximately 30 cases that were fully investigated, seven resulted in prosecutions [and] all seven yielded convictions.”

As his second point, Kris Kobach reviews the editorial’s figures cited from New York University’s Brennan Center. The figures “compare[d] the number of reported cases of voter fraud in a state to the number of votes cast in the state.” Although the percentages were lowl, Kobach claims that the Brennan Center’s statistics are “flawed.” “First,” he points out, “most forms of voter fraud are extremely difficult to detect.” He explains that the public only sees the “tip of the iceberg” because “the number of instances is likely to be much higher than the number of reported cases.” Kobach argues that instead of asking “what percentage of votes was cast illegally, the more “relevant” question would be: “Does the number of illegal votes exceed the margin of victory [?]” Usually, Kobach says, “the answer is yes” As an example, Kobach explains, during the Mo. state representative race between J.J. Rizzo and Will Royster, “Rizzo received about 50 illegal votes cast by citizens of Somalia.” Kobach then notes that the election, after all of the votes were cast, resulted in “Rizzo [winning] by one vote.”

Kobach also includes criticism towards the editorial’s “questionable” 2006 survey from the Brennan Center claiming “that 11 percent of the U.S. population lacks a photo ID” and that therefore “hundreds of thousands of citizens lack photo IDs.” Yet, “according to the 2010 Census,” Kobach notes, “there are more photo IDs in circulation than there are eligible voters in Kansas;” therefore, “it is simply incorrect to assert that there are tens of thousands of voters in Kansas, or any state, without photo identification.

Kobach concludes the article by stating that “you can’t cash a check, board a plane or drive without [a photo ID]” because they “have become ubiquitous and unavoidable;” thus, “require[ing] picture identification” apparently “protect[s] our most important privilege of citizenship.” Finally, in his closing sentences, Kobach states that “more states are moving [towards] requiring photo IDs” because states realize that “voter fraud is a real problem.”

nicoeorozco5625 said...

In "Finish the 710 Freeway," James E. Moore II argues that now is the time for state agency’s to push forward to complete the 710 freeway. The 710 currently ends in Alhambra on Valley Blvd. and the proposed pathway would take it through South Pasadena and Pasadena to the intersection of the 210 and 134 freeways. He states that the project has "solidly documented" benefits, would be built with "proven technology" and should not require future generations of taxpayers to fund it. Moore II believes that finishing the 710 should be a priority in order to make the transportation infrastructure more efficient.
Moore states that building the 4.5 miles of freeway would have undeniable benefits. He cites studies by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and Southern California Association of Government that show the project clearing up more traffic than any other currently proposed local freeway projects. 218,000 vehicles daily are diverted because of the "gap" many into the surface streets surrounding the end of the freeway in Alhambra, the rest onto other freeways. The author sees the traffic caused by the gap as a daily "self-inflicted" "Carmageddon".
Polls conducted regarding the project show no city or district where a "majority opposes" the completion of the freeway; Moore believes that those who are opposed to the construction have been "silenced" by the possibility of building the route underground. Even though tunneling is an expensive alternative, the author argues that it would likely be necessary to quell the opposition and would have the added benefit of keeping "mature neighborhoods" intact. Tunelling of the sort needed to complete the freeway has been used in European cities to great effect. An example the author offers is the Paris A86 tunnel which is "almost directly under the Palace of Versailles".
Finally, Moore addresses the issue of funding for the undoubtedly expensive project. The MTA gave the go-ahead for the funding of a comprehensive $59-million environmental study that is estimated to take three to five years. The author believes the study could be easily completed in "three years or less" if the MTA stayed "staffed-up and focused". Moore is certain that private sources could be found to pay for much of the construction and operation costs and explains that the "public portion" of the project would be funded by taxes collected by the voter-approved Measure R.
The 710 freeway gap causes "Carmageddon"-like traffic problems daily and yet few people seem eager to complete it. Although almost no one is opposed to it, it has taken a very long time for even a study of the route to be confirmed. Moore tells us that now is the time for the gap to be closed, using "proven" tunneling techniques funded by a "public-private partnership."

nicoeorozco5625 said...

"Finish the 710 Freeway" James E. Moore II http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-moore-710-20110729,0,7416007,print.story

Final.Serah.Oberhoatsmeall5621 said...

Summary: “Voter ID laws are good protection against fraud” by Kris Kobach
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/voter-id-laws-are-good-protection-against-fraud/2011/07/08/gIQAGnURBI_story.html

In “Voter ID laws are good protection against fraud,” Kansas secretary of state Kris Kobach refutes an editorial criticizing Kansas’ Secure and Fair Elections Act. This act “requires that voters present photo identification” when voting in person, that “absentee voters present full driver’s license numbers and have their signatures verified,” and that “voters present proof of citizenship” when registering. Throughout the article, Koback explains his views of the Act’s importance as well as necessity by countering the editorial’s notions against it.

In the beginning of the article, Kobach starts by refuting the editorial’s view that photo ID fraud is a “miniscule” problem. To prove the editorial’s view wrong, Koback attacks the articles theory that there haven’t even been any convictions of voter fraud in Kansas. However, according to Kobach, “of the approximately 30 cases that were fully investigated, seven resulted in prosecutions [and] all seven yielded convictions.”

As his second point, Kris Kobach reviews the editorial’s figures cited from New York University’s Brennan Center. The figures “compare[d] the number of reported cases of voter fraud in a state to the number of votes cast in the state.” Although the percentages were low, Kobach claims that the Brennan Center’s statistics are “flawed.” “First,” he points out, “most forms of voter fraud are extremely difficult to detect.” He explains that the public only sees the “tip of the iceberg” because “the number of instances is likely to be much higher than the number of reported cases.” Kobach argues that instead of asking “what percentage of votes was cast illegally, the more “relevant” question would be: “Does the number of illegal votes exceed the margin of victory [?]” Usually, Kobach says, “the answer is yes.” As an example, Kobach states that during the Mo. state representative race between J.J. Rizzo and Will Royster, “Rizzo received about 50 illegal votes cast by citizens of Somalia.” Kobach then notes that the election, in fact, resulted in “Rizzo [winning] by one vote.”

Kobach also includes criticism towards the editorial’s “questionable” 2006 survey from the Brennan Center claiming “that 11 percent of the U.S. population lacks a photo ID” and that therefore “hundreds of thousands of citizens lack photo IDs.” Yet, “according to the 2010 Census,” Kobach notes, “there are more photo IDs in circulation than there are eligible voters in Kansas;” therefore, “it is simply incorrect to assert that there are tens of thousands of voters in Kansas, or any state, without photo identification.

Kobach concludes the article by stating that “you can’t cash a check, board a plane or drive without [a photo ID]” because they “have become ubiquitous and unavoidable;” thus, “require[ing] picture identification” apparently “protect[s] our most important privilege of citizenship.” Finally, in his closing sentences, Kobach explains that “more states are moving [towards] requiring photo IDs” because these states realize that “voter fraud is a real problem.”

BriOhNoTheRancour 5632 said...

Summary: "Why America has to get off coal" by Michael Brune and Michael Bloomberg

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/29/bloomberg.brune.coal/index.html?hpt=op_t1

In “Why America has to get off coal” by Michael Brune and Michael Bloomberg fight for the elimination of the economic, health and political burden of coal-fired plants. Brune and Bloomberg disclosed shocking statistics of the encumbrance keeping the existing coal-fired plants. The “soot emanating from coal-fired plants” is the “biggest source of mercury emissions in America,” and “kills an estimated 13,000 Americans prematurely”. Despite this heavy burden, they both believe it is realistic to omit existing coal plants completely with help from local people and organizations.
First, Brune and Bloomberg disprove the “most persistent” myth that “we can’t afford to move away from coal powered electricity”. They refute the statement, saying, “We can’t afford not to quit coal”. According to Brune and Bloomberg, The pollution from the coal plants is a “burden on our health care system” with a whopping “$100 million in health costs”. The pollution triggers asthma attacks, a “disease that affects 2 million Americans”. Also, the mercury emitted as waste is “potentially…harm[ful] to pregnant women and children.”
The good news is that it is not impossible to “eliminate coal’s contribution to the electric sector by 2030”. “We can curb our addiction to coal,” being that it only supplies “45% of the electricity in the United States”. In fact, natural gas, “when extracted responsibly,” “can be cheaper than coal”. This is because “it’s cheaper to do cleaner energy” than to “build a coal fired plant that doesn’t emit pollution.” Brune and Bloomberg also disprove the myth that coal is necessary to keep the economy running. The wind industry for example, “provides more jobs than the coal mining industry does for miners” and “earns 13% more than the median U.S. wage”. Small states in the US are doing the right thing and making a switch to cleaner energy. For example, “Iowa already gets 15% of its energy from wind” and “Colorado will soon get 30% of its electricity from clean energy”. According to Bloomberg and Brune, the rest of the country must follow this example.
“Myth[s] perpetrated by the pseudo-scientists, lobbyists and legal teams” of clean energy slowing the economy “block progress”. America is not “trapped by Congressional inaction” because “local people can make a difference,” even “far away from K Street and partisan gridlock”. The Sierra Club, America’s largest and most influential environmental organization, created a campaign called Beyond Coal. This campaign “mobilized communities and allies,” to speak up and oppose when new coal plants were proposed. When the government told them there was no alternative, “responsible companies [helped the community]… develop cost-effective clean energy plans” resulting in the hault of 153 proposals for new coal plants. Beyond Coal is currently working with communities to close existing coal-fired power plants starting with America’s “dirtiest and oldest plants”. With this support and public drive to end the harm coal-fired electricity imposes on the United States, Beyond Coal plans to reduce the “coal generated mercury pollution by 90% and sulfur dioxide poisoning by 50% -- all by 2020”.
In conclusion, ending the country’s reliance on coal-fired energy will “clean our air, improve our health, and expand our economy”. America cannot wait for the government to take action on this, it’s “a fight that we can win at the local level”. This issue cannot be solved in one instance,but it has to happen “town by town, power plant by power plant”, not waiting for Washington to give the public the word to take action. Just because Washington is at a standstill “doesn't mean that America has to be”. Proactiveness and community assistance will make this a reality.

TinoCYang5675 said...

[PART 1]

http://reyesra.edublogs.org/files/2010/06/HarpersMagazine-2004-12-0080319.pdf

Voice crackling with an almost cynical clarity and a hard, piercing vision, Thomas de Zengotita asserts in his article, “Attack of the Superzeroes: Why Washington, Einstein, and Madonna can’t compete with you”, that today’s youth have no ‘real heroes’ because people look for the amplified performances that Hollywood offers. But more significantly, he claims that people constantly search for an idealized reflection of themselves through media. Through caustic commentary on common social phenomena, Zengotita strives to jolt readers awake to the crazed self-centeredness infecting our generation.

Zengotita begins by discussing possible causes of the dearth of heroes in today’s culture: first, he attributes the absence of “real” heroes to the modern unpopularity of devotion. He then acknowledges that some suggest the scarcity to a lack of crises, but Zengotita cites 9/11 as a national crisis that yielded only New York Mayor Rudy Guliani, who wasn’t “big enough” to be a hero. By contrast, Zengotita says, during the Iraq invasion, the word “hero” was diluted when every G.I. was dubbed one. In the author’s opinion, however, it is that “real heroes must [perform] if they are to exist in public culture”, rather than “heroes have been eclipsed by stars”. For instance, “think of the way special-effects movies” made “coverage of real space adventures seem boring” says Zengotita. And whereas the lack of coverage of old heroes like Napoleon, Newton, and Goethe allowed for legendary reputations, Zengotita argues that today’s heroes are so thoroughly represented that “there is no room to supply them with mythic life”.

Further, Zengotita continues, the “mediated person”, borne of a performance culture, has no need for heroes. Instead, he argues, people are turning their emotional responses to events into self-conscious shows. For example, Zengotita was in an acting class when JFK died; the class first hopped on the news as an improv, and dramatically simulated sadness--until the confirmed news shocked them into shame. A similar instance, says Zengotita, was how mourners of Princess Diana “so obviously exhibit[ed] their grief” while being very aware of the surrounding news cameras. Triumph is also thus publicly displayed: the author points to athletes’ theatrical victory dances after a big win, and to spectators’ exaggerated cheering.

TinoCYang5675 said...

[PART 2]

Zengotita next accuses the television of making people used to being constantly addressed, by allowing them to constantly witness and link themselves with events. With its “endless reams of [sensational] coverage”, TV supplied people with a “God’s-eye view of everything”; each layman then became a participant and eyewitness to events, regardless of whether they physically were. Moreover, Zengotita asserts that being perpetually flattered thus as a participant or a god has conditioned many to become self-absorbed. To clarify, the author contrasts this perpetual intake with being alone in untouched nature, in which “none of it is for you” and “nothing was designed to affect you.

Great performers may later be perceived as the real heroes of our age, speculates Zengotita; and they aren’t our stars anymore, but ourselves. Specifically, celebrities seem to be at the top, but actually they desperately vie for our approval. With media such as tabloids and public critiques of red-carpet fashion, Zengotita illustrates, the everyman is elevated as “The Judge” of each celebrity. However, we are still left unsatisfied because we still didn’t receive acknowledgment we inherently covet, says Zengotita. Technology then became a portal for anybody to make themselves ‘somebody’. Thus resulted “the celebration of people refusing to be spectators”, but “mini-celebrities” in various media such as chat rooms, game sites, blogs, intimate “life journals”, marathons, raves, and talk-radio call-in shows.

Reality shows are definitely evidence of this phenomenon, but the author highlights the memoir-like fiction genre as the chief manifestation of this; he ascribes its popularity to the “identification” and “self-recognition” people respond with. For instance, Zengotita analyzes fans of trauma stories: aside from the morbid curiosity and the “disdainful high-brow analysis”, people project their own feelings of “self loathing” and “self-doubt” onto these stories so that they too become the “victim” who later makes the heroic self-acceptance. In short, Zengotita reiterates, people want their own lives to be “made public, acknowledged, recognized,--and yes, celebrated” –-just for being themselves.

TinoCYang5675 said...

*Revision to 4th paragraph's TS:

Zengotita next blames the television for fostering a generation gorged with constant navel-gazing.

pat.need. said...

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.”

pat.need. said...

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.”

pat.need said...

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.”

pat0need0 said...

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.”

pat.need. said...

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.”

pat.need. said...

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.”

pat.need. said...

Summary 2: "The Archbishop vs. The Governor: Gay Sera Sera" by Maureen Dowd

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.”

pat.need. said...

Summary 2: "Archbishop vs. the Governor: Gay Sera, Sera" by Maureen Dowd

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.”

pat.need. said...

Summary 2: "The Archbishop vs. the Governor: Gay Sera, Sera" by Maureen Dowd

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.”

pat.need. said...

Summary 2: "The Archbishop vs. the Governor: Gay Sera, Sera" by Maureen Dowd

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.”

pat.need. said...

Summary 2: "Why TSA pat-downs and body scans are unconstitutional" by Jeffrey Rosen

URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/24/AR2010112404510_2.html

In his article “Why the TSA pat-down and body scans are unconstitutional”, Jeffrey Rosen argues against the security measures people must go through when attempting to board an airplane. He does this by making a legal argument, and showing how the pat-down procedures and electronic scanner machines used at U.S. airports are unconstitutional according to what the National Circuit courts have ruled in the past on this subject.
Rosen begins by summarizing the court decisions that he believes are relevant to the case of TSA pat-downs and body scans. Although according to Rosen, the Supreme Court hasn’t taken on the case of airport screening procedures, the 9th and 3rd U.S. Circuit courts have done so, ruling in 2007 that “a particular airport security screening search is constitutionally reasonable provided that it 'is no more extensive nor intensive than necessary, in the light of current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or explosives.’” Rosen thinks even more highly of a 2006 opinion – published by now-Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito - which stated that in order to be legal screening procedures must be both “minimally invasive” AND “effective.”
Having established a legal precedent against which to evaluate the current standards in place at U.S. airports, Rosen moves on to show why he believes these standards don’t live up to the criteria established by the Circuit courts. Especially as compared to Dutch scanning machines, which return un-savable “blob like human images” of scanned passenger instead of the “virtually naked image[s]” generated in U.S. airports, American machines certainly cannot be considered “ ‘minimally invasive’ as long as images can be stored and recorded.” Moreover, Rosen argues that, “tests have shown that [American] machines are not good at detecting low-density explosives.” This means that in Rosen’s view the airport security machines used by the TSA are neither minimally invasive nor effective and are therefore unconstitutional. He makes a similar argument about pat-down procedures, stating that they can only legally be used when a “particular traveler” is already suspected of “wrongdoing.” They cannot constitutionally be used for primary screening.
Overall, Rosen looks at recent judicial interpretation of the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment against “unreasonable search and seizure” and determines that the combination of pat-down searches and electronic backscatter scanning machines currently used at U.S. airport security checkpoints is unconstitutional. When considered against a standard of minimal intrusiveness and maximum effectiveness, these procedures fail on both counts “they reveal a great deal of innocent but embarrassing information and are remarkably ineffective at revealing low-density contraband.”

Anonymous said...

p

Anonymous said...

pat.need.

for some reason my post wont go through unless i post as anonymous

ive tried posting under a name several times and even on different computers

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.”

Anonymous said...

p

pat.need said...

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 against 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 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 its 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 to assert that that it is 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 "acknowledte that homosexuality may be hardwired by God in nature 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 amendement to a "comunique" 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 so.

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 hercolumn "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."

pat.need said...

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 against 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 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 its 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 to assert that that it is 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 "acknowledte that homosexuality may be hardwired by God in nature when the church itself has become "a haven for gay priests" who act against their congregations because no sexual outlets are available to them.

pat.need said...

CONTINUED

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 amendement to a "comunique" 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 so.

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 hercolumn "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."

Anonymous said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/26/opinion/26nocera.html?ref=education
Finn West
In The Limits Of School Reform, Joe Nocera urges school reformists to accept their limited power and influence in children’s education. Specifically, reforming students is limited to only school hours, which will only attempt to solve half, if not less, of the children’s large and continually fluctuating lives. Nocera encourages the reformists to exercise “humility” by admitting that school reform is not the only battle being fought to drive education among youth: there is also an eternal battle at some homes.
For example Sequin Townsend begins attending M.S. 223, a middle school in South Bronx, after his mother fled Brooklyn and moved the family into a homeless shelter. Later, Saquan slowly blossoms at school into what his teacher, Emily Dodd, describes as “Brilliant.” She helps his education flourish and develop by “sending him texts in the morning, encouraging him to come to school,” and by giving him special help. However, after his mother moves the family back to Brooklyn facing him with an hour and a half commute to school every morning, Saquan sees his “grades and attendance slip.” Consequently, Dodd, caring for the boy’s potential success, offers to tutor him, which he refuses. For these reason, sometime later Saquan decides that the commute isn’t worth the education, an ideal sparked by his mother, who seemed “indifferent to[ward] his schooling.” Giving these points, Saquan chose to give up on his educational endeavors based on his home life. Further, despite the opposite push of encouragement and outstanding teaching during the school day, his home life had more of an effect on him and his decision making.
On the other hand, after seeing many similar examples of what happened to Saquan, reform leader Joel Klein still refutes that home life can be out weighed by reformed schooling. Further more, he goes on to modestly say that “[He and his colleges] do not know how much education can overcome poverty…[but] to let [them] off the hook prematurely seems…to play into the other side” because it would make the movement seem less powerful and affective.
In conclusion, Nocera advises “a dose of humility about what” reforming schools “can accomplish “and what it can’t.” Further, seeing that giving unrealistic goals will only result in little success and further failure, Nocera suggests that setting a realistic goals within the realm of possibility will push poverty education further than working for the impossible. However, Klein admits he secret lack of power, but feels that admitting it will fuel and be ammo for the enemy, who in Nocera’s opinion are social scientist critics and teacher’s unions.

ZakSeligbergstein5650 said...

"We Will Get Better" by Jullian Baggini.

Jullian Baggini, Naïve but inquisitive, shows his interest of transhumanistic ideas, specifically concepts on the future of human nature, in “We Will Get Better.” He references “dystopian” works and ideas which create a common closed-minded view on futurist ideas such as natural cousins, from “Gattaca,” multiple castes of humans each bred for different different tasks, from “Brave New World,” the evolution of different human species coming from the working and middle classes, from “The Time Machine,” and reality being a totally virtual experience like in “The Matrix." Baggini believes that as humans learn more about how to change and enhance our bodies, people will no longer find satisfaction in understanding human nature, but in “prescribing it.” In his paper, Baggini tries to enlighten transhumanistism by discussing it in both modern and future contexts.

Baggini begins with a discourse about the technologies that currently exist that alter how we think and feel, a common basis for transhumanist ideas. Firstly, he writes about the common drugs for for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; that they “change [people] as much at they cure them.” Both students and business executives use drugs like these so that they can perform at higher levels on test and during extensive periods of intense work. Secondly, he mentions the “female-Viagra” which changes the “pattern of desire” in a woman. With psychoactive, prescription, and genetic enhancements drugs, people already can alter the “fabric of the self” much more than our ancestors could.

Getting beyond modern concepts that with roots transhumanist ideas, Baggini discusses the “milder” transhumanist idea of speeding up the brain. He compares the idea to “putting a faster processor in a computer” to improve performance. Transhumanists believe that a byproduct of processing information faster, that the perception of time would slow down. Baggini juxtaposes this to the perception of a child; that every stimulus is new, so that every minute contains more information, making time “drag by.” In theory, a mind working ten-times as fast, absorbing ten-times the amount of information, would feel “time passing ten-times slower.” In a nonchalant way, Baggini concludes his ideas on turbo-charged brain activity with no mention of any side effects.

Jullian Baggini ends his paper by discussing “The Matrix”-esq concept of uploading a “self” into a computer where it can live in a virtual reality. According to Susan Greenfield, a neuroscientist Baggini interviews, “the self is simply the personalization of the brain;” every individual contains unique connections “forged in [the] cerebrum.” She compares the brain to a computer running software, and “in principle, [people] could run on a silicon computer as well.” According to Baggini, the only problem would be losing your data, but he quickly reaffirms its safety with a reminder to “back yourself up.”

In essence, Jullian Baggini tries to put an informative light on transhumanistic ideas. Throughout his paper, he discusses different transhumanist ideas ranging from ones that exist, like mind altering drugs, to futurist concepts like speeding up the brain and even “uploading” it to a server. To paraphrase the brilliant Karl Marx, “ the point now is how, if at all, to change the self.”

ZakSeligbergstein5650 said...

Addendum to paper above:

"We Will Get Better"
http://moreintelligentlife.com/content/ideas/julian-baggini/we-will-get-better

OHlivEEahSTREIsand5655 said...

"Executions Should Be Televised" by Zachary B. Shemtob and David Lat

In “Executions Should Be Televised”, Zachary B. Shemtob and David Lat argue that executions in the United States should be made public. Our democracy demands “a citizenry as informed as possible”, but that is not possible “as long as executions remain behind closed doors”. Shemtob and Lat contend that even though videotaping executions is highly controversial, it would give the public an opportunity to debate “whether methods of lethal injection” violate the constitution and cause “unnecessary suffering”.

Shemtob and Lat point out that executions are usually open only to the media and a few witnesses. The writers believe this is unfair because it means the public’s only information comes “from the vague contours” that are “provided in the morning paper”. They argue that a “functioning democracy” needs accountability and the only way to achieve that is to give people the right to “see what is being done in their name and with their tax dollars”.

To bolster their argument, Shemtob and Lat site the example of Andrew Grant DeYoung, who was executed by lethal injection in July. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution wrote that DeYoung “showed no violent signs in death” when he was executed. DeYoung’s lawyers won the right to videotape the execution, but chose not to release it to the public. Shemtob and Lat believe it should have been released because “there is a dramatic difference between reading or hearing of such an event and observing it through image and sound. Shemtob and Lat point out that lethal injection is at the center of a national debate over cruel and unusual punishment. With so little information, they say, the public can’t engage in the type of debate needed in a democracy.

Shemtob and Lat acknowledge society’s legitimate concerns over making executions public. They point out that some people worry that broadcasting executions could have a “numbing effect,” and that overtime people would start to equate human executions with “putting pets to sleep.” Even if televised executions lead to “public indifference,” Shemtob and Lat believe it’s a worthwhile trade off, because the broadcasts would “get attention and stir debate”.

There are also concerns that showing executions would give the public an unbalanced picture, making the “condemned” look “helpless and sympathetic,” because the victims are not being included in the process. Shemtob and Lat state that this is beside the point. They argue that these prisoners are on death row because a judge and jury found their terrible crimes punishable with death.

Making executions public could lead people in two different directions. Some may find it find it barbaric and unacceptable, while for others it may reinforce the need for capital punishment. Shemtob and Lat explain that, personally, they are conflicted “about the death penalty and how it has been administered.” They conclude that the only way to have a true opinion on the subject is to view “society’s ultimate punishment”.

AudlyYimmyKimchi5347 said...

The College Myth: Why College Isn’t Worth the Cost for Many Careers Today
by Lisa Nielsen
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-nielsen/the-college-myth-why-coll_b_827633.html

In “The College Myth: Why College Isn’t Worth the Cost for Many Careers Today,” Lisa Nielson challenges the traditional dogma that college education will guarantee “a lifetime of success and opportunity” with a shocking reality: “a college education is not what it’s cracked up to be.” Indeed, “the four-year college degree has come to cost too much and prove too little” - not just financially, but also as a waste of 17 years of misguidance and disillusionment. In presenting this so-called “College Hoax,” Nielson asserts that the problem with school is its goal: college.

Primarily, Neilson states that viewing college as the final destination of education can be a dangerous mindset, causing people to disregard students’ “interests, talents, and passions.” She goes on to suggest that if people ever did otherwise, perhaps they may “find [that] college isn’t necessary to pursue [one’s] dreams.” Supporting her position, Nielson demands why today’s generation of college graduates, who get “huge pile[s] of debt attached to their diploma[s],…have no real guarantee of a job,” when “revered diplomats like…Winston Churchill” and “multimillionaires…Mark Zuckerberg [and] Coco Chanel” never bothered with college. If these seem like “extreme and unusual cases,” Nielson remarks, “the fact is they are not.” Providing examples of her own parents and friends, Nielson proves that people just might be better off allowing “passion, not college, lead them to success.”

To put it simply, the goal of school should not be “college readiness” but rather, life readiness. Society tends to underestimate the maturity of grade-school students and their ability to pursue passions. As a result, “we…force kids to learn algebra, trigonometry, and geometry,” refusing to “give students ownership over their learning.” Neilson thinks it unacceptable that kids spend 12 busy, stressful years in limited curriculum, often without realizing their interests and potentials until after getting that useless college degree. In response, Neilson offers that “when we allow students to explore their passions in school,…we may learn that some will choose a future that involves college,” and others will not. Regardless, Neilson concludes with the ultimate nagging thought that “the reality today is that the kid who selects a path without college may very well be better off from a financial and happiness standpoint, than the kid who went to the ‘good’ college.”

Maddy_Ocam-poh_5622 said...

“The Paradox of Multiple Goldilocks Zones or ‘Did the Universe Know We Were Coming?” by Michio Kaku
http://bigthink.com/ideas/38513

In “The Paradox of Multiple Goldilocks Zones or ‘Did the Universe Know We Were Coming?” physicist Michio Kaku deliberates in wonder over our “fine-tuned” universe in that it has several “Goldilocks zones” where conditions seem “just right” for life. Kaku suggests this was “a matter of luck,” and discusses that our universe may be special among possibly infinite universes.

Kaku sets the stage by introducing many “just right” instances in our universe, including the perfect placement of Earth from the sun, and begins to puzzle over their “boggl[ing]” abundance. Kaku specifically recounted as a second grader discovering from his teacher that if Earth was “too far” or “too close” from the sun then “oceans would freeze” or “boil;” he realized Earth was in the “Goldilocks” “region of space.” He continues noting that several of our universe’s “fundamental parameters” fall into this “just right” category such as nature’s own nuclear and gravitational forces: if these forces were any weaker or stronger, the author asserts, then nature would be in disorder. If you “count” these instances, Kaku evokes, there are “so many” that cosmologists are “face[d]” to consider whether it was an “accident” or somehow destined.

Kaku offers the interpretation that our universe’s life compatibility was “luck[y].” The author makes the point that just as astronomers have found “over 500 (dead) solar systems,” perhaps there exists “billions of parallel universes” that fail to support life because their natural forces such as gravity are “too strong” or “too weak.” It was “a matter of luck,” the physicist figures, that we are in a “universe compatible with life” where all forces seem “just right.”

To backdrop this proposition, the author describes related interpretations of our universe’s significance. Kaku distinctly describes the Copernican and Anthropic principle: the Copernican principle states there “isn’t anything special” about our existence and we are “puny and insignificant” while the Anthropic principle states we are a “special” part of “only a handful of universes” with “intelligent life.” The physicist speculates that the Anthropic principle “distinguishes” our special universe among the “infinite number” of them that string theory predicts exist.

Drawing from these theories and current philosophies, Kaku concludes suggesting that the combination of the string theory and a “version of” the Anthropic principle may be the “ultimate resolution” of the universe debate: the theory “predicts” “infinite…universes” while the principle “determine[s] our[s].” However, he notes that he currently works on putting string theory in its “final form.”

Overall, Kaku claims our universe, among possibly “an infinite number,” had all its elements “just right” so that it was able to support “intelligent life” that can “contemplate this” phenomenon.

mariHELL rossKEE said...

Summary: “Looking for Someone” by Nick Paumgarten
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/07/04/110704fa_fact_paumgarten


Nick Paumgarten believes that the desire to find companionship based on mutual affection and shared enthusiasm is the most important goal for people today; yet the very idea is a new one. In the article “Looking for Someone”, Paumgarten dissects the world’s newest problem and the newest form of tackling it: Searching for a partner on the internet.

In the past, sorting humans into pairs served the purpose of repopulating the Earth and participating in the progress of society. It wasn’t until the twentieth century that romantic love became the basis for a marriage. Not long after romance was acknowledged, The Pill, women in the workforce, widespread deferment of marriage, and rising divorce rates lead people to “trial and error” in their relationships, therefore creating the world of casual sex, dating and promiscuity. Although in modern day society, there is much more sexual freedom, most individuals (specifically women) feel as though they yearn for a life lasting relationship, marriage, and children. Paumgarten says that internet dating provides people with the option of meeting someone for a one-night stand or potential spouses.

For many people conducting most of their life online; banking, shopping and socializing, dating is “no less natural way to hook up than the church social or the night-club-bathroom line.” There is a subtle difference though. Meeting randomly at a coffee shop or volunteer organization, however cute it may be, does not assure that the visual attraction will bud into something more. Online dating services approach the “primeval mystery of human attraction with a systematic and almost Promethean hand”. Sites such as ScientificMatch make an effort to pair people according to their DNA, claiming that approach leads to a “higher rate of female orgasms”. Sites such as Match.com have you fill out a series of surveys and deduct from your answers what they refer to as “revealed preference”. Revealed Preference is an essential element in Match’s algorithmic process. After taking your stated and revealed preferences, the software connects you with people who have similar “dissonances between the two”.

At the birth of internet dating in the late 90’s, it was widely assumed that the runts and rejects of society's single’s pool inhabited the online dating scene. Now, one in six marriages every year is a result from an online dating site. Online dating sites attract people from early twenties to Divorce’s in their late fifties to the elderly looking for companionship. It is a tempting way to think of online dating as a “sophisticated way to address the ancient and fundamental problem of sorting humans into pairs”.

ostreisand5655 said...

In “Executions Should Be Televised”, Zachary B. Shemtob and David Lat argue that executions in the United States should be made public. Our democracy demands “a citizenry as informed as possible”, but that is not possible “as long as executions remain behind closed doors”. Shemtob and Lat contend that even though videotaping executions is highly controversial, it would give the public an opportunity to debate “whether methods of lethal injection” violate the constitution and cause “unnecessary suffering”.

Shemtob and Lat point out that executions are usually open only to the media and a few witnesses. The writers believe this is unfair because it means the public’s only information comes “from the vague contours” that are “provided in the morning paper”. They argue that a “functioning democracy” needs accountability and the only way to achieve that is to give people the right to “see what is being done in their name and with their tax dollars”.

To bolster their argument, Shemtob and Lat site the example of Andrew Grant DeYoung, who was executed by lethal injection in July. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution wrote that DeYoung “showed no violent signs in death” when he was executed. DeYoung’s lawyers won the right to videotape the execution, but chose not to release it to the public. Shemtob and Lat believe it should have been released because “there is a dramatic difference between reading or hearing of such an event and observing it through image and sound. Shemtob and Lat point out that lethal injection is at the center of a national debate over cruel and unusual punishment. With so little information, they say, the public can’t engage in the type of debate needed in a democracy.

Shemtob and Lat acknowledge society’s legitimate concerns over making executions public. They point out that some people worry that broadcasting executions could have a “numbing effect,” and that overtime people would start to equate human executions with “putting pets to sleep.” Even if televised executions lead to “public indifference,” Shemtob and Lat believe it’s a worthwhile trade off, because the broadcasts would “get attention and stir debate”.

There are also concerns that showing executions would give the public an unbalanced picture, making the “condemned” look “helpless and sympathetic,” because the victims are not being included in the process. Shemtob and Lat state that this is beside the point. They argue that these prisoners are on death row because a judge and jury found their terrible crimes punishable with death.

Making executions public could lead people in two different directions. Some may find it find it barbaric and unacceptable, while for others it may reinforce the need for capital punishment. Shemtob and Lat explain that, personally, they are conflicted “about the death penalty and how it has been administered.” They conclude that the only way to have a true opinion on the subject is to view “society’s ultimate punishment”.