1. Having followed the reading guidelines on our last post, select an appropriate article: it must be at least 15 paragraphs long, argue a specific opinion, and address some topic of interest or importance.
2. Create a document, on which you will write your summary. Make sure that in your first sentence, include the actual full web address so that others can refer to your piece.
Your completed summary should be 1/2-3/4 of a single-spaced page in #11 font.
3. Post your assignment by pasting it into the comment thread of this post. (For your second assignment, you'll comment to a second post I'll put up, and so on for the third, separate assignment, by the due dates listed.)
4.FOR REASONS OF INTERNET SECURITY, DO NOT USE YOUR ACTUAL NAME; DO, HOWEVER, POST BY CREATING A USERNAME THAT WILL BE CLEAR TO THE CLASS, AND INCLUDE YOUR STUDENT ID SO THAT YOUR IDENTITY WILL BE CLEAR TO ME.
(So, for example, I might be englishteacher1018, or penglish1018 or
doktorpoleman1018, you get the idea. In either case, do not use your actual, correctly-spelled name, but do not be anonymous.)
5. So how do we write it?
First check out these models, completed by 9th-graders this year:
Notice these elements of these successful examples:
- The opening paragraph of each summary introduces author and work, provides context to define the subject, and indicates the author's thesis and purpose.
- Body paragraphs correspond to specific main ideas in the original essay
- Each body paragraph begins with a topic sentence that generalizes the main ideas of what would have been several main ideas in the original essay.
- The last paragraph concludes the summary by indicating the author's original conclusions.
- Throughout, the summary maintains its point of view as an observer of its source, using "authorial attributions" to indicate that the writer is summarizing the views of the other author, not adding their own reflections on the subject.
Finally, review this list of common mistakes to avoid
Be especially conscious of capturing the writer's purpose and "point": don't just give a string of details, but do clarify what your essay is arguing and how it's arguing it.
Be especially conscious of capturing the writer's purpose and "point": don't just give a string of details, but do clarify what your essay is arguing and how it's arguing it.
63 comments:
Summary: "The Big Bang Never Happened" by Eric Lerner
JuniperWouldBuryTheEvidence5671
In the introduction of "The Big Bang Never Happened," Eric Lerner refutes not only the widely-accepted concept that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe, but also the world’s established notion of fixed time. According to Lerner, the mainstream scientific claim that “within a decade everything will be explained” is an impossible promise. In fact, Lerner believes that this implausible prediction will never come true because the universe “continuously evolve[s]” and changes.
In order to invalidate the Big Bang theory, Lerner must first explain its claims. He defines the “Big Bang theory of cosmology” as the idea that “the universe originated in a single cataclysmic explosion some ten or twenty billion years ago.” Because of countless observations and recent research, Lerner is able to confidently disagree with this outdated belief and substitute his own conclusion: the universe has existed and will exist “for an infinite time--without
beginning or end.”
According to Lerner, it is not difficult to prove the Big Bang theory wrong. It can be disproved by simple observation. The easiest way to show fault with the accepted cosmology of the Big Bang is by looking inside the theory itself. Specifically, the Big Bang theory declares that there should be “no object in the universe older than twenty billion years and larger than 150 million light-years across” because the rate at which the universe expands is said to be constant and linear. Lerner observes, however, that this statement is in complete contradiction with facts. There are indeed objects in the known universe that break the above rule.
Big Bang proponents argue that there must have been some cataclysmic explosion in order to explain the “helium abundance, the microwave background, and the Hubble expansion” that exists today. Lerner contradicts this justification, arguing that plasma cosmology can account for each of these claims. Firstly, “massive stars generated in the formation of galaxies” produce and distribute immense amounts of helium after exploding to form supernovas. Then, interstellar dust absorbs the energy these starts emit, which, in turn, emits the microwave background. Finally, according to Lerner, although the “Big Bang” might have produced an expansion, “an expansion does not require a Big Bang.” There could be any number of other explanations for this last claim. For example, billions of years ago a combination of matter and antimatter might have caused “an enormous release of energy” which drove the plasma apart “over hundreds of millions of years.” Lerner claims that this explosion would create the same Hubble expansion effect.
Lerner suggests that the Big Bang is only one misconception about the universe people buy nowadays. Perhaps the most common error is that, generally, people view the universe as finite in time. This is not the case at all, according to Lerner. Time is not fixed, as many people believe, but is constantly progressing and expanding. “If the Big Bang never occurred,” says Lerner, “the universe will be infinite in duration.”
Lerner concludes his introduction by asserting once more that countless facts indeed prove the Big Bang theory false. He reasons that “there is no final answer in science,” such as the Big Bang, because there is no finality to time or the universe (3-6).
Summary: "Think Inside the Box" by Steven Woloshin and Lisa M. Schwartz
JayTeeFreedman321
In “Think Inside the Box”, Steven Woloshin and Lisa M. Schwartz urge the government to require that pharmaceutical drugs have a “fact box” containing truthful information on how well a drug will work. Woloshin and Schwartz state that although people may believe they are “bombarded with pharmaceutical ads listing what seems like every conceivable side effect”, they are not receiving the plain and simple truths about their drugs in a language that they can understand. According to Woloshin and Schwartz, a drug fact box would provide all the necessary information in a “standardized, easy-to-read format”.
Woloshin and Schwartz first argue that drug fact boxes will replace the missing gaps of information on how well a drug works. Woloshin and Schwartz make the point that consumers can’t learn the end effects of the drug through a trial and error process. The authors provide an example by saying “You cannot feel how a cholesterol drug reduces the future chance of a heart attack”-and although it is possible there is data for that cholesterol drug, it may prove very hard to find. Woloshin and Schwartz continue their argument with the fact that even doctors don’t have all the information and that the “Food and Drug Administration…often fails to provide critical data about the benefit of drugs”.
Finally, Woloshin and Schwartz use Abilify, an antipsychotic drug, as an example for how the fact box would work. The fact box would contain information on how well Abilify worked, in terms of other drugs, and its main side effects, and therefore drug users could readily and easily choose the drug they need with more information and peace of mind. In the case of Abilify, for example, the box would have information such as “It caused 21 percent of patients in the trials to develop akathisia, or severe restlessness, and 4 percent to gain a substantial amount of weight. And, as with all anti-depressants, there is a small increase in suicidal thoughts and behavior among many young adults”. Through fact boxes, prescription drug labels could be simple to read, while still providing all the necessary information.
Overall, drug fact boxes, as explained by Woloshin and Schwartz, are harmless and helpful tools and a necessity for all prescription pharmaceuticals. Woloshin and Schwartz state that congress “declared that it needed at least three more years to come to a decision”, but, nevertheless, fact boxes are a likely possibility for the future of pharmaceuticals. Drugs in America have become a part of everyday life and the government “must enable [food boxes] for prescription drugs”.
Summary: “Waiting (and Waiting) in the Wings” by Dick Cavett
In “Waiting (and Waiting) in the Wings”, Cavett suggests several reasons why ‘The Book of Mormon’ continued to shock the every day Broadway audiences with the “remarkable work” that the “actor-proof cast” did. In fact, Cavett calls ‘The Book of Mormon’ a “virtual encyclopedia” because of how wonderfully the production carries all of Broadways favorite past times. Cavett proposes that the only thing wrong with this show is that “you might laugh your head off.”
Cavett goes above and beyond to praise the whole entire cast of ‘The Book of Mormon’. He starts off by talking about how excited he is to see the “great team the two lead actors make” but is extremely disappointed when he finds out he will be watching an understudy. To his surprise, the understand “instantly won the hearts” of the audience; Cavett even goes as far to say that Jared Gertner, the understudy, “will not be a stand-by forever.”
Cavett really deciphers what makes ‘The Book of Mormon’ so successful unlike other Broadway shows. This show is known for all of the extremely offensive jokes about race, religion, sexual orientation, and everything that could possible be joked about; but “The Book of Mormon” does it in a way that is okay. For example, all of the obscenities that are joked about, Cavett says it is all done in “mysterious alchemy whereby truths and profundities somehow come through all the frivolity and escapism.”
In conclusion, this show centers on making fun of religion which always is a very touchy subject for many people but Cavett points out the extremely ironic message that “The Book of Mormon” may convey to any viewer. He says that “you leave feeling...uplifted and full of something alarmingly akin to faith.” Cavett says that most of the themes of the show; such as “traditional faiths, religious hypocrisy, and corrupt religiosity” have something all in common that is very “ingenious[ly] tricky” but in the end it makes you feel very spiritual.
Summary: “Andres Escobar, Pablo, And Impossible Questions: ‘The Two
Escobars' Reviewed” by Andrew Sharp
http://www.sbnation.com/2010/6/23/1531846/andres-escobar-pablo-escobar-two-escobars-review
In “Andres Escobar, Pablo, And Impossible Questions: ‘The Two Escobars’ Reviewed,” Andrew Sharp analyzes ESPN’s “30 for 30” film series as undoubtedly successful, and especially acclaims ESPN’s “The Two Escobars,” a film about Colombian society, soccer, and drug trafficking in the 1980s and ‘90s. Sharp especially admires that the film “[played] off” typical clichés of the Colombian soccer story and, after reflecting on the documentary’s dismal subject matter, concludes that directors Jeff and Michael Zimbalist “pulled it off.”
Sharp begins his evaluation stating that ESPN’s “30 for 30” documentary film series is “fantastic” and unlikely to “fail” because it is interesting and distinct. Specifically, Sharp offers that with subjects like the University of Miami football in the ‘80s, the Allen Iverson trial in Hampton, and the Len Bias saga, the films were “impossible” to “not be entertaining.” Although, Sharp admits, the movies “haven’t all fulfilled their potential,” he notes people still watch them because there is “nothing like it on the market.” He also applauds ESPN and the filmmakers for “just telling” these stories that “should have been told a long time ago.”
“The Two Escobars” film, the author then discusses, “like its 30 for 30 counterparts,” excels because the topic is interesting, and in addition never “[gets] lost” in clichés the film’s key aspects evoke. For example, “any filmmaker,” Sharp argues, could have portrayed drug trafficker Pablo Escobar as an “out-of-his-mind cartoon villain,” or could have gone to the other extreme of “[drawing] a much softer picture” of him. Likewise, he adds, the film could have indulged in the “tragic hero” Andres Escobar, Colombia’s notorious “unadulterated anarchy”, or the “[romanticized]” theme of “sport as a unifier,” yet Sharp noticed that never happened in the movie. In fact, he continues, it “[played] off” each topic without devoting the film to any one, even though that “still would have been very good” Sharp mentions. In the end, the author admiringly describes that the film was “artistically astounding” and “emotionally affecting.”
Finally, Sharp reflects that the “epic tragedy” murder of Andres Escobar for his own goal in the 1994 World Cup resulted from society’s “chaos” that emerged after Pablo Escobar’s death and “reign.” Having said this, he at last concludes that directors Jeff and Michael Zimbalist, with “breathtaking audacity,” took this sports history tragedy to “a completely different level," making it a look into the consequences “morality’s inevitable gray area” can have on society.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2013876460_pitts09.html
Leonard Pitts Jr. / Syndicated columnist
Censoring 'Huckleberry Finn' is an act of literary graffiti
In “Censoring Huckleberry Finn is an act of literary graffiti”, Leonard Pitts attacks NewSouth Books for replacing the two hundred and nineteen “so-called N-words,” in the novel “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” by Mark Twain, with the less potent word slave, “sugarcoat[ing]” and “censoring” one of America’s most commemorated authors. Although Pitts realizes the intentions of NewSouth are solely to make the controversial novel “politically correct,” he insists their fix is “profoundly wrong.” Pitts argues the importance of letting a work of art stand on its own, for there must be a reason for every brushstroke, note, or even word chosen. Furthermore, according to Pitts, changing the “reprehensible” word does not give the past the proper depiction it deserves. Pitts additionally disputes the “wretched” way reading comprehension is taught in our modern world, shielding children from the “nuances of a masterpiece.”
A work of art represents conscious choices made by the artist to reveal their feelings, according to Pitts if every single “N-word” in “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” is replaced then the audience will not receive the proper imagery of the novel Mark Twain wanted to portray. Pitts notes that it is acceptable for audiences to “reject” or dislike works of art but argues that it is absurd to try to change them. Moreover, Pitts points out that changing the infamous “N-word” would result in a book with an entirely new and less influential story.
Pitts states that Twain’s use of the “reprehensible” word is an “accurate” portrayal of that time, changing the word will only “sugarcoat” the past, making it appear completely different as to how it really was. Similarly, Pitts suggests that the past is “nonnegotiable,” glancing at previous historical events would only prove the accuracy of Twain’s notorious choice of words. In addition, Pitts renders the past “immutable,” changing the past, in this case, would change the present allowing for audiences to feel the need to make every novel ever written “politically correct” causing for an audience brain washed by “political” purity, leaving no room for opinions since there will be nothing to contradict it.
Lastly Pitts addresses his concerns with the educational system, feeling as though re-wording a “timeless” book would leave students without an urge to ask “hard” questions: Why did Twain use the “N-word?” What must our country have been like since ‘that word’ was so omnipresent? With the revision however, Pitts indicates that students would no longer need to be curious. In Pitts point-of-view “tweet[ing],” “PlayStation[ing],” and “Fox News’[ing]” have taken so much of our country’s “intellectual capacity away” that changing one word throughout an entire novel can result in classrooms with censored and ignorant students, “protected” from the tinges of a “masterpiece.”
Pitts thus advises leaving the legendary “Huck Finn” unedited. He argues that the change will alter a work of art, transform the past, and add to the decreasing “intellectual capacity” of our nation. Ultimately Leonard Pitts concludes that while “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” has always been an enjoyable “subversive story” and “timeless tale,” America, becoming an “intellectual backwater,” has deemed it crucial to “censor” its “most celebrated author.”Pitts only comfort is that somewhere, “Mark Twain is laughing his head off.”
In “A Better Way To Teach Math”, David Bornstein describes a way to “eliminate” the bell curve completely. He points out how unheard of it is for someone to share that they are illiterate, but it’s “not unusual” to hear an adult say they never understood math. Bornstein states that this is because people think there is a “math gene” and either someone “inherit[s] it or [they] don’t.” In every math class Bornstein has taken, there have been “slow kids, average kids and whiz kids.” Granted that math does come easier to some, Bornstein thinks there is a way to “improve the methods to teach math in schools” in order to “develop proficiency” if we don’t “underestimate” student’s and teacher’s abilities.
Bornstein explains the concept of “Jump Math”, a nonprofit organization, founded by John Mighton. Mighton believes that every kid can learn math at a “very high level.” Unfortunately it does not always happen because kids get ideas put in their heads very early on that they are not in a “smart group” at school. Instead of different student abilities getting evened out in schools, they are currently “multiplied” when it comes to topics that students already excel at. Mighton’s method tells about the brain and “how learning happens.” The process of Jump Math is a confidence builder, as explained by Bornstein. As kids grow more confidence, they grow excited and start to request harder challenges. Kids “love success more than anything.” Bornstein confirms, “Confidence begets attention” which “begets rich learning.”
Bornstein brings up “math teachers” who “often fail” to understand that a student needs “extensive practice” to gain mastery in any subject. Jump Math uses the concept of breaking down problems into minute steps and to “assess each student’s understanding at each micro-level” before moving on to teach new material. This method makes teachers realize what they have been teaching as one step might actually break down into “seven micro steps.” Teachers then find out “specific points” the student needs help at. Bornstein agrees that if teaching were always approached this way, then “every student would experience success.” When “painstaking guidance” is provided, then students make “their own discoveries.”
It is recorded that within five months of this system, researchers have seen substantial differences in students. A teacher by the name of Mary Jane Moreau, who teaches at Mabin School in Toronto, told Bornstein she stopped grading at a curve when kids started getting “between 90 and 100 percent” on tests, and then within months all students received between “95 and 100 percent.” After using this method, Moreau could also see if standardized test scores had increased. Bornstein was informed that there was major jump in scores from one year to another. Bell curves of students “shifted to the right and narrowed.” The difference between “slow” kids and “whiz” kids was almost indistinguishable.
In conclusion, Bornstein considers Jump Math a “modest outfit” that is a way to make kids feel “smart in everything.” He sees math as a tool that not only is needed to stay out of financial problems in the future, but as a skill that promotes social “justice.” Jump calls for a very “healthy kind of competition” and can set students on completely different paths.
Summary: “Blurring Reality’s Edge in Fluid China” by Dennis Lim
In “Blurring Reality’s Edge in Fluid China”, New York Times’ Dennis Lim extols Chinese filmmaker Jia Zhang-ke’s newest, “Still Life”. The 2006 Venice International Film Festival winner is hailed by Lim as “a meticulous record of a vanishing world”: through the lens of a drama, “Still Life”, as with much of the director’s other works, aims to capture and criticize capitalist China’s rapid modernization. Jia numbers among an emerging “sixth generation” of Chinese filmmakers whose “grungily realistic portrayals of contemporary China” have brought Chinese cinema to the global stage. Though any of the independent directors must bow to their government’s “fierce” standards, Jia is singled out in Lim’s review as having kept true to his vision.
Lim commences with a précis of “Still Life”, describing it as the story of a man and a woman searching for their long-lost spouses, set in the crumbling riverside town of Fengjie. The film documents Fengjie as it was demolished in preparation for flooding by the Three Gorges Dam hydroelectric project. According to Lim, “Still Life” visually “borders on the surreal” as “the protagonists wander through rubble-strewn wastelands” and “entire buildings crumble on camera”. Lim also admires cinematographer Yu Lik-wai’s slow panning shots of the wreckage that “evoke the horizontal expanse of Chinese scroll paintings”, a contrast between serene traditional Chinese landscapes and Jia’s alarm at “such quick destruction of a 2,000-year old town”.
“Still Life”, called “an act of commemoration and of stoic protest” by Lim, continues 37-year old Jia’s predominating mission in his works: to “expose social and spiritual disarray beneath what has been called the Chinese economic miracle” in “an increasingly materialist society”. To illustrate, Lim goes on to discuss Jia’s 2004 film “The World”, which criticizes how “any sense of connectedness” from consumerist, technology-infused lifestyles “is illusory, sharply contrasted with an inner loneliness”. In tackling such ambitious subject matter, however, Lim applauds Jia’s work for “never seem[ing] dry or academic” by showing “how large, abstract forces (like modernization and globalization) bear down on individual lives”. For instance, Jia’s 2000 “Platform” “traces the street-level affects” of the 1980s’ “open-door policy” by “following the members of a provincial performance troupe from propaganda skits to break-dancing demonstrations”.
Despite the attention vocal filmmakers like Jia have received internationally, many directors struggle at home to get past the Chinese government bureau’s standards and to compete with Chinese mainstream blockbusters. Specifically, China’s punitive government film bureau demands that “scripts… be vetted ahead of time” and enforces “years-long bans” on “blacklisted directors”. As a result, “many of Jia’s peers have had to compromise on the path of legitimacy”, but Beijing-based film consultant Shelly Kracier commends Jia for having “made the transition with credibility intact”. Additionally, Lim explains that the fact that “Still Life” was released “untouched” is remarkable since the film is “openly critical of official policies and even alludes to the corruption that plagued the Three Gorges project”. Lim goes on to detail that in defiance of what Jia “deems [to be] the bloated commercialization afflicting Chinese cinema”, the director “chose to open “Still Life’ on the same day as Zhang Yimou’s gaudy period blockbuster, ‘The Curse of the Golden Flower’”.
Lim finishes by quoting Kracier on Jia’s special niche in Chinese film: “[Jia’s] work continues to be essentially uncompromising, but he has created a space in the public realm for it to exist”. On the other hand, Kracier says that another “hurdle [for Jia to] surmount” is finding a paying audience. Lim himself voices admiration and respect for Jia’s work, acclaiming it as “remarkable for its formal ambition, ethnographic richness and moral weight”.
Summary: "Television's Curse Was Its Blessing" by Virginia Heffernan
MonalisaGuti5549
In “Television’s Curse Was Its Blessing,” Virginia Heffernan believes that Newton N. Minow, former Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, revolutionized TV programs and the Internet through his statement, “Television is a vast wasteland,” in his speech to the National Association of Broadcasters given fifty years ago. According to Heffernan, these “mighty words” is what dared broadcasters to unleash the “forces of art, creativity, and imagination” on TV.
Heffernan begins her evaluation by defining television shows as “public health hazards, like cigarettes and junk food.” However, as Heffernan further explains, Minow’s curse on TV pushed the media to get out from under the stigma on the television enterprise. She maintains that TV broadcasters felt challenged and within the decade “60 Minutes,” “Sesame Street” and the whole of PBS appeared. She then notes that others “reveled in their wastelander status” by pushing the limits with shows like “Star Trek” and “Saturday Night Live” which are “masterpieces of speculation and satire.”
Heffernan then suggests that Minow should also be credited for reforming “digital culture.” His curse of “vast wasteland” was deepened by Internet critics with statements like “screen culture…is not just barren; it’s toxic.” Consequently, since the 90s, media makers have created digital masterworks like Google, YouTube, and Facebook which obtain inconceivable amounts of information.
Overall, Heffernan insists that the curse, “Television is a vast wasteland,” has served us well so far. She concludes that electronic media are now capital among “America’s crowning cultural glories” thanks to Newton N. Minow’s comment said fifty years ago.
http://www.salon.com/news/wikileaks/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/07/07/bradley_manning_american_hero
In “Why Bradley Manning is an American Hero” Chase Madar argues for the case of Bradley Manning, an Army private awaiting a court martial, accused of violating the Espionage Act of 1917 by releasing Iraq War logs, Afghan War logs, and Sate Department cables to WikiLeaks. Madar believes that Manning should be given a Presidential Medal of Freedom instead the jail cell he is in at Fort Leavenworth because of the events that resulted from this information being shown to the public.
Madar first points out how Manning gave the “foreign policy elite the public supervision it so badly need[ed]”. With the WikiLeaks documents, the public finally got a sense of what happened afterwards in Iraq and Afghanistan, they found out how the American government pressured people to agree with the wars, and their questionable treatment of prisoners. Madar brings up that perhaps if someone like Manning had released the relevant government documents before the invasion of Iraq, then the subsequent catastrophe might have been avoided.
Additionally, the information that Manning gave to WikiLeaks sparked much of the democratic revolution in the Middle East, “accomplishing what Operation Iraqi Freedom never could”. The leaked State department cables revealed the horrifying corruption of the ruling Ben Ali dynasty, triggering the protests and uprisings in Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, Syria, and Yemen. Manning also helped uncover “the pathological over-classification of America’s public documents.” If more whistleblowers helped expose the faults in the government, then problems could be caught sooner.
In conclusion, Bradley Manning, at a great personal cost, showed the public what they needed to see, played a catalytic role in the democratic revolutions in the Middle East, and pointed out many of the glaring errors with America’s foreign policy and its obsession with extreme secrecy. Therefore, in his quest to uphold an “American tradition of transparency in statecraft” and therefore he should be revered as a hero instead of a criminal.
Summary: Games Judges Don’t Play
Camran-Covel5697
http://news.yahoo.com/games-judges-dont-play-070000552.html
In “Games Judges Don’t Play,” L. Brent Bozell argues that the Supreme Court’s decision, to allow children to be able to “purchase ‘mature’ video games” without the consent of a parent or guardian is wrong and “twisted.” Bozell believes that the “political elites,” who are celebrating this decision as a victory for the “first amendment” and for “free speech,” are failing to uphold their “social responsibility” to shelter the nation’s youth from violent, sexual, and graphic content that is “mature” in nature. Additionally, Bozell criticizes the “sick CEO[s]” for allowing video games, that feature “dismember[ment], decapita[tion], disembowel[ment],” and torture, to get into the hands of children.
Bozell goes on to argue that although “freedom of speech” means that all Americans have the right to create and produce inappropriate material, they do not have the right to sell that material to “grade schoolers” without the consent of an adult. Specifically, Bozell states that since children are not allowed to purchase a magazine featuring “nude wo[men],” then minors should not be allowed to have unrestricted access to video games that allow them to “actively, but virtually” perform such brutal acts as torturing and killing helpless women. Additionally, because an “R” rated movie “requires” adult supervision, then an “M” rated game should demand “parent approval” as well.
Finally, Bozell states that “Freedom of speech,” as it is “originally understood,” does not extend to minors, meaning that children do not have the right to access forms of artistic expression without going through their “parents or guardians.” He expands by saying that the founding fathers, when drafting the bill of rights, were not enforcing that “parents shouldn’t have authority” in raising their own children. Bozell adds that even though video games do not turn teens into “vicious assassin[s],” the “parent-discretion principal” must be enforced in court to retain the first Amendment’s original meaning.
In conclusion, Bozell reiterates that allowing children to access inappropriate video games without the approval of a parent or guardian, because of some “lofty First Amendment principal,” is “absurd.” He believes that free speech is just a “convenient argument” for the video game developers, and that “sales and profits” are all that really matter to them. Ultimately, Bozell believes that if more pressure was put on the “entertainment merchants” to produce content that was “decen[t],” then court cases, such as this one, would cease to exist.
"Does It Still Matter?" by Richard Stengel
Time Magazine
In “Does it Still Matter?,” Richard Stengel questions whether the Framers of The Constitution would feel that modern events violate it. Stengel writes that the Framers did not know about “airplanes, Collateralized debt obligations, and the internal combustion engine,” leaving his impression that the Constitution would have been written differently if the Founding Fathers knew about Modern ideas and inventions. While looking into the constitutionality of events like the Libyan Conflict, the raising of the Debt Ceiling, Immigration and how congress takes care of these issues, Stengel hints at his opinion that the Constitution needs revision to accommodate to modern times.
Stengel criticizes the confusion involving the constitutionality of how Obama and Congress handled the Libyan Conflict. For example, Stengel explains that while “Congress [has the] power to declare war”(Article 1, Section 8), the president can still move troops and order them to fight for “3 months” as long as it “doesn’t involve sustained fighting or involve U.S. Ground Troops” according to the War Power Resolution amendment. According to Richard Stengel, because of this constitutional disconnect that allowed Obama to send troops to fight for an indefinite amount of time even though Congress did not declare war, the constitution inevitably “needs a makeover,” before “anything else happens.”
From the seriousness of starting a war without declaration, Stengel changes the mood by mocking the absurdity of the “Debt Ceiling’s” constitutionality. Quoting the 14th Amendment, Section 4, “The Validity of the public public debt of the United States shall not be questioned,” and Article 1, Section 8, “Congress shall have power to borrow money on the credit of the United States,” Stengel clarifies that while Congress borrows money, it creates a “binding obligation to that debt.” The ludicrous comes from that while the public debt exceeds the GDP, Congress can still borrow without questioning the constitutionality of it, even though we “might look like Greece” soon enough. But if “Congress decides to default on its debt,” the President can take “extraordinary measures” to avoid it, including selling the US’s Assets, furloughing workers, and theoretically “leas[ing] Yellowstone Park,” and it would still be constitutional.
In Stengel’s last passage, he questions the ethics as well as the constitutionality of changing the Constitution’s immigration rules, while coming to the conclusion that legal immigration needs to be “easier, faster and cheaper” so that illegal immigration becomes “harder and less desirable.” Stengel, puzzled by the hypocrisy of a majority of US citizens, criticizes the thought that a country, forged through immigration, would make it almost constitutionally impossible to for someone born outside the US to gain citizenship.
Throughout “Does it Still Matter?,” Stengel leads to his conclusion that the Constitution needs constant revision and that now would be a fantastic time because of all the “conflicts” in modern times. The Constitution, as examined by Richard Stengel, seems to need some revision so that it can work effectively in the world of today. Ultimately, thought it may seem as though changing the document that created this country is “constitutionally blasphemous”, the Founding Fathers, in Stengel’s mind, would have encouraged it because the idea of a positive change led to the United States creation.
Summary: "The Mother of All No-Brainers" by David Brooks
DanielBurnedtheStein5737
In “The Mother of All No-Brainers,” David Brooks suggests that the Republican Party is turning into a party of extremists that is concentrated solely on keeping taxes at a low level, rather than on the wide array of issues that are facing the country, such as “spending restraint, debt reduction,” and “entitlement reform.” Brooks argues that although it was Republicans in Congress who originally placed these issues “at the top of the national agenda” at the beginning of this year, the party has taken tax levels “and turned it into a piece of sacred fixation.” Members of the party, Brooks insists, believe that the problems facing the nation will be solved as long as they continue to idolize former President Reagan, their idol and former leader of the conservative movement.
Brooks, a conservative, begins by commending the Republican Party’s effectiveness in proposing ideas for reform, such as the spending restraint and debt reduction mentioned above, as well as their mastery of forcing negotiation, noting that “[The Republicans] have been tough and inflexible and forced the Democrats to come to them.” He maintains that the Republicans succeeded in getting the Democrats to agree not to raise tax rates, and to establish a 3-1 ratio of spending cuts and revenue increases, a remarkable concession.
However, Brooks then launches his main argument, stating that the Republicans have chosen not to “seize this opportunity.” “If the Republican Party were a normal party,” Brooks states, it would grab hold of this “deal of the century,” where Democrats are willing to “put a long term limit on the growth of government.” This would mean “trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for a few hundred billion dollars in revenue increases,” which would “[put] the country on a sound fiscal footing.” Brooks argues that this can be done without impeding economic growth.
Brooks goes on to explain this refusal, arguing that the Republican Party “has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative.” The members of the party “do not accept the logic of compromise,” under even the most agreeable circumstances, because the issue of taxes is absolutely paramount, superior to all other affairs. “If you ask [The Republicans] to raise taxes by an inch to cut government by a yard, they will say no.”Brooks concludes that the Republican’s rejection of “the mother of all no-brainers” will, in the coming weeks, define the overarching philosophy of the Republican Party, which will ultimately affect people’s attitudes towards the party.
In conclusion, Brooks maintains that if responsible Republicans do not reassert their control, independents will conclude that Republican fanaticism caused this failure to compromise and reach an effective strategy for capping the growth on government, thereby preventing the country from achieving greater economic stability. He asserts that, since the Democrats were willing to compromise and the Republicans were not, people will conclude that the Republicans are inadequate to govern. Brooks closes by saying, “And they will be right.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/11/opinion/11Prager.html?ref=opinion
In “How Seawater Can Power the World,” Stewart C. Prager hails nuclear fusion to be the energy source that, if and when it becomes commercialized, will “transform the world’s energy supply," boasting that it will generate “safe and clean" power indefinitely as long as the oceans remain replete. Though the author admits that this emerging interest is “one of the most difficult” scientific and engineering challenges of modern day, he urges the government to “[make nuclear fusion] a reality” and even offers plausible solutions to one of the more “daunting technical challenges.”
Prager first claims that nuclear fusion is a safe and abundant energy source that can generate power for various uses and in fact, exists outside the "science fiction" realm. Specifically, the author states that the energy can “generate electricity” and “produce fuels for transportation or other uses” while producing “zero greenhouse gases.” Likewise, he reports that the hydrogen isotopes needed to make fusion “can be readily extracted from seawater.” Thus, Prager gives sound reason to assume that fusion “offers no chance of a catastrophic accident” like the recent nuclear crisis in Fukushima, Japan, and provides a virtually endless source of energy unlike the dwindling supply of natural fossil fuel at little to no harm to the environment.
Prager goes on acknowledging that scientists have not discovered a method to safely produce and confine plasma, a hot gas of around 100 million-degrees Celsius vital to fusion production. Although maintaining plasma is the most intimidating part to the process, Prager reports that the current understanding of plasma physics has developed to the point where scientists can easily produce, control, and manipulate “small suns” of plasma with “remarkable finesse" and suspects that in the near future, plasma will no longer be a "poorly understood area of research." Additionally, the author affirms that scientists have found two legitimate solutions to tackle the plasma problem: the first approach is through magnetic fusion and the second by heating frozen pellets of fusion fuel with lasers.
Despite the fact that the United States already contributes to ITER, a worldwide experiment to create powerful and continuous streams of fusion energy conducted by several cooperating nations, Prager feels that the government still lacks the enthusiastic “political and economic will" that other nations have to develop domestic fusion reactors. As others are "[implementing]" new technology and modern facilities in efforts to gradually establish fusion as their primary energy security, Prager believes the government must invest equal efforts and monetary value to do the same. The author further argues that even if designing the first working fusion reactor will cost roughly $30 billion and two decades time, the sum equals to no more than about one week of the nation's current domestic energy consumption or 2% of the annual power expenditure of $1.5 trillion.
In conclusion, while applauding the government’s part in the ITER, Prager encourages the government “to commit to the full program” and eventually develop a reactor that will produce electricity for the entire American power grid. Prager ends on a note that fusion has the potential to help with “all the emerging challenges of this still-new century” which includes “energy independence, national economic competitiveness, environmental responsibility, and reduction of conflict over natural resources.”
(not sure if 5559 is right...)
In “Think Inside the Box,” Steven Woloshin and Lisa M. Schwartz argue that consumers should have access to how efficiently their prescription drugs work by including a “fact box” on each medication. Although many people would believe that they are “bombarded with pharmaceutical ads listing what seems like every conceivable side effect,” Woloshin and Schwartz accuse the government of hiding other vital information about medications and how they work compared to other brands from consumers, including doctors. They explain that having this information on the box is crucial to deciding whether a certain medication is beneficial or not.
Woloshin and Schwartz begin by criticizing the government for hiding “what arguably matters most: independent, plain-English facts about the medication.” Although a section of last year’s health care reform law considered requiring “fact boxes” on every package, Woloshin and Schwartz state that, the Department of Health and Human Services is still having trouble deciding whether to pass this law or not. The authors question the delay on passing the law, considering the amount of research that proves “fact boxes” improves consumers’ abilities to choose a medication best suited for them. Even doctors may not be familiar with the disadvantages of each medication because not all data is published in medical literature. Furthermore, they argue that even professional labels seldom provide critical information and that often, the only way for doctors who "have the time" or "interest to read" to find medical information is in specialty journals.
Woloshin and Schwartz go on to claim that the only way to “come to an informed decision is by seeing the data.” They argue that because consumers are not able to find the benefits and disadvantages of each medication compared to other brands by trial-and-error, without the data on “fact boxes,” they would have no choice but to guess “usually… wrong.” The authors say, as an example, that it is impossible to “feel how a cholesterol drug reduces the future chance of a heart attack.” They also reiterate how even doctors cannot assist their patients in properly deciding because of the lack of “fact boxes.” In the end it is the doctor and patient who answer the question: “are the benefits worth the side effects?” without actually knowing the benefits.
In conclusion, the important information in “fact boxes,” as said by Woloshin and Schwartz, is a necessity for properly deciding whether or not a medication is beneficial and is being hidden from everyone. Because of how much pharmaceuticals affect the daily lives of “millions of Americans,” they hope that, like sunscreen and most foods, medicines will also give the opportunity to consumers to make informed choices about their medications.
Summary: "The Opposing Party" by Nicholas Kristof (New York Times columnist)
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/14/opinion/14kristof.html
In "The Opposing Party," Nicholas Kristof points out some of the major contradictions in recent GOP positions concerning the debt conundrum. First, he criticizes the republicans' insistence on maintaining "tax loopholes" for the rich. Then, Kristof asks why republicans continue to support major funding of national security and defense despite their position that there must be "serious budget cuts." Finally, he attacks the party's initiative to "reform" the health care system as well as discontinue Medicare.
First of all, Kristof criticizes republicans for defending significant tax cuts for the wealthy. For example, he notes that these tax breaks allow wealthy citizens like "Warren Buffett to pay a lower tax rate than his receptionist", which he states cannot seriously improve the debt situation. Secondly, Kristof points out how the party's claim that the economy "would be unperturbed by the risk of a default" only further cements the contradictions in republican ideas.
Next, Kristof examines the GOP's persistence in maintaining funds for national security and how it further contradicts their supposed missions. Primarily, he asserts that "a possible default that could halt paychecks for military families" would not yield a positive effect on national security. Also, Kristof disagrees with the party's sentiment that "national security funds should receive little cuts", because many other programs republicans deem as "nice to have's" are most likely going to be discontinued.
Lastly, Kristof counters the republican goals of further "reforming" health care and cutting all funding to Medicare as well as support for social security by affirming the importance of these programs. For instance, while "the Obama health care plan could have done better on cost control," Kristof acknowledges the promotion of "evidence-based medicine," which reduces spending on ineffective and expensive procedures. Furthermore, the Congressional Budget Office's research warns that while discontinuing Medicare would indeed reduce government spending, it would "increase private spending by even more."
In conclusion, Kristof believes that GOP stances on the debt situation such as continued support to fund national security, maintaining tax breaks for the wealthy, and perseverance to repeal Obamacare and put an end to Medicare, are unwarranted and full of contradictions. In addition to this, he hopes that amidst the "worst downturn in 70 years," the American people can "banish [these] contradictions," rather than embrace them.
Summary: "New Republic: In Defense of ‘Marriage Vow’ Passage"
http://www.npr.org/2011/07/14/137841673/new-republic-in-defense-of-marriage-vow-passage
m1a_rae_lew1s001
In “New Republic: In Defense of ‘Marriage Vow’ Passage,” John McWhorter comments on the observation made by the Christian group The Family Leader from their pledge “The Marriage Vow” that “a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President.” Although this statement was removed after it’s comparison to slavery caused too much controversy, McWhorter refutes that it reveals “a truth about the oft-forgotten toughness of black families during slavery and in the difficult decades after emancipation.”
McWhorter begins by explaining that the common reasoning for this claim would be to suppose that “slavery had made the conventional family difficult to sustain because of spouses so often being sold away from one another and children being separated from their parents.” Sociological literature shows that even after slavery, difficult conditions continued for black people and after the 1950s, a fatherless household was the norm in inner-city black communities. In addition, over the last 150 years, “there have always been proportionately more single-parent black families than white ones.” Still, during the pre-emancipation era, “about two thirds of black families had two parents,” (far more than today), and this figure remained dominant into the 1930s and 40s.
More research proves that “from 1880 to 1960, fewer than one in three black children nationwide didn't grow up with two parents” and that “in Chicago in the 1920s, it was considered a problem that just one in seven black children were born to single mothers.” According to McWhorter, these statistics are important because they show that “the reason so few black children grow up without fathers today is not a mere matter of economics or, more graphically, because black men without college degrees find it so hard to get decent work that they abandon their children,” and that even living under the “vicious racism” of 100 years ago, black families still tended to form a two-parent household.
Next, McWhorter explains that although being raised by one parent isn’t necessarily a “condemnation to despair, we can all admit that neighborhoods where fatherlessness is a norm will not do.” In his opinion, a neighborhood where every child is being raised by two parents would seem strangely ominous, and unless it was a highly religious community, “one would suspect strangely stringent notions regarding compatibility and even sexuality.” Still, in many places today where nine out of ten children aren’t being raised by a father, the case is even worse, since evidence shows that a child is generally better off if raised by two people.
Finally, McWhorter returns to the original claim from “The Marriage Vow,” which basically states that black children during the slave era were more likely to be raised by two parents than black children today living during the term of the first African-American president. Although many saw that this statement implied that slavery was somehow good, McWhorter sees this interpretation as “hasty and mistaken,” and that it’s sole purpose was to show that, “despite slavery being the horror that it was, for those enduring it, the two-parent family was a norm.” “Black people,” he concludes, “like all human beings, are capable of great resilience in the face of difficulty.”
Summary: “Paying for Their Crimes, Again” by Tina Rosenberg
Daniel82Wants988Moore
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/06/paying-for-their-crimes-again/
In “Paying for Their Crimes, Again” Tina Rosenberg explains that newly released convicts are burdened by an overwhelming number of post-prison fees. Tina argues that instead of helping an ex-con “live a law abiding life,” the state’s fee’s can cause an ex-con to be “pushed [right] into crime.” Without any “drug treatment, job search help, stable housing or schooling,” Tina argues that the state does absolutely nothing to help an ex-con life his or her life normally again. The only thing that the state does give the ex-con is a fee that can sabotage the ex-con’s wellbeing.
Rosenberg begins by explaining that most states do not offer any help to guide and assist ex-convicts to get their lives back in shape. She argues that states “rarely offer former prisoners the help they need to change their lives such as drug treatment or job search help.” The states rather bombard the ex-cons with “something that immediately sabotages their chances of going straight: a bill for hundreds or thousands of dollars in court costs” that they must pay or risk going back to prison. Rosenberg writes that state legislatures that impose fees on ex-cons “calculate how much money they bring in, but seldom look at the costs of collecting them.” These sorts of fees “[push] folks towards illicit sources of income,” perhaps even causing them to commit the very crimes that got them in prison just so they can stay out of prison.
Tina finished by interviewing Carlos L, a former convict working to control his life through life management courses. Carlos, lost in about “$300 in debt,” can find solace only in the company of life coaches and his family. If Carlos doesn’t pay his debt, he will land back in prison. Fortunately, Carlos gets a job at the life management program called The Clapham Set.
In conclusion, Rosenburg explains that state legislatures slam fees on ex-convicts that can cause them to look for money in the wrong places. The sate imposes an extremely uncomfortable ultimatum on ex-convicts that are unfair. If they don’t pay the states their fee’s they could land straight back in prison. The comfort and stability that comes with a job can help ex-cons get their life back in order. Unfortunately, finding a job can be exceedingly difficult for ex-cons. Men and women like Carlos just need more help from the state to live their life again, but the state seems to only hurt their chances of a pleasant life after prison.
Mark Bittman, "Banned From the Barn"
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/banned-from-the-barn/
Mark Bittman, author of the article “Banned From the Barn,” warns his readers that many journalists, much less consumers, don’t have enough access when it comes to seeing where their food comes from. Several weeks before, legislators in Iowa were unable to pass the “ag-gag” law, which, according to Bittman, “would have made it illegal to videotape or photograph in the agricultural facilities that house almost all of our chickens and pigs.” In Brittman’s words, “we need more visibility, not less” of the things that go on inside the buildings where these animals are raised. As it stands, the ag-gag law wouldn’t have made a difference in terms of ‘protecting’ food production: “when a journalist can’t see how the food we eat is produced…the system’s already gagged.”
Those few who have managed to gain access to these facilities reveal that “eggs are laid and chickens are born and raised in closed barns containing (literally) hundreds of thousands of birds” and “pigs are housed cheek-to-jowl, by the many thousands.” Bittman manages to gain visitation rights to the facilities of a medium-size-pig operation at one point, but upon arrival he surprised to find that a “cleanup must have preceded [him]” because where these barns would normally house about 1200 pigs each, the one he visited contained only “200 pigs and reeked of deodorant.” Later, Bittman attempts catch a glimpse of unattended barns, but the problem here is that “[he] could’ve been arrested for trespassing” and “extreme versions of ag-gag would make it illegal for [him] to write about it, or at least publish pictures.” Given the fact that these companies resist visits from journalists like Bittman in the first place, this strongly implicates farmers of trying to hide this agricultural “ground zero.”
Based on these previous experiences, Bittman concludes that the dismal conditions animals live in brings America “a step closer to China, whose Health Ministry is trying to clamp down on news media outlets that ‘mislead’ the public about food safety issues.” In this case, “mislead” means “report[s] about pork tainted with the banned drug clenbuterol…watermelons exploding from the overuse of chemicals; pork disguised as beef, or glowing blue…cooking oil dredged from sewers.” Here at home, Bittman points out that whenever a journalist “breaks a horror story about animal cruelty, as happens every month or so, the industry writes off the offense as an isolated incident, and the perpetrators — usually the workers, who are ‘just following orders’ — are fired or given wrist slaps.” Bittman warns that events like these will only continue to play out every day until “the public better understands industrial animal-rearing techniques.”
Bittman closes his article with words from a fellow Iowan who expresses his disappointment with modern-day agriculture practices: “…people were proud of their animals. They’d have signs with their breeds, or their names, and they’d offer to show you around.” That is no longer the case today, where company interest leans towards cutting costs and quick, cheap, mass production of livestock.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/04/25/110425fa_fact_bilger?currentPage=1
In the “Possibilian ‘What a brush with death taught David Eagleman about the mysteries of time and the brain,’” Burkhard Bilger follows renowned scientist David Eagleman as he experiments with the brain’s delayed and constantly fluctuating interpretation and time. In fact, Bilger listens Eagleman discuss the brain’s time delay from the world’s unperceivable present to our brains edited and slightly delayed present. Similarly, he also discusses and explains the brain’s notion to use as little of its observational energy as possible but rather fill in familiar parts of our vision with memories.
For example, Eagleman draws attention to the brain’s split-second editing tool that, when perceiving and “processing reams of disjointed information on the fly,” take all the received data from all five senses, hearing, seeing, tasting, touching, and smelling to create an “instantaneous now,” or present. Although, all five senses “operate at fundamentally different speeds,” such as “sounds travels more slowly than light, and aromas and tastes more slowly still,” the brain edits the present to seem to happen all at once, with all sense received simultaneously (within a certain distance, such as after a 117 feet sound travels noticeably slower than light). Furthermore, Eagleman goes on to say that the “brain needs time to get its story straight, by gather[ing] up all the evidence of all our senses,” and then once sure of what is happening, “reveals it to” people’s actual consciousness. Eagleman’s brain studies are a successor to Libet, a scientist, who, in the 1950s, proclaimed, “we are not conscious of the actual moment of the present. We are always a little late.”
In the same way, Eagleman studies the brain’s ability to conserve energy by editing our vision by filling in familiar imagery. As an illustration, Eagleman sets up an experiment where Bilger watches as a mundane image, of a brown shoe, flashes consecutively in exactly the same amount of time on a computer screen. However, every so often an image of a large “flower” pops on the screen for the same amount of time as the shoe, but the “flower” appears “to stay on the screen for much longer than the shoe.” In other words, by the 4th or 5th time view the shoe image had been thoroughly observed so that Bilger’s brain only has to fill in the imagery it already knows will show up, unlike when the unfamiliar flower appeared on the screen, Bilger’s brain takes much longer to process it. Consequently, Eagleman conjures the theory that as people grow older, or if they stay in the same area too long, time will seem to speed up because their brains can predetermine the images it sees. On the other hand, by moving living locations to routes home each day, life can be more full and alive, as the brain is forced to process more neurotransmitters in order to observe unfamiliar imagery for the first time.
In conclusion, Eagleman continues to study the brain’s relationship with time and is fascinated by its continually expanding mysteries. As he works away on several simultaneous research projects and multiple “books in various stages of completion,” he remembers the first time he decided to take a course in neurolinguistics, he thought about “how there was this three-pound organ that [is] the seat of everything we are- our hopes, []desires, and our loves. They had me on page one.”
Summary: “Immigration policy: U.S. should abolish its 'diversity visa' program” by Peter H. Schuck
DevBaladshaaaw5500
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-schuck-visa-lottery-20110713,0,1695947.story
In “Immigration policy: U.S. should abolish its 'diversity visa' program,” Peter H. Schuck argues that the U.S. government should “handpick” the immigrants that receive green cards and thus eliminate the “diversity visa” program, which gives 50,000 green cards to “applicants who only need a high school education to qualify.” He mentions that the “diversity visa” program was originally created as a “temporary” way to make the country more diverse; however, now the country is so diverse that it isn’t necessary anymore. He then suggests that the government get rid of the lottery and instead choose which immigrants get green cards based on their “individual attributes” and whether they can best serve our national interests.
Schuck states that back in the 1980s, this program was created by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy and other members of Congress as a “temporary” plan to be “diversity-enhancing,” not necessarily to be continued when the country becomes really diverse. As the program progressed, the lottery participants would be “limited” to people from places that had recently provided a small number of immigrants. Now, as Schuck believes, our “immigration stream” is so diverse that the government doesn’t need to “boost it with randomly distributed visas.”
Schuck suggests that the government “abolish” the “diversity visa” program and use the 50,000 visas to “promote carefully defined national interests,” specifically in very skilled immigrants who “produce jobs, innovation and new businesses.” He elaborates that immigration is the “lifeblood, future and salvation of an aging, technology-driven America,” therefore the government should bring in those who can provide useful skills to better the U.S. He recommends one way of doing this by auctioning the visas to the highest bidders who would either be employers who can hire skilled workers or people who can “finance their bids based on their ability to create value” and will therefore earn good wages in the U.S. In addition, he proposes to create a points system in which the government gives the visas to those who have accumulated the most points for “English fluency, job skills… and other predictors of successful assimilation.”
Thus, rather than leaving the results of who receives green cards to chance, Schuck argues that the government should eradicate the “diversity visa” program and replace it with a new approach that allows the government to decide who should get a green card. He believes that his approaches of “handpicking” highly skilled immigrants can show us more about “which legal immigration reforms can best advance our national interests.”
Summary: “Moral Logic of Survival Guilt” by Nancy Sherman
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/war-and-the-moral-logic-of-survivor-guilt/
In “Moral Logic of Survival Guilt”, Nancy Sherman questions the roots and rationality of survival guilt, arguing that rather than regretting their actions, soldiers feel a deep emotional guilt for failing to protect their comrades. She builds on modern philosopher Nietzsche’s theory “Das schlechte Gewissen” (“bad conscience”), and his idea that soldiers’ guilt does not stem from a feeling of having done something they wish they had not.
Sherman begins by giving an example of irrational and unreasonable guilt. Cap. Adrian Bonenberger talks about how although there is “nothing logical” about the guilt he feels for his friend’s death, he “feel[s] responsible”. According to Bonenberger, in most cases people “take responsibility” so that it “goes beyond” what people can actually be “held responsible for”, resulting in guilt. Sherman then examines the unreasonableness of “that feeling”, comparing subjective guilt to objective guilt—knowing you did nothing wrong and guilt that “accurately tracks real wrongdoing”. The latter is “appropriate” since the person could have done something to avert the situation from becoming harmful, and did not. However, what about subjective guilt?
Subsequently, Sherman asserts that one reason survivor guilt seems logical is because it “tracks a moral significance” that goes beyond “moral action”. She argues that psychological “character and relationships” are more crucial morally than one’s actions. Corresponding with Nietzsche’s theory, she does not think that the guilt is rooted from feelings of “what one has done or should have done”. Rather, Sherman believes that it is the soldier’s “vulnerability” to what they profoundly care about. The desire to help others in need and be “frustrated by the inability…to do so” is what causes these soldiers to feel guilt.
Sherman goes on to say that it is not just patriotic duty, but love that binds the soldiers. They become a trusted family, so that when one is not able to defend the other, feelings of betrayal, responsibility, and “sheer pain” are more present in the guilt caused by their fellow comrade’s death than they would be otherwise. Next, Sherman acknowledges that survivor guilt subconsciously causes the soldier to think that luck is “part of a zero-sum game”. When experiencing “good luck”, he feels he is “deprive[ing] another of it”. Enduring guilt is the only way for the surviving soldiers to feel as if they are “sharing some of the ill fate”.
Sherman then criticizes the term “agent-regret”, which many philosophers use to define the feeling of guilt caused by “bad luck”. In this case the soldiers would be “casually responsible”, but not “morally responsible” for the accidents. She argues that the term is “simply tone-deaf” and “passive”, and fails to represent the true feeling of subjective guilt. She further states that it is not regret, but “raw, deep, unabashed guilt” that many soldiers feel after accidents such as Capt. John Prior’s, who wasn’t “egregiously responsible” for his comrade’s death, but whose error caused it. Sherman believes that with the feelings of responsibility, “self-indictment”, and sympathy for the survivors, Prior needs to make “moral repair”.
Finally, Sherman comes to the decision that the survivor guilt of soldiers is not just practical, “redemptive”, or the human way of dealing with pain; instead, it has deeper roots. The guilty feelings relate to specific “moral features” of their realm—as Kantian philosophers put it, the failure to “perfectly fulfill” the “imperfect dutie[s]” of bringing their trusted and beloved comrades “safely home”. Sherman concludes that in order to make a complete “moral repair” soldiers must first allow themselves “self-forgiveness and self-empathy”—“duties to self”.
(Since I am an incoming 11th grader, I do not yet have a student ID.)
Summary: “The Virtue of ‘I Don’t Know’” by Gregory Rodriguez
In “The Virtue of ‘I Don’t Know,’” Gregory Rodriguez laments the overly opinionated society in the US. To begin, he identifies modern culture’s belief that producing on-the-spot opinions regarding each and every subject proves “individual independence, distinctiveness and reasoned intelligence.” Consequently, Rodriguez explains, because it is impossible to have a knowledgeable opinion on every topic, “expressions of conscience are [becoming] less about independent thinking and more about making stuff up.” In rebuttal, Rodriguez contends that occasionally admitting a lack of opinion on a given subject demonstrates greater integrity and character than constantly concocting opinions.
Firstly, Rodriguez reflects on last June’s Miss USA pageant, during which the contestants were forced to respond to controversial questions, leaving them no choice but to invent points of view. For example, he notes that all 51 contestants were asked about teaching evolution in public schools; only two gave an “unequivocal yes, the rest said no or fudged,” struggling to find the preferred answer. Even more pertinent, Miss Tennessee was asked, “if the 1st Amendment protected the burning of the Koran or other religious books in the same way it protects the burning of the flag.” Although she was clearly uncertain of which answer was more acceptable, she finally took a chance and said “absolutely not,” which lost the competition for her. Wistfully, Rodriguez asks, “wouldn’t [it] be…a sign of excellent Miss USA-worthy character,” if a contestant felt comfortable to say, “You know what, I’ve honestly never given it a thought and have no clue.”
Secondly, Rodriguez describes two University studies further confirming the fake opinion epidemic. After researching, he found that in 1981, the University of Michigan held a study in which about 30% of survey respondents agreed to write their opinions on a very ambiguous piece of legislature, simply because the survey didn’t contain a “no opinion,” option. Then, Rodriguez found that in 1983, the University of Cincinnati collected the exact same results when they administered a similar poll, this time with an entirely made up piece of legislature, because it didn’t contain a “no opinion” option. In both studies, the researchers concluded that if respondents are questioned on a topic on which they are not informed, they “often simply flip mental coins in order to satisfy the interviewer's expectation.” Accordingly, Rodriguez points out that such studies show that, “‘no answer’ isn’t a missing data point,” but is in fact a valid position, which can increase survey accuracy.
In conclusion, Gregory Rodriguez believes that holding no opinion on an unfamiliar topic is far more respectable and ultimately beneficial than conjuring one up. However, he recognizes that modern culture idealizes the alternative, pressing for opinions right and left, thereby encouraging pretense. In time, he hopes society will embrace, “The Virtue of ‘I Don’t Know.’”
Summary: "The Optimism Bias" by Tali Sharot
CeruhSKUOTIENT5582
In the article “The Optimism Bias,” by Tali Sharot, Sharot argues that optimism, although “benefit[ial],” also creates “optimistic illusions” and often times hobbles the human’s ability to perceive the future correctly. Sharot supports this verdict by bringing in the element of science in optimism, something Americans usually recognize as intangible.
In a compound experiment Sharot conducted, she discovered that the brain dislikes thinking about negative things and even “insists on thinking positively.” For example, while working with victims of 9/11 Sharot discovered that “details” in their testimonies were often “deleted and others inserted.” Elaborating on her results, she reveals that in only 11 months, the victims’ testimonies had changed by 37%. Thus, she states that the brain is constantly “reconstruct[ing]” memories and leaning towards the bright side.
Sharot also refers to statistics and surveys that allude to America’s ignorance when it comes to reality. In particular, Sharot contemplates on how Americans believe that there is “0% likelihood” their marriages will fail, regardless of the fact “that the odds of divorce are almost 1 in 2.” On a more serious note, however, after asserting that”10%” of Americans “expect to live to 100,” Sharot displays her concerns that because of this confidence, the proper precautions will not be made. She then proceeds to execute the fact that “in reality [only] .02% live that long.”
On the other hand, Sharot commends its ability to “alter the future.” In an experiment by colleague and neuroscientist Sara Bengtsson, for instance, students who were “primed with” words of praise, such as “smart, intelligent and clever,” “performed better” on a test compared to those primed with “stupid and ignorant.” Test results had also shown that “the anterior medial part of the prefrontal cortex” lit up in the students who were “induce[d] expectations of success.” Shorat collected that their brains would feel “surprise[d]” and conflict[ed]” after making a mistake, thus causing the “prefrontal cortex” to reflect on and “learn from” that “mistake.” Students who “expected to do poorly,” did not react at all.
Although Sharot describes certain aspects of optimism as “consequent[ial,]” she acclaims its impact on Americans’ learning ability. However, she warns America to “guard [her]self from” optimism’s impending “pitfalls;” such as its biased tendency to rule out the good from the bad and its confidence towards a guaranteed success. Sharot urges to “strike a balance,” “to be certain the sun will shine, but grab an umbrella on our way out—just in case.”
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002661006_sunstamper04.html
Summary: “Legalize Drugs—all of them” by Norm Stamper
In “Legalize Drugs—all of them”, Norm Stamper, a 34-year veteran police officer, argues that all drug use should be legal in America. Stamper feels American adults should have the same right to use these “verboten drugs” as they have “to suck on a Marlboro or knock back a scotch and water.”
Stamper states that prohibition of alcohol was an obvious flop and that prohibiting drug use stands on an “equally wobbly foundation”. He feels that responsible drug use is a medical, not a criminal, matter. Stamper proclaims that our country’s lost “war on drugs” has outlasted all other national conflicts, costing taxpayers vast amounts of money.
The author criticizes America’s punitive approach to drug use stating that it is “the most injurious domestic policy since slavery”. The imprisonment of drug offenders has led to a major increase in our prison population. More arrests are made for drug offenses than for all other major crimes put together. If all non-violent drug offenders were released from prison Americans would save billions of dollars on incarceration related expenses.
Stamper has seen the horrible effects of drug markets; devastation in residential areas, dealers and innocent citizens shot in fights between rival traffickers, officers tortured and killed in the line of duty, prisons overflowing with nonviolent drug offenders, foreign policies that foster political instability, health and environmental disasters, and a tougher life for indigenous farmers.
Stamper states that as a nation we need to take a long, hard look at both the “drug scene” and the drug war. Stamper presented several examples of how ‘regulated legalization” would work including; permit private companies to compete for running the different facets of the drug industry, set standards of sanitation, potency and purity, impose taxes, fees, and fines to be used for prevention, treatment, and to cover administrative and policing costs. The author feels these reforms will bring about a substantial reduction in crimes making this country a healthier place and making the occupation of police officer a safer, more rewarding career.
According to Stamper, America’s demand for illegal drugs is not going away. America needs to stop the insane ‘war on drugs’. In Stamper’s word’s, “they’re not about to stop, no matter what their government says or does. It’s time to accept drug use as a right of adult Americans, treat drug abuse as a public-health problem and end the madness of an unwinnable war.”
Hagit Borer
Getting on Board with Peace in Israel
Los Angeles Times
Hagit Borer’s “Getting on Board with Peace in Israel “
In this essay, a young Jewish American woman, Hagit Borer, defends her decision to be one of 67 passengers from the United States on board The Audacity of Hope, one of 10 ships in a controversial flotilla that will set sail later this month, attempting to break Israel’s blockade at the Gaza Strip. Hagit first relates several traumatic memories from her childhood in Israel, and goes on to explain the unfortunate changes that have taken place in Israel since then. Ms. Borer insists that although many people, including many Israeli right wing activists and protesters, have objected to this voyage and ridiculed the decisions of the citizens who will be aboard, she firmly believes that in order to regain the Jerusalem of her childhood, it is vital to break Israel’s blockade. Finally, she defends not only her personal decision to be among the many passengers of the Audacity of Hope, but also the essential goal of the flotilla as a whole, by explaining that this is the crucial path to achieve a “true peace”.
Hagit begins by describing the Jerusalem she grew up in as a “smallish city of white stone neighborhoods nestled in the elbows of hills”, and proceeds to reminisce about the detailed locations of several memories: a post office, a road, and a large wall. She refers to this wall as a boundary between her neighborhood and “them”. Although Hagit never identifies “them” directly, she seems to be referring to the Palestinians. She next describes in vivid detail a thrilling sequence of events in which the wall was brought down on June 9th, 1967, during the Six Days War, during which buildings between the old and new Jerusalem were also demolished.
Hagit declares, however, that unfortunately “it is a different Jerusalem now”, saying that while “it is not their Jerusalem”, “this is not (her) Jerusalem” either. Hagit explains that the Palestinians have land taken from them and “are further strangled by more housing developments” daily. For instance, in Sheik Jarrah, “a neighborhood built by Jordan in the 1950s”, Palestinian families have been recently “evicted from their homes at gunpoint”. On the other hand, Hagit states that she is shocked that the people who do this share her native language, because she insists that the young generation in Jerusalem now is so far off from what she recognizes. She is further stunned that her own society could produce such “jeering youths”.
Hagit also declares that while she feels upset about the current situation, it should be noted that some people, such as Albert Einstein, who “wrote a letter to the New York Times in 1948” addressing the subject, did in fact foresee the conflicts that would come and cautioned against them. She further admits that it would be unfair to say that all Israeli Jews are now changed for the worse, given that some do indeed “stand up and protest”. Despite all this, however, Hagit still worries about the dire, aggressive changes that have recently taken place in Israel and insists that she feels morally obligated to do whatever she can to reverse them.
Hagit concludes by saying that “all of (those) seeking justice have been on “a virtual boat to Gaza all these decades”, meaning that the literal voyage to Gaza is not simply a stunt, but a culmination of decades of degrading society that must be saved in order to preserve the true Israeli culture. Similarly, she states that she has been trying to break through “the many incarnations (of the)…blockade” for quite some time. Hagit finally stresses that she firmly believes that instead of rejecting the Israeli government, American Israeli Jews have another option: they can support “a true, just peace”, just as she does.
Summary: “The Old Internet Neighborhoods” by Virginia Heffernan
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/10/remembrance-of-message-boards-past/
In her article, “The Old Internet Neighborhoods,” Virginia Heffernan argues the significance of intimate message-board settings on the Internet before social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter developed. She complains that the “great old standby of Web 1.0” has unfortunately become an “endangered species” due people needing to make a profit. Not only does Heffernan reminisce about the confidential “Internet forum;” she opposes the superficial course the Internet is taking.
For Heffernan, message boards opened up a new, different way to communicate and express herself. They were often “provocative” and “charged with emotion,” which wouldn’t be the case on a social networking site. For example, she turned to a message board for women who are trying to conceive, TTC, and found a surprisingly large amount of women in the same position with advice, tips, and understanding. To Heffernan, the board may have been a bit “corny” but it deserves a “nostalgic embrace.”
While watching these cozy message boards decline, Heffernan noticed most people turning to the “megalopolis” websites. She agrees with Lori Leibovich, the founder of Kvetch, a message board, who stated that social networking sites are all about “broadcasting” and that they’re “more about your persona” than “you as a person.” Heffernan then states that she wouldn’t post something so expressive, such as a virtual hug, on a website that stresses “accountability and striving over anonymity and play.” She continues to express that “((hugs))” belong in “softer lighting” and not in the “undignified glare” of the “fluorescent social networks.”
Overall, Heffernan disapproves of the flash, new Internet. As more people move towards Facebook and Twitter, the number of “forum villagers” decreases. Therefore, the “Internet forum” slowly becomes extinct, which forces her to lean towards these frivolous sites to communicate online. Like she previously said, the old message boards deserve honorable recognition.
Summary: “In Casey Anthony’s case, the law worked” by Robert L. Shapiro
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-shapiro-caylee-anthony-20110709,0,4550760.story
In “In Casey Anthony’s case, the law worked,” Robert L. Shapiro argues that, instead of the jurors, the prosecutors of the Casey Anthony trial are to “blame” for the final verdict deeming Casey Anthony not-guilty of killing her 2 year old daughter. According to Shapiro, the prosecution created an irresponsible case that did not fully take into account the power of the justice system. For example, he explains that the prosecution now has no power because of the 5th Amendment, which guarantees that “the government can't prosecute a person a second time for the same crime if the jury returns a verdict.” Subsequently, Shapiro wrote, the prosecutor’s use of the justice system backfired to actually favor the defense.
First, Shapiro claims that the prosecutors are “probably responsible for Anthony's acquittal” by “overcharge[ing]” the case. In Shapiro’s opinion, they over stepped their bounds by charging the woman with first-degree murder, then asking for the death penalty. What the prosecution apparently failed to take into account was that the death penalty was a serious matter that “perhaps unconsciously, requires a higher standard of proof.” However, the woman’s 2 year old daughter was so badly decomposed that it was no longer possible to proved any evidence towards the cause of death. No cause of death means no proof, says Shapiro. In addition, he notes that “Our constitutionally-based criminal justice system places a high value on protecting the innocent.” With this in mind, the prosecutors burdened themselves by having had to produce evidence worthy of convicting Casey Anthony “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Next, Robert L. Shapiro points out that “criminal cases require strategy.” On the contrary, to him, the prosecutors tried to prove that which they could not confirm. When trying “to dot every ‘i’ and cross every ‘t,’” the prosecutors “introduce[d] questionable science that served to weaken their case.” For instance, they used a “largely unproven kind of testing” that had never been used in the U.S. before to somehow prove that there in fact had been a body decomposing in Anthony’s car trunk. The author therefore inferred that “the prosecution's desire to answer every question” thus “gave the defense ammunition” to attack the discrepancies throughout the entire forensic aspects of the case.
Shapiro did, however conclude by clarifying that he understood that the public’s idea that it was the jurors fault for the verdict was greatly influenced by “armchair quarterbacking from self-appointed experts.” He then let it be known that “Casey Anthony was not found innocent; she was simply not found guilty of murder” as a result of the prosecution failing follow out any strategy that would convict Casey Anthony “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Summary: "When Food Kills" by Nicholas Kristoff
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/12/opinion/12kristof.html?_r=1&ref=columnists
In “When Food Kills,” New York Times Columnist Nicholas Kristoff claims that overusing antibiotics on livestock causes uncurable strains of diseases, such as E. coli. Kristoff states that we, not only as a nation, but as a world, need “more comprehensive inspections in the food system, more testing...and more public education.”
Kristoff begins his argument by describing the present dangers of E. coli. He, for example, mentions the “deaths of 31 people in Europe from a little-known strain of E. coli,” as well as the death of a “2-year-old girl in Dryden, Va” caused by “another strain of E. coli.” According to Kristoff, “every year in the United States, 325,000 people are hospitalized because of food-borne illnesses and 5,000 die,” which means that “food kills one person every 2 hours.” Kristoff says that “we shouldn’t be surprised” by these numbers, claiming that “our food often betrays us.”
Kristoff declares that, despite the number of deaths caused by this lack of food safety, the government still takes no action to increase food safety. He states that, while “terrorist attacks...led us to transform the way we approach national security...[we] have still not generated basic food-safety initiatives,” because “lobbyists block initiatives to make food safer.” Kristoff notes, for example, that “antibiotics are recklessly stuffed into healthy animals to make them grow faster.” He also claims that “80 % of antibiotics in the U.S. go to livestock...typically to healthy animals...when they are confined in squalid and crowded conditions.” This overuse of antibiotics “creates a perfect breeding ground for antibiotic-resistant pathogens,” meaning that “ailments can become pretty much untreatable.” Also, Kristoff points to the case of Louise Slaughter, a “microbiologist in the United States House of Representatives” to further develop his argument concerning the government’s inaction. Slaughter “has been fighting...to curb [the] practice” of overusing antibiotics, but “industrial agricultural interests have always blocked her legislation.”
Finally, Kristoff rounds off his argument by mentioning the danger to vegetarians, as well as the danger presented by MRSA. Kristoff reports, for example, that “the European E. coli outbreak” mentioned at the beginning of his article “arose from bean sprouts grown on an organic farm in Germany.” This contamination was caused by tainted water for livestock spilling “into water used to irrigate vegetables,” and thus “contaminating them.” Kristoff also points out MRSA, one of the more “common antibiotic-resistant pathogens” that “kills more Americans annually than AIDS.” MRSA comes in many forms, one of which “was found in 70% of hogs on one farm,” and “in 45% of employees working at hog farms.”
Kristoff ends his argument by contending that “the European outbreak should shake people up:” He quotes Robert Martin of the Pew Environment Group, who believes that “[the outbreak] points to the whole broken system.” Kristoff calls for “more comprehensive inspections in the food system, more testing for additional strains of E. coli, and more public education” if we want to make our food safer. He ends by saying that “a great place to start reforms would be by banning the feeding of antibiotics to healthy livestock.”
Summary: “How Schools Stifle Creativity” by Sir Ken Robinson
http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/03/robinson.schools.stifle.creativity/index.html
The article titled “How Schools Stifle Creativity”, by Sir Ken Robinson posits that education is causing children to hide their innate creativity and talent. This article was written to confront the issue of the current deterioration of the educational system. He acknowledges the importance of literacy in school and argues that since the economic, spiritual, monetary and other major challenges in ones life “depend[s] absolutely on the very capacities of insight, creativity and innovation,” creativity and divergent thinking should be treated with the same status as literacy. Robinson’s idea of getting closer to an ideal school system is to nurture the students’ natural talents and interests, and to foster the growth of their expertise and interest in school. In doing so, education systems would theoretically turn on their heads onto a completely new direction, to “revolution[ize]… the culture of education.”
According to Robinson, “a vast waste of talent” is caused by multiple factors. First, the current education systems around the world are directly or indirectly “rooted in the values and demands of industrialism,” namely, putting subjects most useful in the work field to the highest importance. This “narrow emphasis” on what schools consider core subjects inevitably loses the students’ interest. To “keep students' minds from wandering to things they naturally find more interesting,” teachers suggest “indiscriminate use of prescription drugs” to calm them down. Robinson’s view questions this method, asking in a nutshell, why shouldn’t we use their energy and creativity? He reiterates how important it is in the 21st century to have creativity and interest in what they do, and “reforming [the education system] is not enough” to obtain these in most students. This requires “revolution in the culture of education”.
Robinson elaborates with saying that this new culture must begin with a “richer sense of human ability”. The school systems must put the student’s intuitive abilities into cognition and implement their energy into class to “develop human beings… dynamic[ally] and organic[ally]. He affirms that it is “not to standardize education, but to “personalize and customize it to the needs of each child and community.” Being that every student learns differently, teachers should not teach students the way they did ages ago, “systematic[ally]”, and should embrace the “organic principles of ecology”. This means we should base educating individuals based on their relations to other students and their surroundings.
Overall, Robinson’s argument is putting forth a revolution in education to put a strong emphasis on the growth of students’ creativity. He encourages teachers and administrators to move away from teaching to the “demands of industrialism” and forward to demands of the world of innovation, technology and creativity. He concludes by saying that “all of us, including those who work in schools” must not “kill [creativity] unwittingly,” but “nurture [it] systematically, because “there’s a wealth of talent that lies in all of us” and it must not be wasted.
DutinC-O5651
Summary: Bad Borders, Good Neighbors
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/11/opinion/11Sneh.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
In the article “Bad Borders, Good Neighbors,” E. Sneh argues that reinstating the pre-1967 borders between Israel and Palestine is the only way to “ensure peace” in the region. Although the Prime Minister argues that the borders would be more difficult to protect if the 1967 borders were reinstated, Sneh replies that returning to the old borders could be made defensible by using a “joint Israeli-Palestinian security force” guarding along the West Bank border, and relieve the tensions between Israelites and Palestinians, with a “mutually agreed upon land swap.”
Firstly, Sneh presents that the 1967 borders could be defensible through cooperation between the two nations. Sneh first states that the two nations must confirm that the “border between the West Bank and Jordan must be made impenetrable.” Sneh points that this act would not “violate Palestine’s sovereignty.” This would also guarantee that Palestine would not have access to short-range missiles, which was Israel’s most significant concern. Sneh also states that “the Palestine state must be demilitarized,” since it would ensure Palestine’s integrity. Finally, Sneh argues that an Israeli-Palestinian-Jordanian defense treaty must be implemented so that the three nations could “[share] early warning systems” to prevent threats from Iran and other Jihandist forces.
Furthermore, Sneh argues that this defense package would bring agreement between the two nations and “keep Palestine from becoming another launching pad for terror.” Since the treaty between Israel and Palestine would bring a “dramatic strategic change in the Middle East” Sneh states that this would give Israel and other democratic states, such as the Persian Gulf states, the power to “lay the groundwork” for a new alliance and unite against Islamic extremists from attacking Palestine. Finally, Sneh states that for this system to work, Israel must establish itself as the strongest military power “between Tehran and Casablanca.”As a result Israel could open up its arms to other democratic and secular states in the Muslim world. Sneh argues that if Israel becomes a diplomatic and economical power, it will have the strength to protect itself and other nations from the constant attacks by the Islamic Extremists.
Sneh concludes that the most efficient way to engender peace in Israel is to reinstate the 1967 borders. It would be a defensible border that would satisfy the Palestine’s longing for independence and would also gives the Israelites the security they deserve. Finally, it would establish Israel as a military power in the Middle East, weakening the power of the Islamic extremist groups. Although many people, such as the Israeli Prime minister, would rather keep Palestine as an Israeli territory, Sneh states that imprisoning the Palestinians would erupt into a “third Intifada” (rebellion) and leave the two states devastated.
Summary: “Politicians have the right to evolve on gay marriage” by John Kerry
In the article “Politicians have the right to evolve on gay marriage,” John Kerry draws the subject on gay marriage, not only the common citizen's views on the subject, but politicians, specifically in Boston. According to Kerry, the more a politician's mind changes and reevaluates the subject, the more intelligent he or she has become, which overall contributes to an improved community. Kerry compares the political standpoint of the Senate in 2004 to his own, addressing the “constitutional amendment banning gay marriage,” which he opposed, stating that they should “never misuse for political purposes.” Kerry, believing “the high road may be harder, but leads to a better place,” has proven to be true now by Boston's support towards gay marriage.
First of all, Kerry evaluates his discussion with the Boston Globe, when he answered yes to the commonly asked question, “Do you support gay marriage.” Because of Kerry's position as a politician, his simple answer “yes” could not be sufficed; “increased disscusion” rose due to his well-thought out “yes.” Specifically, Kerry explains how we are “imprisoned by politics,” how we are mislead, and not able to speak out on our own. The media feeds us their specific and conservative opinions, when we all have a voice. Kerry, also adds that we are “allowed to grow as you gain knowledge and experience,” supporting his answer to the Globe.
Kerry compares the seven years of “marriage equality in Massachusetts” and how the myths of gay marriage being unconstitutional and disgraceful have been “erased.” For instance, Kerry describes civil unions that were sufficiently “protect[ing] legal rights” by only advising marriage between woman and man, until these rights changed and the “religious sacrament” was disrupted. Certain religions and groups, stuck to their belief that gay marriage is disgraceful, but they are no longer protecting anyone or any law. According to Kerry, whether someone is gay or straight, he or she is entitled to marry, because “equality is under the law.”
In conclusion, the turning point in Boston showed positive change for everyone, including politicians. Kerry refers to the passing of the law as a journey, and a “high road” because it allows everyone to reevaluate their thoughts, become more open-minded about change, and treat each other as equals. But it's also an “unfinished challenge,” to grant gays or lesbians the same rights, without a constant discrimination, which we as citizens need to work on.
Name: GraebababyKingSummary5578
Title: “Medical Marijuana: Research, Not Fear” by Genaro Molina
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-marijuana-20110713,0,3089477.story
In Genaro Molina’s “Medical Marijuana: Research, Not Fear,” he argues that instead of completely out ruling marijuana as an illegal drug because of the fear of others, “research-grade marijuana should be shared with an agency whose primary mission is medical research.” He also points out that marijuana might in fact “be able to help sick people,” but citizens of California will never know for sure if there’s no medical research involved.
In leading up to stating his ideas on how to find the truth, Molina first starts his editorial by explaining how the Drug Enforcement Administration has been covering up the real reasons for scheduling out marijuana as a legal drug. Apparently, the DEA has “steadfastly, over decades, listed marijuana as a Schedule I drug, meaning that it has no medical value and that potential use is high” without properly testing it medically. In doing this, drugs like “cocaine and morphine…are listed as Schedule II because they have some medical value.” Molina makes it a priority to point out that cocaine and morphine are “far more dangerous and habit-forming,” however they are still ruled to be more legal than marijuana because they have “some medical value.”
Genaro Molina goes on to say that once again, “without known medical benefits,” the DEA rules marijuana as being a “potentially dangerous drug.” However, in continuing to evaluate he notices that “nine more states [recently] passed medical marijuana laws.” Furthermore, in a newly released message from the National Cancer Institute, they report “the potential benefits of medicinal cannabis” and give several reasons as to why it might be able help cancer patients. Although, “it stopped short of endorsing marijuana as a medical treatment” giving the reason that “there [is] too little evidence.” Molina believes that the cancer institute is right in saying that there’s not enough evidence, but then proposes the question “but whose fault is that”. He goes on to reveal the biggest reason, in his opinion, for there not being enough factual evidence, saying that “the federal government is paranoid about legitimate research on the drug and ha[ve] refused to relist it as Schedule II.” In addition, he continues to prove his case by bringing in other references such as parts of articles from the 1990s by the New England Journal of Medicine and the Institute of Medicine who both suggest “that marijuana appear[s] to have some medical uses and recommend more research.”
Molina concludes by giving his suggestions on how the government should treat this marijuana situation, starting with the idea of sharing “research-grade” marijuana with an agency to do medical research. In terms of listing marijuana as a Schedule II drug, he feels like this is the proper step in order to “facilitate further research.” Any findings “should be submitted to the Food and Drug Administration, just as clinical trials are for any other drug.” In order for the nation to “base its marijuana policy on information, not entrenched fears” these are some of the actions that need to be taken place and taken seriously.
Summary: “The Cloud That Ate Your Music” by Jon Pareles.
SillyVillyLilly
In “The Cloud That Ate Your Music”, Jon Pareles rails against the sentimentality of record, cassette and CD collectors and commends the accessibility, convenience and hidden revenue in online music. Pareles is a music critic and, already having “overfull floor-to-ceiling shelves […] straining under thousands of CDs and LPs”, is constantly in search of easier music access for his career. According to Pareles, despite all of the leaking and illegal free music sharing on the web, with the support of record labels, artists and the entertainment industry, the internet will become a thriving source of music commerce.
Pareles first points out that music found on the internet is the only music available for popular portable electronics, whose sales increase each year and whose companies consequently become bargain friendly to more buyers as more electronics are manufactured. Devices such as the Smartphone, Iphone and many other phones have access not only to Itunes, but other music websites and radios like Pandora. With portable phones providing internet access, music can be listened to more frequently. Streaming music on the internet is also beneficial for the musicians. By webcasting music, the albums reach more people worldwide. Pareles briefly considers the consequences of the unlimited availability making music less valuable, but quickly proves that the threat “presents a challenge to culturally ambitious musicians: before they can be larger than life, they have to be larger than the LCD screen.” One of the examples Pareles uses as a “culturally ambitious musician”, embracing the modern, virtual scene is the Icelandic singer/songwriter Bjork. In her next album, ‘Biophelia’(which is coming out this fall), “a smartphone app [is] built around every song” which allows listeners to “toy” with the sound and experiment with their own creativity.
Though many music collectors claim that part of the appeal of owning music is purchasing the physical disk along with cover art, a mini biography on the musician and often times the printed lyrics, downloading the same music on the internet (which is cheaper and takes up less space) and finding the album art, bio and lyrics on the internet is easier and more convenient. One can keep their stylish pictures without wasting physical materials. Once again, Pareles mentions one of the consequences that so many buyers are afraid of - technical difficulties and speed. Much of the time, websites (depending on the location where music is being listened to) have glitches and freeze mid song, or don’t play the song at all. This can be caused by lack of storage space on the device fostering technical difficulties with internet speed. However, this fear is eliminated as the internet becomes the main home for music. Electronic storage space will increase with each new product.
Pareles explains that the many worries over financial loss in the music industry can be avoided, and are, with the requirement of monthly fees. He also points out that even on websites where music downloads are completely free, companies and products pay to have their advertisements on the free music web pages that are commonly visited. In 2000, a website called ‘Beam-it’ was created to recognize a CD in a computer and find it on a free website library. Beam-it was soon shut down by a record-company lawsuit. Since Apple was founded, the company has created many music applications such as Itunes Match. Itunes Match listens to a song, names what song it is, and finds it on the Itunes store for purchase .This application was made with the permission of well known music labels and apple gives the labels and publishers 70% of all profits.
Closing the door to justice: By Erwin Chemerinsky
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-chemerinsky-scotus-20110706,0,5114209.story
In “Closing the door to Justice”, Erwin Chemerinsky questions if the Supreme Court has “lost faith” in the American court system. He makes his argument amid instances of court rulings from the “just-completed term.” Such instances consider when court rulings denied “consumers, employees and criminal defendants” access of the courts by the conservative justices’ decisions. What really seems to vex Chemerinsky is the Supreme Court’s underlying distrust of “lower federal courts” and “judges”.
In order to prove the court rulings unjust, Chemerinsky cites a few examples to validate his claims. He refers to one rather potent case throughout the piece when the court held that a prisoner cannot obtain a hearing in state court, even when “new evidence” is presented that “calls into question their convictions”. In response, he argues, people wrongly convicted “should have access to the federal courts” if they get the chance to regain redress. He goes on to ask, how can “Constitutional rights” be enforced if there are “no courts to enforce them? In examining these rulings, it seems the Supreme Court worries that lower federal courts will “unjustifiably” release “dangerous” people.
Chemerinsky observes a second example when the court ruled “patients who suffer devastating injuries from generic prescription drugs cannot sue the manufacturers for failing to provide adequate warnings” even when one can sue drug companies making the “non-generic versions of the same drugs”. He interprets that in cases like this, the conservative justices are simply “pro-business”, therefore, they continue to “limit class action suits” or suits that are dealt with in the lower courts. According to Chemerinsky, in prior money suits for those injured by prescription drugs or falsely incarcerated, the court gives little attention to prevent wrong doing in the future.
Chemerinsky concludes with proposing steps in restoring the rights of those who “should be heard”. He believes that in acknowledging this “disturbing” common theme of court decisions, Congress “can and must act to remedy these injustices.” As reported by Chemerinsky , the Congress has the ability to restore “access to class actions, allow suits by those injured by generic drugs” and allow those “unconstitutionally convicted”, the right to another hearing if new evidence is found. Chemerinsky’s last message solicits the Supreme Courts loyalty to the Constitution in saying; “No principle is more basic to our constitutional system than that a person who has been hurt deserves his or her day in court”.
Article: http://www.tnr.com/article/not-even-past/91367/obama-presidency-roosevelt-economy-election-progressives?page=0,0
In “Man Without a Plan: Obama’s Short-Sighted View of U.S. Politics,” Michael Kazin claims that Obama has failed at being a “great reformer” similar to FDR, whom many Republicans once feared. Kazin believes that this “nightmare” for Republicans, of Obama being like FDR, was quickly destroyed by the “toxic mixture of a stagnant economy, unending GOP filibusters, and the health care legislative muddle.” Kazin also emphasizes his belief that Obama has not been successful in using his rhetorical skills in order to relate to the “troubled citizens” of the United States and to inspire them.
Kazin’s first major criticism of Obama is that rather than create a “long- term majority,” he has focused more on “short-term problems.” Kazin does mention that during this kind of economic collapse there are crises that do need to be taken care of quickly. But he also points out that from the Great Depression up until the 1970s “Democrats dominated national politics by balancing crisis management with the building of a multi-ethnic, cross-class coalition tied together both by such programs as Social Security, the National Labor Relations Act, and Medicare, and by expressing a generous ideology and moral perspective that Roosevelt in 1941 called ‘the Four Freedoms—freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.” Kazin does recognize that the world of the 1970s is different from the world we are now living in, but he believes that the steps Obama could employ for political success have proven “quite durable.”
Kazin suggests that Obama, who at one time spoke about the role of social movements in the history of the United States, has not made sufficient effort to find support from minorities. Kazin talks about how Obama has somewhat tried to support gays and lesbians, but that he has not given enough support to struggling labor unions. At the same time, Kazin does not feel that all the blame should be put on Obama since Americans have become “hardened cynics about government actions of any kind.”
Lastly, Kazin compares Obama and the Democrats with the Republicans. Kazin believes that the Democrats for decades have been on the defensive. He believes that ever since the Vietnam War, Democrats “have been afraid to assert the justice of their beliefs. ” Kazin then mentions how the Republicans have steadily valued long-term planning to adapt to the nation’s changing demography. As an example, he refers to Karl Rove’s and George W. Bush’s push to gain Latino and African-American voters by using immigration reform, No Child Left Behind, and “the faith-based initiative.”
In conclusion, Kazin still believes that Obama has a chance to be re-elected, especially “with nativists in command of the GOP.” Kazin declares that even though Obama may never become the new FDR, he still has the potential to become a much “tougher, more farsighted politician,” and “that would be a change worth believing in.”
Summary: "They Were NOT Here before Columbus: Afrocentric Hyperdiffusionism in the 1990s" by Bernard Ortiz de Montellano, Gabriel Haslip-Viera, and Warren Barbour http://www.jstor.org/pss/483368
In "They Were NOT Here before Columbus: Afrocentric Hyperdiffusionism in the 1990s", historians Bernard Ortiz de Montellano, Gabriel Haslip-Viera and Warren Barbour challenge the hyperdiffusionist theories proposed by German art historian Ivan Van Sertima in his book They Came before Columbus: The African Presence in Ancient America. The principal claims made by Afrocentric Hyperdiffusionists like Van Sertima are that the elements of civilization spread outwards from a common origin in the Nile River Valley to influence the formation of societies around the world. Van Sertima argues that African visitors contacted Mesoamerican civilizations at "key points" in their history influencing the development of architecture, arts, and religious practices. Ortiz de Montellano, et al. focus on refuting Van Sertima's claims by examining his chronologies and his sources. They claim that Van Sertima's (and Afrocentric Hyperdiffusionist) theories ultimately serve to undermine the contributions of Mesoamerican cultures and "trample" the self-esteem of Native Americans and Latinos.
Bernard Ortiz et al. argue that Van Sertima's "total disregard" of "time and cultural sequences" is one of the most troubling aspects of his theories. For example, Van Sertima claims that the idea and technology neede to build pyramids at the archeological site of La Venta, (ca. 1200 B.C) was transmitted to the ancient Olmecs by "Egypto-Nubian" visitors. Acoording to Ortiz de Montellano et al., this seems highly unlikely because, assuming there were "Egypto-Nubian" visitors, large pyramids of that kind were no longer being built in Egypt by c.a 1200 B.C. Ortiz de Montellano wonders why African travelers would encourage the building of monumental structures that had last been built in Egypt nearly 5,000 years before. Furthermore, the authors are skeptical of an Egyptian influence on architecture as there is "considerable controversy" over the "exact configuration" of Olmec structures.
The essay also provides a critique of Van Sertimas "questionable" sources. Ortiz de Montellano et al. state that most of Van Sertima's sources on the Americas come from sources that are severely outdated. Van Sertima rarely cites works published after 1960 and sparingly references archeologists who have worked first-hand in Mesoamerica or the Nile Valley. Often his information is obtained second or third-hand from "amateurs, dilettantes" or outdated early twentieth-century writers who wrote, as Ortiz de Montellano et al. note, when the "Americas [were] only vaguely or poorly understood." According to these historians, Van Sertima ignores more recently published works by recognized authors because they do not "serve" to support his thesis.
In their conclusion Bernard Ortiz et al. state that Van Sertima's obsession with the '"primacy"' of African civilizations serves to "appropriate" the cultural contributions of Native Americans and Latinos. By doing so, Ortiz de Montellano et al. argue that Van Sertima, perhaps unknowingly, belittles the self-esteem of Native Americans and Latinos by lessening their role in Mesoamericas past.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304584004576419742308635716.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion
HOW HARRY POTTER AND J.K. ROWLING SAVED READING By, Norman Lebrecht
In Norman Lebrecht’s article “How Harry Potter and J.K. Rowling Saved Reading”, the cultural phenomenon, author, and writing style of Harry Potter are compared to the work and life of Charles Dickens. Lebrecht lets known that not since Dickens has an author “excited such a universal and immediate interest” with the population. He discusses the similarities between Dickens and Rowling’s life, stating that the “parallels are multiple and compelling.”
Lebrecht shows the comparisons between the two writers; by first starting with the likeliness their personal lives. The essayist finds the “common factor [of] hardship” throughout the two authors lives by researching their childhoods. For example, Lebrecht states both Rowling and Dickens lost a parent, and had financial troubles early in their lives. Lebrecht suggests that Rowling losing her mother was “pivotal to her creation” of the orphan, Harry Potter. Likewise, Dickens’s childhood of forced child labor turned him into a “formidable social reformer, a campaigner for children's rights”; as well as basing his plots and characters after his experiences.
The writer goes on to point out more intriguing similarities between the two author’s stories and characters. For instance, According to Lebrecht, “Harry is a Dickensian archetype” and compares him to one of Dickens’s most famous works: Oliver Twist. Lebrecht goes as far to say, that along with Oliver Twist, “[Harry] is the most celebrated orphan in world literature.” In addition, Lebrecht points out that both authors use “onomatopoeic names” for their secondary characters; which lets the reader know “what kind of person they are.” Rowling took this element to a new level, by imprinting “evil” into a characters name; for example, “Voldemort means flight of death in French,[and] Malfoy is bad faith.”
In conclusion, the writer makes connections between the two legendary authors to prove that harry potter isn’t just a children’s book, it’s a work of literature that defines a generation. Lebrecht’s concludes his essay by stating his belief that “Rowling seems ready to step up her game” particularly in the. Finally he states, alongside Dickens, Rowling’s books “will always exist to be read”, to instruct, and be enjoyed by generations to come.
Summary: “New Patriotic Act Controversy: Is Washington Collecting Your Cell Phone Data?” by Mark Benjamin
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2079666-1,00.html
In “New Patriotic Act Controversy: Is Washington Collecting Your Cell Phone Data?” by Mark Benjamin, He states that the government has the right to “spy” on citizens under a “controversial section of the Patriotic Act”. He goes on to say that “section 215 of the Patriotic Act” has been made into a very “broad” window in which almost any kind of spying can be safely covered by this section.
Not surprisingly, Mark states, the FBI has permission to “seize”, search through, and totally invade “any tangible things” “without a warrant” as long as this is done to “protect” the United States from any kind of terrorism. In addition, all it takes to order a major corporation to hand over it’s files is a slight sway of The Intelligence Surveillance Court to believe that it is “relevant” to an antiterroism job. Clearly, then Mark Benjamin is trying to prove that anything can be “relevant”, so long as the imagination can conjure it.
Undoubtedly, many people, including Obama at first, found Section 215 too wide a subject for such a heavy act and have tried numerous times to make sure that innocent people are not caught up in the mix of FBI spying rampages. Unfortunately, the entire subject is so classified most people can’t even get their head straight on what their opinion is. Also, Mark Benjamin goes on to say, as if searching through innocent Americans’ things isn’t enough “there seems to be a consensus” that the government is using the latest technology to locate exactly where our cell phones are and, as we all know, our cell phones go with us everywhere. This, obviously, means any Americans living in large cities with hundreds of cell phone towers can be tracked right to a room in an apartment complex if the government so chooses to look for you.
Mark Benjamin also goes on to say that our locations are being monitored and saved into our cell phones by our own networks in order to improve their companies but if that's the case, the government can surely get where we have been in the last month. Assuredly, the government is asking for this information from cell phone companies and storing them without any “relevance” to terrorism yet, using the umbrella of section 215. Writer Mark Benjamin states that “based on the government's relatively well-documented proclivity since 9/11 for vacuuming up huge amounts of data” in order to seek out the bad seeds. Also, Mark argues, with the constant need for location information in criminal cases “there is no reason to think the FBI would not tap the same information to prevent terrorism”.
In conclusion, Mark Benjamin wonders why the government does not have to go through a search warrant to be able to pick out peoples locations. There is still a battle versus the governments and certain sane people with a sense of what is going too far to protect the U.S from so-called terrorism.He supports Senator Wyden in his continuing fight to pass a bill stating that warrants should be required for cell phone tracings in both terrorism and criminal cases. In Mark’s case though, there has been no exact statements that the government is, in fact, tracking U.S citizens.
Summary: "The Moral Logic of Survivor Guilt" by Nancy Sherman
In "The Moral Logic of Survivor Guilt", Nancy Sherman discusses whether or not soldiers’ feelings of guilt for their comrades’ deaths are irrational. While family members are rejoicing for the homecoming of their loved ones, the returning soldiers are most likely dealing with other emotions; in particular survivor guilt. By utilizing specific stories and instances, Sherman delves into the basis for this emotion, and just how irrational it may be.
She begins the article with a story about Jeremiah Pulaski, who had saved Captain Adrian Bonenberger’s life and then once safely home was killed in a bar fight. Bonenberger’s guilt stems from the fact that in his time of need Pulaski was there to help him, yet Bonenberger wasn’t able to do the same. Regardless of logic, Bonenberger states that he still feels responsible.
This begs the question; is Bonenberger’s feeling of accountability really that irrational? There are two types of guilt: subjective guilt and rational or objective guilt. Subjective guilt is ‘associated with [a] sense of responsibility, [it] is thought to be irrational because one feels guilty despite the fact that he knows he has done nothing wrong.” Contrasting this is rational guilt which is just what it sounds like; guilt that is rational and appropriate due to a deliberate attempt at harm. Accountability ‘depends on the idea that a person could have done something other than he did.’
Although the definition of guilt is clearly defined, as apparent in Bonenberger’s statement, one often takes responsibility although they are not held accountable for it. With this self-entitled responsibility comes the guilt because they believe that the situation could have been changed by their actions. In addition to the feelings of guilt and responsibility are those of betrayal of their fellow soldiers. In the army there is a ‘sacred bond’, which enables them to fight for and with each other. They are family members and because of this they feel morally responsible for anything that happens. Regardless of their involvement, guilt will always be present because of the role they assigned themselves. Not only do these soldiers feel sadness for the death of a comrade but also personal guilt for letting them down; not living up to their unreasonable expectations.
Lastly, this article discusses the underlying reasons behind survivor guilt; ‘it is a way that soldiers impose moral order on the chaos and awful randomness of war’s violence.’ In the most basic sense it is a coping mechanism, a way for the soldiers to deal with the horrific daily occurrences and to humanize the fighting. In addition to being ‘evolutionarily adaptive’ it most importantly fits with the ‘moral features of a solder’s world’- codependence, mutual, familial love, and the duty to get everyone home safely. These features have been titled “imperfect duties”; because even in ideal circumstances, they will never be perfectly fulfilled, and so inevitably guilt will come in as a way to cope with the unavoidable failure.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111504576059713528698754.html
“Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior,” by Amy Chua, responds to the recent outcry over the controversial Chinese parenting techniques synonymous with “tiger moms.” Chua refutes the conception that these mothers are “scheming, callous, overdriven people,” instead portraying them as proud and confident in their children’s abilities. In fact, she bases her entire claim on the opinion that “demanding Eastern parenting” boldly surpasses “passive Western parenting” in producing happy, successful people.
Chua begins by clarifying what exactly a tiger mom expects of her children. Above all else, Chinese children are expected to succeed. However, an A minus will never suffice. These children must excel in every field they study, but could never dream of studying a field not approved of by their parents. Chua, a parent of two daughters herself, provides a list of things her children were never allowed to do : “attend a sleepover, have a play date, watch TV or play computer games, pick their own extracurricular activities, get any grade less than an A, play any instrument other than the violin or the piano, and not the play the violin or the piano,” just to name a few.
Here lies the idea that one can’t really have fun doing something they’re not good at. Long ago, Chinese mothers made the realization that children became happy when praised or rewarded for their achievements. In order to see this cycle mimicked, they took over every aspect of their children’s lives to ensure irrefutable success. As Chua argues, it’s not a lack of sensitivity that drives parents to be this way, but the fact that they are entirely sure their children are capable of achieving perfection.
Contrary to Western belief, the Chinese practice honesty as the best policy. With tiger moms, there is no beating around the bush; they’ll let their kids know when they’re out of line. Chua also provides an anecdote, telling of a time her father called her “garbage” after she had disrespected her mother. Chua then recounts how easy that made it to learn her lesson. She remembers how terrible she felt, but adds that she knew how highly her father thought of her. Chinese parents latch on to their children’s successes, therefore making it easier to brush off the criticism. A child’s achievement is accompanied by “plenty of ego-inflating parental praise” in the privacy of the home, so the children feel justification for the harshness.
In conclusion, Chua makes it clear that Chinese mothers hold their children to high standards so that the children, as well as the parents, have something to be proud of. Chinese culture heavily weights pride, as these mothers try to instill in their children. Although the culture houses strict customs, according to these mothers, all they want is a happily successful child.
http://www.slate.com/id/2140877/
"Break a Leg! No, really, break it. We need more violence onstage" by Zachary Pincus-Roth
In “Break a Leg! No, really, break it. We need more violence onstage”, Zachary Pincus-Roth criticizes Broadway because it lacks excitement and “pure visceral thrills”, which is distancing itself from the popular styles and genres of entertainment that are “attracting young people”; action and horror. According to Pincus-Roth, violence and action are key components needed in a production to “bring in the masses”.
Pincus-Roth continues by praising the playwright Martin McDonagh for bringing the “escapist thrills of action and horror” to Broadway, bringing up how McDonagh helped him realize that plays can be “exciting, thrilling, or scary”. Pincus-Roth mentions how McDonagh is Broadway’s “Quentin Tarantino and Martin Scorsese”, saying that he brings the “unique” presence of vivid and “gruesome scenes”, creating a mood popular in the action, thriller, and horror movies. Pincus-Roth notes that “producers have completely ignored” the fact that the horror and action genres are what “fill the shelves” in movie stores and what “send[s] kids flocking to the multiplex”.
Pincus-Roth’s main comparison between productions like McDonagh’s and the productions that are mainly featured on Broadway is the content of each show. He mentions that plays are only “emotional, intellectual, uplifting, depressing, titillating, romantic, or cathartic”, creating the idea that plays are unoriginal and repetitive. Pincus-Roth then states that present day productions typically include the layout of “a kitchen, a living room, dysfunctional families, and parent-child relationships” and doesn’t stray far from that. When it comes to death in present day plays, Pincus-Roth points out that it is rare that “audiences witness a moment in which a person could either live or die” because the event of death is generally portrayed “behind closed doors” or offstage as if the outcome is supposed to be “symbolic or inevitable”.
Overall, Pincus-Roth feels that productions that desire to “dominate the box office” and succeed in today’s world of theater should consider embracing the popular and thrilling genres of violent action and gruesome horror productions. After all, he does say that it only takes “an impresario who will find a story of good guys chasing bad guys…some pyros” and “tons of cash” to make the audience be at “the edge of [their] seats”.
*4th attempt at posting this*
.
Jonah Goldberg argues that nowadays, being the president is just a job description; the president hardly ever “brings things to the table” anymore. Goldberg debates that in this time of crisis, Barack Obama is not the right person for the current presidency. Obama shirks official duty and instead “rests entirely with what the job brings to him.” There's no problem with that at all, because as former President Bill Clinton admitted, the only relevance that the President has anymore is from the Constitution.
Due to an “overly sympathetic media” and the “Democrats [that] still [hold] the Senate” supporting him all the way , it only seems as if Obama was “relevant.” Without them, Obama is helpless; Obama is “incapable of moving public opinion,” restating things he knows will ensure that the public will not be enraged at. Goldberg attests that Obama's rhetoric so “desperate” that all of Obama's “talking points” have now become “top-heavy with jargon.”
Goldberg believes that Obama's presidency is incompetent, and almost “pro forma.” When the Ryan plan was announced, instead of actually doing anything about it, Obama “offered a new, fake counter-budget in the form of a gaseous speech.” Later on, Obama does something quite similar again by believing that he could get a “'clean' debt-ceiling hike simply by insisting on it.” Ironically, Obama used his deficit reduction commission as “an excuse not to worry about it” as he “racked up trillions of dollars more.”
According to Goldberg, Obama does not have an “understanding of what governing means,” because “when it comes to getting the deal done,” it is easier for the president to “declare victory even after a failure.” And that's alright, because Goldberg signs off with stating that Obama “may not be bringing much to the table, but it remains his table — because it came with the office.”
"Tabloids Don’t Deserve the 1st Amendment" by Jeffrey Scott Shapiro
Latimes.com
In “Tabloids Don’t Deserve the 1st Amendment,” Jeffrey Scott Shapiro argues that even while protected by freedom of the press, it is unlawful for tabloids to gather information via methods such as unauthorized wiretapping, bribery and blackmail. According to Shapiro, who’s experienced these illegal methods firsthand, the problem is that “the culture of tabloid journalism is deeply tied to criminal acts,” which makes it impossible for tabloids to survive without resorting to unlawful methods.
Shapiro first states that in the past many tabloid “journalists” have justified their tactics by arguing that they are pro-working class, only out to uncover the excessive lifestyles of the rich and famous. However, there now are increasingly more innocent, ordinary people being preyed on as tabloids across the country turn their attention to more serious topics such as crime and politics. Shapiro reveals that when working for the tabloid at the Globe, he watched his editor bribe and blackmail government officials for access to credit card and phone records of the family of a murder victim. Even while working on the Jon Benet Ramsey murder case in Boulder, CO, Shapiro felt it necessary to report his tabloid editor to the FBI for threatening to publish a negative story about a police detective’s family in order to obtain sealed grand jury evidence. Another editor at the Globe also offered tens of thousands of dollars to an expert hired by defense lawyers for a copy of the coveted ransom note.
After Shapiro testified before a Colorado jury, the Globe tabloid then challenged the accusation on the grounds of the 1st Amendment. The tabloid lost the case; however because the local district attorney was concerned about being criticized for prosecuting a media organization, all charges were dropped for only $100,000 and a written apology from the tabloid. Afterwards the FBI told Shapiro, “ Every time we get reports of misconduct by the press, we try to do something , but the US attorney’s office shuts us down because of the 1st Amendment.” Shapiro argues that this shields criminals who are using illegal tactics to invade the privacy of innocent civilians, from a harsher punishment.
In order to have an impact in this process, Shapiro decided to go to law school and become a prosecutor in Washington, where he handled 1st Amendment-related cases against protestors who had been charged with disrupting events at the U.S. Capitol, the White House, and national monuments. Although Shapiro won almost every case, no one who asserted a 1st Amendment defense was ever sent to jail.
Overall, Shapiro states that if Congress wants to be rid of this issue, it should look towards the British Parliament for advice, who hold hearings to investigate this systematic problem. According to Shapiro, it is “our reluctance as a nation” that stops us from accepting a crime when it involves expression. As a result, criminals are protected while they use illegal tactics to prey on innocent people.
Summary #2: "Why We Need The Tabloids" by Ryan Linkof"
JayTeeFreedman321
In “Why We Need the Tabloids”, Ryan Linkof argues that although newspaper tabloids “can be irritating, provocative, ethically questionable and even …highly illegal”, when practiced correctly and legally, they play a fundamental role in Western culture. Recently, Rupert Murdoch, the CEO of News Corp., stated he “did not support an absolute right to privacy” when it comes to journalism. Linkof commended Murdoch for this statement and believes that although intrusiveness may be indecent, it is not reason to “tighten restrictions or create new laws to prevent it”.
Linkof defines the methods of the tabloids as a matter of “degree, not kind”. By this, he means that the news of the tabloids may be of little importance and mere gossip most of the time, but that, Linkof says, is a matter of taste, “and the tabloids certainly never claimed to be tasteful”. Tabloids often cross the line of what is acceptable and moral, but only because of the public desire to find a story that shows “behind the façade of public life”. Like in the case of the extramarital affair of John Edwards, the tabloids are often the first to break important news stories and are not just “peddling mere gossip”.
Linkof explains that the tabloids also “exist to break down the barriers of access that keep social elites at a remove from ordinary people”. Linkof provides the example of the recent “painfully choreographed and highly-policed” red carpet arrival of William and Kate Middleton at a polo match and that intrusive journalists provide a link between them and “ordinary people”. This is fundamental in democratic cultures that are divided by the “demands of a mass society and the persistence of social and economic inequality.”
The tabloids are consistently testing the boundaries of journalism. Tabloids, according to Linkof, can help to “mitigate some of the central tensions in democratic society” and act as an important player in modern culture. The idea that tabloids are made by “degraded, low-minded people” and supply idiotic gossip remains a matter of taste. Within limits, states Linkof, tabloids will most likely remain an important and “basic feature of popular culture in the West”.
Summary: “Flawed policy on testing drives schools to cheat” by Jesse Jackson Sr.
Je$$1eD@v1s5522
In “Flawed policy on testing drives schools to cheat,” Jesse Jackson Sr. comments on Atlanta’s cheating scandal and our nation’s “teach to the test” approach to learning. Jackson first addresses Atlanta’s systematic cheating scandal which has drawn a lot of attention to our government’s outlook on public education. He then emphasizes how standardized testing is creating a “test trap” which puts pressure on teachers to demonstrate a curriculum based on achieving high marks on policies such No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top.
Jackson begins by stating the severity of the “test altering practice[s]” across our nation. He then goes on to explain how our government relies on tests scores to help “clos[e] the achievement gap” for underprivileged students. Jackson claims these tactics to have “little bearing” on actual academic learning and believes that the Obama administration is partially to blame. Because Obama’s Race to the Top policies place a higher importance on money versus the “premium of competence,” Jackson criticizes that our public schools top priority is not the student’s education, but rather their performance on standardized tests, which provides the school with more money. Jackson also comments on George W. Bush’s, No Child Left Behind policies, which he believes to be ineffective as well.
Next, Jackson explains that tests haven’t only been used to assess student performance but teacher performance as well. If all the students in one class do poorly on the same test, it seems only natural that the teacher would be to blame. Jackson explains that as a result of this, teachers are pressured to change their curriculum to that of the tests even though “good performance on testing does not necessarily reflect a higher quality education.” Along with an altered curriculum, “grade boosting” has also been a result of high test standards. Jackson criticizes teachers for falsifying test scores for students who “deserve a quality education.” Finally, Jackson advocates the unfair negligence of lower income schools and elaborates that schools in high-income neighborhoods are far more well off then schools in inner-cities. Jackson feels that because our country has been in such a catastrophic economic downfall, educating “America's youth.. should be our top priority.”
In conclusion, Jackson expresses his disapproval of our nation’s current approach to public education and believes that we are, as a nation, capable of achieving competence without cheating the minds of our youth. Jackson sums up his argument by suggesting that other school districts be investigated to make sure this problem does not inflate.
.
Upon returning to this post to look through some other students' summaries, I of course came across my own and realized that I accidentally failed to include a link to my reference article in my original summary (oopsie!). Just in case anyone wanted to take a look here it is: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-borer-gaza-blockade-20110626,0,3515948.story
Sorry about that!
Summary: “Seeds of Terror”
Gumbel, Andrew. “Seeds of Terror.” Los Angeles Times 28 July: A19. Print.
In “Seeds of Terror” by Andrew Gumbel, he argues that infamous American right-wing extremists “inspired” Anders Behring Breivik in “the Norway attacks.” On July 22nd, 2011, Breivik carried out two terrorist attacks fueled by xenophobia and a goal to preserve a Christian Europe. Based on how Breivik executed the attacks and the ideals he displayed in his online Manifesto, Gumbel states that Breivik is “deeply familiar with the actions of…[America’s] notorious political killers.”
Firstly, Gumbel draws similarities between the logistics of Breivik’s Norway attacks and the attacks of “far right” American radicals like Timothy McVeigh. According to Gumbel, Breivik’s “own writings all suggest” extreme familiarity with attack plans and materials used by other rightist zealots. In particular, Breivik “possessed a .223-caliber Ruger assault rifle, just like McVeigh,” who, in 1995, bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City killing 168 people. In fact, Gumbel says this rifle, also known as a Mini-14, “has a long history of use by violent extremists” including “iconic white supremacist” Gordon Kahl as well as his protégé Richard Wayne Snell. Likewise, to build a bomb, Breivik used the “same farm fertilizer compound” that McVeigh and his co-conspirator used to build their bomb. In addition to parallels in weaponry and materials, Breivik carried out his attacks in Norway, which, like Oklahoma, Gumbel says “[was] regarded as peaceful, safe” and an “unlikely” terrorist target. In essence, Gumbel shows that America’s “hard-right revolutionar[y]” terrorists like McVeigh directly influenced Breivik to use similar terrorist tactics.
Next, Gumbel refers to Breivik as “violent far right” America’s “ideological soul mate.” Above all, Gumbel thinks that Breivik shares a “leaderless resistance” philosophy with McVeigh in which “individual warriors make their own plans in secret” to avoid disclosing “the broader movement.” In turn, Breivik latched on to signature behaviors and actions of “American predecessors such as Timothy McVeigh,” who years earlier paid homage to murderer Richard Snell by attacking Oklahoma on the date of Snell’s execution. Another striking resemblance is that Breivik and McVeigh both murdered “innocents” to prove a point, which, according to Gumbel “is likely to generate the same kind of disgust” with the public. Furthermore, violent bigoted revolutionaries such as McVeigh, Snell, and Breivik commit murders and terrorist attacks with a common anti-multiculturalist and anti-government message.
In conclusion, Gumbel attributes far-right America for influencing Anders Behring Breivik to carry out the attacks in Norway. Gumbel affirms that Breivik, like McVeigh, Snell, Kahl and others alike, thought he could “trigger a white-supremacist revolution with bombs and bullets.” From identical weaponry, similar stratagem and corresponding ideology, Gumbel concludes that America’s far right violent extremist engendered “Breivik’s grand murderous folly.”
Summary 1: Medicare saves money by Paul Krugman
URL:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/13/opinion/13krugman.html?ref=paulkrugman
In his article “Medicare Saves Money” New York Times columnist Paul Krugman argues that the best way to control healthcare costs for senior citizens in America is to avoid pushing the minimum age for Medicare eligibility from 65 to 67 as has been proposed in congress by Senator Joseph Lieberman. Krugman observes that, instead of cutting the cost of healthcare for the elderly, such a system would probably actually lead to greater overall healthcare costs. This argument seems counterintuitive, but Krugman supports his argument by citing studies about the costly healthcare habits of seniors in their early 60’s and assuming from these studies that those habits will continue for seniors between 65 and 67.
Krugman begins by acknowledging that Medicare spending “has risen dramatically over time.” He also notes, however, that “premiums on private health insurance” have risen almost twice as much over the same period. This would put 65 and 66 year olds at a large disadvantage when it comes to buying private insurance while they wait to be eligible for Medicare since health insurance only gets more expensive and harder to qualify for the older one gets – meaning that “many would find themselves uninsured.” Given that a cost of healthcare treatment would be so high for citizens in this age bracket, what –Krugman asks – “would these seniors do” when they need care before the qualifying age of 67?
To answer this rhetorical question, Krugman cites the study by the health economist Austin Frakt and Aaron Carroll, which shows that “Americans in their early 60s without health insurance routinely delay needed care, only to become very expensive Medicare recipients once they reach 65.” Krugman concludes from this pattern would be even stronger and more destructive if Medicare eligibility were delayed, and that because of this, “Medicare spending might actually go up, not down, under Mr. Lieberman’s proposal.”
Krugman doesn’t think that keeping 65 as the Medicare eligibility age will control costs all by itself, he acknowledges at the end of his article too that “major cost-control efforts” will be needed to keep government health care spending in check. But, as Krugman says in closing, restricting the number of people eligible for government-sponsored healthcare ultimately hurts the cause for cost control. Holding down costs, according to Krugman requires offering “Medicare-type programs to as many Americans as possible.”
Michael Brune and Michael R. Bloomberg; Why America Has to Get Off Coal
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/29/bloomberg.brune.coal/index.html?hpt=op_mid
In “Why America Has to Get Off Coal,” Michael Brune and Michael Bloomberg, the director of the Sierra Club and the Mayor of New York city, argue that coal is detrimental to our country, and how the idea that we can’t afford to move away from it is simply untrue. They first expose the health risks our country faces as a result of our addiction to coal and the burdens it places on our economy. Furthermore, they show that that quitting coal is much easier than is commonly stated, and that clean energy is both practical, and available. Then the authors expose the myth that coal creates jobs and is good for our struggling economy. Finally, Brune and Bloomberg explain what is being done to stop the expansion of coal energy.
The authors first discuss the health risks of coal burning. According to the authors, 13,000 Americans “die prematurely” from the soot that coal plants emit. This causes an estimated “$100 billion dollars in health costs,” both for consumers and the government. As a result, we are spending considerably more money on coal than is reported, both in Medicare and Medicaid claims, as well as personal healthcare costs. Furthermore, outdated coal plants are the “single biggest source of mercury emissions” in the country, which is a serious risk to “pregnant women and children.” These health problems also decrease the productivity of plants with workers becoming ill more frequently than other jobs.
Next the authors show that although coal is often described as being a necessary part of our economy that we depend on, it is really an unnecessary part of America’s energy infrastructure. The authors state that the switch away from coal can take place right now, as coal makes up only “45% of the electricity in the United States.” As an example, “Iowa already gets 15%” of its electricity from wind power, a completely clean form of energy. With the rise of cleaner and “more affordable” technologies such as solar power, the authors state that it is foolish to continue to rely on coal. As a result, there are fewer job opportunities in this sector of employment, rather than more. Moreover, the almost three million workers in clean energy make “13% more than the median U.S. wage.”
Finally, Brune and Bloomberg claim that because of their own work, coal energy is in decline. They state that the Beyond Coal campaign, run by the Sierra Club, has helped stop “153 proposals for new coal plants.” Furthermore, they have aided in “develop[ing] cost-effective clean-energy plans” for cities around the country. Bloomberg’s personal non-profit organization, Bloomberg Philanthropies, donated $50 million to aid the Beyond Coal Campaign and helped it spread from “15 to 45 states,” nearly doubling it’s support base. With this added support, much more can be done to halt the expansion of coal in the American economy.
In conclusion, the authors lay out the case against coal energy, in favor of cleaner, more economic methods. They show that coal is extremely unclean and unhealthy. Furthermore they advocate for cleaner, more economically sound energy sources instead of coal. Finally, they explain how their own work has done much to end coal’s monopoly over the US energy economy.
Summary: "Bad Food? Tax it, and Subsidize Vegetables" by Mark Bittman
OHlivEEahSTREIsand5655
In “Bad Food? Tax It, and Subsidize Vegetables”, Mark Bittman argues that unhealthy foods should be taxed to discourage people from eating them and to raise money to provide healthier foods to people who don’t have access to them. Bittman explains the dangers of the “Standard American Diet” and argues that simply taxing soda 2 cents per ounce could “improve our health and save tens of millions of lives” Bittman also argues that a healthier American population could mean savings of “tens if not hundreds of dollars in health care costs”.
Bittman begins by explaining that the American diet that is filled with unhealthy processed foods and animal products. One third of all Americans “either have diabetes or are pre-diabetic, most with type 2 diabetes, the kind associated with bad eating habits”. Bittman states that the percentage of obese adults has doubled over the last 30 years and for children it has tripled. He says our health bills are reaching a point of helplessness, and stresses the importance of change for the sake of national health and the well being of our economy.
Bittman, states that if we taxed things like “soda, French fries, doughnuts, and hyper-processed snacks”, it would “reduce consumption of unhealthful foods” and give us the money to make “healthy food more affordable and widely available” He points, out, for example, that the average American drinks 44.7 gallons of soda each year. He also sites a study from the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale, that found taxing soda should decrease “the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages”, lower the rate of “disease and therefore public health costs”, and raise money for other things.
Finally, he talks about how knowledge of the problem will not be enough because marketing will overpower any education. The fast food industry “alone spent more that 4 billion on marketing in 2009.” He criticizes the food industry’s reluctance to market healthier food, because “their mission is not public health but profit” and junk food is more profitable than healthy food.
Bittman says the solution includes several factors. Unhealthy foods should be taxed and the money raised could be used to widen the range of healthy foods. Support from government and the food industry, would lead to “progress on a half-dozen problems at once. Bittman argues that the money raised from taxes could lead to positive changes in disease, budget, health care, environment, and food access. The benefits, he says, would be staggering. He acknowledges that making all the changes will take time.,but it is necessary for the health of America and is “hardly a moonshot”.
The Power of the Playground by David Bornstein
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/07/the-power-of-the-playground/
In “The Power of the Playground,” David Bornstein conjures the familiar memories of childhood recess, wondering “why so many educators across the nation have…decided that it is acceptable to reduce or eliminate recess.” Responding to century-old philosophers and experts who have clearly emphasized that play is “deeply significant” for “children [to] discover the world,” Bornstein suggests that such defining child play experiences should be heightened by guidance through interaction. In discussing the issues of playground bullying, as well as the benefits of acquiring play’s “complex set of skills,” Bornstein introduces the contemporary version of recess-promoters: Playworks.
Bornstein describes Playworks as a volunteer program seeking to establish positive atmosphere within the playground and “elicit play skills.” But according to readers who disagree with Playworks’ approach, the problem with adults on the playground seems to be that they either “dictate playground behavior or act as referees.” That is not the intention of these coaches: instead, they allow “the kids…to learn how to serve as their own arbiters,” “offering assistance where necessary.” Bornstein can’t help but wonder that perhaps these critics’ negative memories of play lead them to make comments like, “I can’t help wondering if kids would do a better job…if we just left them…alone: no adult interference unless there’s bloodshed.”
And so, presents the case of the often unseen bullying on playgrounds. It is a thin line between how much adult interference is too much and too little; but as Bornstein plainly states, “bloodshed is not a good litmus test for adult involvement.” When “some of the cruelest bullying in elementary schoolyards occurs invisibly” through harmful gossip, is no adult interference necessary? While the “U.S. Department of Education has identified bullying [and misconduct] as a serious national problem,” “Playworks has been identified as a key prevention program.” In fact, thanks to Playworks, a San Jose principal doesn’t need to stand in front of restrooms during recess anymore; the kids are too busy playing to “vandalize the toilets.”
Recess, Bornstein reasons, can be made “available to all children,” regardless of their financial status, the safety of their neighborhood, or the decency of recreational programs. Still, it is something that is just as easily forgotten. In wrapping up his concerns, Bornstein leaves readers with one question: if education is there to “shape kids into the people we want them to be,” yet society seems to continuously undermine the importance of play, “what does that say about the kinds of people we want them to be?”
Summary: "On My Mother, and Dr. Kevorkian" by Andrew Solomon
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/06/on-my-mother-and-dr-kevorkian.html
Andrew Solomon supports the “right-to-die” movement in his essay, “On My Mother, and Dr. Kevorkian”. Solomon explains his endorsement for the movement through his personal experience with his mother’s suicide; how it affected her, him, and how a choice of such measures can greatly upset society. Solomon’s encouragements are not limited to choosing a proper time to die, but also choosing a spouse of the same sex, as well as choosing whether or not to keep a growing fetus. The common thread between these three causes is that they all uphold the general ethical code that people deserve to make their own decisions about their lives. To Andrew Solomon, “the words choice and freedom are nearly synonymous”. With this logic, a human without a choice, is enslaved.
In the past and currently, suicide is associated with manic depressives and the mentally disturbed. Yet there are people who have lived rich, satisfying lives and wish to encompass authority over their own deaths. In addition, there are elderly people “suffering fruitless pain at the end of a long illness” looking for “a peaceful exit”. Solomon says about his mother, “she knew, with rigor, who she was”; “the same person when I was a child as on the day she died”. He recognizes “how hard that consistency is to sustain” and how “it would be compromised if she had to relinquish control over her final agony”. Solomon’s mother made a conscious choice to end her life before her unforgiving Ovarian Cancer did. The environment was identical to her exodus desires; to die at home, with her family beside her. It was what she considered to be “optimal conditions”.
Because choosing to “top yourself”, no matter the circumstances, is illegal, Solomon and his family had to “lie, cheat, and break the law” to “allow her to die as she wished”. But the legal repercussions of assisting his mother’s suicide are trivial in comparison to the psychological turbulence a child receives from condoning such a task. Zoe FitzGerald, author of “Imperfect Endings: a Daughter’s Story of Love, Loss, and Letting Go”, struggled immensely with how to respond to her mother’s decision to take her own life. While her mother, who battled with Parkinson’s for years, “picked and changed her ‘death dates,’ and spent months looking into various methods of death”, FitzGerald was at a loss at how to be a “good daughter” under these circumstances. She was in the excruciating position of having to decide whether to help her mother end her life or talk her out of it. Eventually she chose to “ultimately support a loved one’s rights to end their own life”.
Solomon concludes with the fact that he is personally hindered by “other people” who “want to prevent us from making our own decisions”. Solomon is prevented from marrying the man he loves, and he is prevented from choosing a time to die. Solomon believes that “choice is almost always to the good” and that people should have access to “whatever enables them to endure departure from this world”.
In “Bad Food? Tax It, and Subsidize Vegetables”, Mark Bittman argues that unhealthy foods should be taxed to raise money to provide healthier foods to people who don’t have access to them. Bittman explains the dangers of the “Standard American Diet” and argues that taxing soda 2 cents per ounce could “improve our health and save tens of millions of lives”. Bittman states that not only will this make a drastic change in the overall health of America, but could save “tens if not hundreds of dollars in health care costs”.
Bittman begins by explaining the unhealthy American diet that is filled with processed foods and animal products. He states that if we taxed things like “soda, French fries, doughnuts, and hyperprocessed snacks”, it would give us the money to make “healthy food more affordable and widely available”. He criticizes the food industry’s effort or lack there of to market healthier food due to the fact that “their mission is not public health but profit” and more money is made from junk food. Bittman describes how the average American drinks 44.7 gallons of soda each year and by taxing sweetened drinks 2 cents per ounce, it would “reduce consumption of unhealthful foods and generate billions of dollars annually”. Through a study at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale, it was proven that taxing should decrease “the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages”, should lower the rate of “disease and therefore public health costs”, and could raise money for other things.
Bittman describes the amount of unhealthiness in America and the rate at which diabetes and obesity continues to spread. One third of all Americans “either have diabetes or are pre-diabetic, most with type 2 diabetes, the kind associated with bad eating habits. Our health bills are reaching a point of helplessness, and Bittman stresses the importance of change for the sake of national health and the well being of our economy. Finally, he talks about how knowledge of the problem will not be enough because marketing will overpower any education. The fast food industry “alone spent more that 4 billion on marketing in 2009”. Bittman supports this by stating that the percentage of obese adults has doubled over the last 30 years and for children it has tripled.
If all of these elements are put together such as the taxing of unhealthy foods, redirecting the profit to widen the range of healthy foods, and receiving support from the government and food industry, this would “make progress on a half-dozen problems at once. Bittman argues that changes would be make in disease, budget, health care, environment, food access, and more while the money from the taxes pays for these changes to be made. He explains that the “benefits are staggering” and how it will take time, but it is necessary for the health of America and is “hardly a moonshot”.
Summary: “Flying? Increasingly for the Birds” by Dick Cavett
KeetenPrigoozin6174
Dick Cavett of the New York Times introduces his opinion piece, “Flying? Increasingly for the Birds” with a humorous description of airport security calmly speaking of reaching their hands toward Cavett’s privates. He continues with a scorching commentary on the annoyances of intense airport scrutiny, mainly patting, and then even more ironic ranting about the inefficiencies and sometimes stupidity of the workers at LaGuardia airport compared to the wonderful machine that is Detroit Metro Airport, in regards to finding dangerous objects.
Patting is a procedure that is used in airports only when a passenger, such as Cavett, “[Who] refuse[s], as [he does], to be ordered into the big scanner with its “safe” amount of X-ray.” These dissenters are ushered into a small line in which they are patted. Cavett indicates his disregard for the seriousness of this by expressing his want to joke with the security people, who become angered by joking. “Are terrorists known for their tendency to joke?” he asks. This indicates that Cavett strongly believes that frequent fliers such as himself should not be forced to endure intense patting. He calls the security’s relentless and usually absurd micromanaging the “Security Theater”, since it is almost like a play that the patters are forced to perform.
This view is contrasted with another anecdote describing an amazingly useful and efficient system at Detroit Metro Airport. Cavett’s wife loves it, since there is never a long line for no reason and workers are always helpful above other airports’ average workers. The security people also find things that a mistaken traveler would normally miss, and are taken away with the greatest politeness and apology. Cavett asks, “Why should there be such a contrast between flying from Detroit and, say, from that bad dream posing as an airport, grubby LaGuardia?” At LaGuardia, security workers seized an unlabeled bottle of necessary liquid from Cavett’s wife. Cavett, somewhat angered but in good humor, asked the worker, “Supposing whatever possibly dangerous substance it contained had, say, ‘olive oil’ written on it… then would it be O.K.?” The worker replied, “’Yes.’”
Both Cavett and I are angered by this, as is most of statistical America. Why is it that an airport system that is supposed to protect America can have so many dangerous holes? It almost plays into terrorists’’ hands. Some, like Cavett, use humor to shine light on security atrocities, and others angrily cry out, or simply don’t fly. Whatever a person’s reaction is, the fact remains that many Americans need to fly, and ridiculous security measures should not put them off. Airports should take a hint from Detroit Metro and revisit their security policies, because otherwise, gasoline companies could experience a boom in earnings.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/19/flying-increasingly-for-the-birds/
Summary: “The fate of California's illegal immigrant students”
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2011/07/california-dream-act-and-illegal-immigrant-students.html
TesSsSsa-ehl-better69
The California Dream Act, which would allow undocumented immigrant students to obtain private scholarships from universities, has passed both houses of the Legislature and awaits Gov. Jerry Brown's signature. Although times opinion staff argues that keeping “undocumented” immigrant students from getting private scholarships, is both “hard-hearted social policy” and “foolish economics,” most readers on the discussion board are opposed to assistance to illegal immigrant students, citing the usual arguments many of those opposed to the California dream act have used.
Some believe it’s unfair to grant illegal immigrants benefits that they believe should be reserved for legal residents. For instance, writer Greg Maragos states that prospective students “should go back to their country of origin and get a visa.” He goes on to give an analogy of “break[ing] into your home and leaving a child in your kitchen” and then “telling him to help himself to your refrigerator.” Though that child might be in your house through no doing of his own, “doesn't mean we should re-write basic laws in order to make this your foster child against your will.” He also argues “providing scholarships to people who cannot legally work in the United States” wouldn’t help them unless they would be using “fraudulent documents” to secure work. The solution, he proposes, should “require the illegal alien student's filling out the necessary paperwork”, going back to their “country of origin” and “patiently waiting their turn in the immigration visa line.” In addition, writer ReganDuCasse says that having illegal immigrant students attend college is cheating, and Cheating is wrong. The immigrant students are “displacing the rightful to be there,” and of course there are limited funds, just as there are limited places in colleges. Illegal immigrants are “teaching their children to cheat” by being in college “unethically” and “disregarding” students who legally earned their place. These students shouldn’t be “rewarded” for this, no matter how much they have achieved. Boredin858 claims, “Shouldn't this money go to U.S. citizens instead?” Again, it implores the same idea, that the money or space being used on immigrants should be used for our own country’s citizens first, and there is nothing “heard hearted” about that.
Although most readers believe illegal immigrants should not be granted the writes to college without a visa or green card, time magazine stands strong with their belief that "AB 130 won't alleviate the crisis, but it will crack open a window of opportunity for those students who, through no fault of their own, were brought here illegally..."
Post a Comment