Read through the letters to the editor from the New York Times from the past few days. Pick one that interests you and read it carefully. Then, find the original article that prompted this letter and read it, too.
Write a substantial paragraph and summarize the original article and the letter responding to it. What is the article’s main argument? (Or, if it is a news article, what are the main issues that it reports on?) What does the letter say in response to this article?
Once you summarize the article and the letter, explain the rhetorical situation for the letter writer. What prompted the letter writer to respond to the original piece, and how does he or she frame the letter as a response to it? What audience(s) does the letter writer address (implicitly or explicitly)? What constraints (ideas, beliefs, values) does the writer face in making his or her argument?
Please post your response as a comment to this post. Aim for 250-350 words.
Questionable Quality
-
Found on the premises of Johnson-McFarlane and Centennial Halls are what
are supposed to be “convenience” stores. These convenience stores make
their busin...
16 years ago
Beginning over a year ago with the presidential election between McCain and Obama, health care reform has become a major player in the political scene. During his campaign Obama promised to develop a plan that would transform the current American health care plan into more of a universal health care system. Since the time of his initiation as president, Obama has yet to make much progress concerning his health care promises. The New York Times focused on the current development of this situation in their article “Obama Weighs a Paring of Goals for a Health Bill” which reveals Obama’s current distress at the inability to move the bill through Congress and the Senate. Obama is quoted to be trying to push the bill through even if it is radically less reformative than he would have liked in order to make at least a slight improvement for the time being. Steve Blank responds to this article rather forcefully, claiming that Obama’s desperation goes against all of the promises he made to voters during his campaign. The main argument of Black’s piece focuses on the fact that by attempting to push the bill through the legislative body, the main premise of health care reform is being trampled by the agenda of “Congressional sellouts and corporate lobbyists”. This situation is thus underwriting all that Obama stands for in Black’s mind, causing America to be even more in need of the “kind of reform the president’s soaring rhetoric promised during his campaign”.
ReplyDeleteThe struggle with health care reformation has been long and painful the past year or so. Many parties are pressuring Obama to do something, almost anything at this point, to improve the current health care system. Black’s main purpose in writing his letter is to encourage Obama to stay his course. He argues that the haste to pass the bill even if it means appealing to the larger scale companies and congressional legislators for modification goes against everything that Obama said he stood for. Black appeals to the common voters, encouraging them to see how the progression of the health care reform is currently against all that they believed to have voted for, against all of their personal wishes. Using vivid metaphors and strong comparisons, Black provides a strong notion of the bill’s ineffectiveness and bias which allows him to come to his greatest appeal that “by failing to lead our nation in a new direction, Mr. Obama has given rise to a tidal wave of reactionary conservatism…indeed a change is in order.” Frustration and a sense of betrayal has led Black to confront the health care situation and demand that people begin to see what is becoming of the values and dreams that brought them so much hope during last year’s election and to change the course of the tide.
The original article that I read was about the glass industry and how it is in decline in the US. It is classified as the ‘decline of yet another industry’. It talks about how the recession has caused many industries to go into decline but specifically the glass industry in the US. It talks about how the new World Trade Center being built in New York City is supposed to be a national symbol and a patriotic gesture but that the glass for the first 20 floors is being imported from China. We learn why China has become such a huge power in the global economy but mostly how the glass industry in the United States has been affected by the recession and inefficient economic strategies. The letter responds to this article and says that the glass industry is not dead and that we can blame unfair Chinese economic policies and a lack of enforcement of US trade laws for the decline in the glass industry. He says that the Obama administration needs to take issue with the Chinese directly in order to address the decline in the glass industry.
ReplyDeleteThis particular letter writer also happened to be a US senator from Pennsylvania. He was prompted to write this letter because he didn’t agree with what it was saying or what all of the information that was provided in the original article. This writer is giving evidence to the contrary of what the article said and he obviously knows what he is talking about. He talks about another American company that bid on making the glass for the Trade Centers and has very valid arguments and facts. The audience that the senator is addressing seems to be anyone who is interested in reading the article. It is aimed at the editors but it is also very professionally written and does not attack or insult the editor. The senator has certain constraints especially when it comes to bashing the US and the policies that it no longer seems to follow but otherwise he is very straightforward. He acknowledges both the problems and also the things trying to be done to make the problems better.
An editorial in the New York Times asserts that New York should not be the only state without no-fault divorce laws, where a divorce cannot end “without one spouse’s alleging fault, such as cruel and inhumane treatment, adultery or abandonment.” The editors think that enforcing no-fault laws would save many New Yorkers from “financial and emotional costs” of legal fees and exploitation of personal divorce details. The article also holds that “the only thing really achieved by perpetuating the current law is to make divorces costlier, longer, and uglier than they need to be.” The editors blame the lack of inactions of no-fault laws in New York on the power of the Catholic Church in society, lawyers’ fees, and protection for victims of domestic violence. In a letter to the editor, John Oustfield argues against no-fault laws simply because they have negative effects on the children involved in the divorce.
ReplyDeleteIn his letter to the editor, the author is prompted to speak because of his negative past experience with a no-fault divorce. The author states, “When there is marital misconduct, one spouse is, of course, victimized, but the children are as well.” Ousfield’s main concern and motivation in writing his letter to the editor is for the families that are victimizes of divorce. The author also writes his opinion about the lack of virtues of society when it comes to the sacred practice of marriage and the ease of which people can divorce. The author speaks to the families and citizens of New York, urging them not to pass a no-fault divorce law as it teaches children and spouses that “right and wrong do not matter.”
The original article I chose to read was titled "Iraq's Ban On Democracy." This article, written by Kenneth M Pollak, focuses on Iraq's struggles with creating a non Baathist government. With Washington's attention leaving Iraq and spending more and more time on Haiti, Obama's plan to withdraw more American forces could end up causing more sectarian conflicts in Iraq. Iraqi's fear having a sectarian rule, having lived through Saddam Hussein's regime, and are now trying to ban ex-baathist politicians like the Iraqi national defense minister. This is because it is stated in the Iraqi constitution that baathist politicians cannot run for election. The letter, written by Francis Brooke, discusses how Iraq should strongly enforce the ban on baathist politicians as the country would slide back into a dangerous dictatorship without it. Brooke relates the Iraqi Baathist ban to the German ban on the Nazi Party, with Iraq's ban being very similar in cause and effect.
ReplyDeleteBrooke was prompted to write the letter as he states he is very active in following Iraqi politics, especially in issues of such importance. Arguing the opposition from the original article (which states that ex-baathists should be allowed to hold office) Brooke gives a powerful reason why baathists should be banned. He brings up how if one were to ever visit the torture chambers and mass graves left behind by Saddam Hussein's party, or speak with the victims of his regime, they would fully understand why a baathist rule would once again destroy the developing country. Francis Brooke writes his letter with strong rhetoric by using descriptive examples and by showing knowledge on the Iraqi government. He believes that Iraq does have a promising future (the opposite of the pessimistic original article stating without US involvement, Iraq cannot succeed) as long as the ban on baathist politicians holds. Brooke's letter seems to write with explicitly as his letter is meant to bring up other important parts of the issue.
The Letter to the Editor that I read was titled Terrorist Threats, Intelligence Flaws in response to the article written by Eric Lipton, Eric Schmitt, and Mark Mazzetti titles Review of Jet Bomb Plot Shows More Missing Clues. This article was an article written in response to the attempt of a jet bombing on Christmas Day. This article noted how threats were giving to the President and other head political figures, which had seemed to be ignored leading to the attempt of another bombing involving airplanes by Umar Farouk. The article also notes that this man’s name had already been given to these political figures, but the American Intelligence Authority who noted this name received no response.
ReplyDeleteWhile many of the responses to this article seemed quite sympathetic to what had happened on Christmas Day. One letter I feel made a great response to this article, forming her rhetoric around humiliation in order to bash the American Intelligence Authority. She wrote her response in a manner that showed she was somewhat disgusted with the performance of these officials. She complains about the justification of all the lines and rules in airports, which she notes seem rather useless as something so obvious easily walks through the system. “The basic premise of all American intelligence gathering and analysis should anticipation of worse-case scenarios, not wishful thinking.” – Laurie Caplan. I feel she addresses this response to the average middle-class American who has had to put up with these hectic airport endeavors, which recently seems to be somewhat of a waste. Has America forgot what it so violently learned 8 years ago?
In the article “How Retirees Saved the Banks,” the author talks about issues with the banks and how powerful they have become. The banks have worked out a system that allows them to lend out money cheaply, with a low risk of losing money. The idea behind this from the beginning was to rebuild the banks to a healthier state. But there are some consequences caused by this that are directed towards a certain group, the senior citizens. By lowering the interest rate, and buying Treasury securities, the banks are saving themselves, but screwing the economy. In response to this article, a letter to the editor was written in defense of the senior citizens. The senior citizens as a whole are the spark of our economy, spending their long saved retirement money on houses, vacations, and entertainment. Elderly people can do this with their money because they have paid off their homes, paid off college loans from their kids, and have even had a little time to save up some money. But with lower interest rates, elderly people don’t have this money to spend, because they rely on higher interest rates to make them money as they move into retirement. The author behind this response makes note that no chamber of commerce has noticed the decline in this spending as if to mock them. Their needs to be a balance found between safe cheap loans for the banks and higher interest rates for retirees, or even the public in general.
ReplyDeleteThe rhetoric situation for this letter is designed to poke at the poor balance between happiness for the banks and the retirees. The original piece frustrates the older generations, and they want their retirement money now. However with the economic downfall, this might not be the best possible economic decision. The retirees want their money, but as much as they deserve it, the money isn’t there. They are being selfish and not thinking about the future of our economy, and just using this to try and get what they deserve. There is more than just one generation that needs to be considered here, and their futures as well. This responder sounds like an old person that is just pissed he can’t retire and travel the world. He isn’t the only one without money, and its time for us as a nation to figure out our financial problems.
The article I read was called "How Solar Can You Get!" Basically it was an article that talked about how our current sources for energy are just plain old and often times not efficient with many drawbacks such as pollution. The author talked about how one of the greenest sources of energy today is solar energy through solar panels. This is a great idea, however, much of the energy get lost or becomes what the author calls "garbage" energy because of the gases in the atmosphere and because the panels cannot receive solar energy during the night time. So how do we fix this? Well there is a huge space company in Europe at the moment that is undergoing research on how to get solar energy directly from the source, the sun. The idea is quit simple but unfortunately like most ideas, easier said than done. Satellites equipped with solar panels would have to be developed and then the energy that they collect would have to find its way here to earth in a safe and efficient manner. People replied to this article saying that the cost would be way too much and that the cost would outgrow the amount of energy that would be usable. There were also concerns about how this energy would be transported back to earth without burning or frying anyone. The author explained that by using infrared, the energy could be transported quickly and safely without harming anyone. I personally think this is a great idea that could be expanded on and maybe one day put into efficient use. after all the sun is a constant source of usable energy that is not being limited like much of our resources here on earth. I think this is a time for not only as a country to come together but as the people of earth to join forces into looking for clean and efficient energy solutions before it becomes too late and we wipe out our natural resources.
ReplyDelete-victor
The original article is “Walking the walk on school reform”. Randi Weingarten, the president of American federation of teachers, offered a proposal to reform teacher evaluation, the standards of which is not only taking student achievement into account but also expressed support for “a fair, transparent and expedient process to identify and deal with ineffective teachers.”
ReplyDeleteCurrently, the main disadvantage of evaluation is that most of the evaluations are “typically short, pro forma and universally positive” so that there are still some ineffective teachers cannot be found out by the evaluations. In such case, Ms. Weingarten opposed to use test scores only; instead, she pointed out a sophisticated analysis that can determine if there is real growth in a student with the given education of his/her teacher. Meanwhile, taking a “sink-or-swim approach” to teaching can help teacher to improve their abilities as well as being more professional.
In the response letter, Michael Wolk strongly agreed with the decision Randi Weingarten made that there should be a better teacher evaluation system. Moreover, he suggested to offer some help for teachers, but if they still cannot meet the expectations, they should just go because they don’t’ want the education that not good enough for their children. I would say the author of the letter could be a parent of children who really cares about the education of his own children. As a parent, he believes that the education his children receive is closely related to the teaching quality of their teachers, and that’s why he gave his most important reason that “we owe this to our children.” Namely, most of the parents care about this issue a lot. There is no doubt that they want to see some changes to evaluate teaching to reject the dross and assimilate the essence.
An agreement has been reached after a lawsuit over the issues with ownership of the American Indians’ land and money ownership had been disputed for over a decade. President Obama called the settlement an “important step toward a sincere reconciliation” (1.), however the process is yet to be completed with the Congress enacting legislation and for it to be signed off by the courts. In 1887, the Congress split up the tribes and individual Indians were assigned the lands. But the 439 owners see only one dollar from the revenue of the land they take part ownership of. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar called the settlement a “historic, historic development for Indian country and a major step on the road to reconciliation”. “Tens of billions”(1.) was the amount of money expected to be given back, and at times the government even stated that they either owed little or nothing to the Indian tribes.
ReplyDeleteIn the New York Times’ Editorials section, a letter titled “Indian Tribes Await Their Due” written in response to Charlie Savage’s article: “U.S. Will Settle Indian Lawsuit for $3.4 Billion”. The letter basically summarizes the article written on December 8, 2009, and stating that the “government –controlled trust accounts were mishandled and lost” (2.). This piece describes the lack of effort to provide a just reconciliation to the American Indian tribes on behalf of the American government, due to the thirteen years of trying to develop some sort of just settlement for the poor management of the tribal lands that the American Indians were forced to leave. Even after a settlement of three point four billion dollars, the editorial states that the economic injustice still remains, for the amount of money being forwarded to “individual leaders of trust” (2.) and “fractional claimants” (2.) is but only a fraction of the amount that should go to the tribes. Especially when considering the fact that Indian owners were not acknowledged as recipients of the “fees from grazing livestock and gas and oil royalties.”
While the article tries to justify or add a sense of “good doing” to their long delay to a settlement, the letter’s tone suggests this is a small part of what is actually owed. The letter presents the different scenarios in which the Congress was able to put the lawsuit on hold by missing deadlines. The author values the just act of the government paying their dues, and displays a hint of bitterness toward the action they have taken.
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/us/09tribes.html?pagewanted=2&sq=charlie savage and indian&st=cse&scp=1
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/opinion/21thur3.html
The article that I read was about the change in the roles of spouses. The main article spoke about the different statistics that have altered over the past 30 years. There are many woman who have taken the role of “bringing home the bacon”, instead of cooking and cleaning all day long. It also shows that woman have gained more knowledge due to the fact that they are going to school more now than in recent years. This has changed woman drastically. There was a significant gain in income when it came to married couples rather than just individuals. The main point of the article was to show the transformation that had occurred. It was no making any type of argument, but showing the differences that society has made.
ReplyDeleteIn response to this article, a contributing editor of The Atlantic, Sandra Tsing Loh, spoke from a very interesting perspective. She took the idea of what men usually think, but told it from the female perspective. When I was reading this piece, I was very confused. She began the article speaking as a woman but then she went off into a fantasy that men would have, and then went back to her normal self. I believe that she is writing to both male and female audiences. She is allowing the male to see the female perspective, and vice versa. She looks at the argument from both sides, but being a female she sides with that gender. She presents her argument in a very unique way, which makes it as if she is just giving us her opinion and no an argument.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe letter to the editor was called "An American Paradox" and was a response to David Brook's editorial called "The Pragmatic Leviathan". In his editorial Brooks sums up how the political mood in the country has swung because the American people have awakened and realized that they want a government that is limited, a servant. He uses the health care debate and the resulting fallout in Massachusetts as primary examples of what happens when government tries to expand its role into all aspects of American life. From finance, health, energy, automobiles, housing, and education, Obama has increased government intervention in every category while doing so not from one side of the political spectrum or the other but rather through pragmatism. Brooks makes the case that while it may have been completely logical and necessary the American people have swung into rejection mode for further centralization of authority. He finishes by saying that it is for that reason that Congressional Democrats would be committing political suicide should they try to pass the Senate Health Care bill. The response to Brook's column, "An American Paradox", slams Brooks for assuming that "a limited federal government is compatible" with what American's expect from their government. He called his letter an American Paradox because conservatives wish to ignore the plain truth, which is that American's expect lots of government services, from Medicare, Social Security, Fire Departments, Police Departments, Transportation Services, etc... while at the same time want to continuously lower tax rates which then lowers tax receipts which in turn lowers how much the government can spend on the services. Services like Medicare and Social Security can not be delivered through a limited government that has low monetary reserves. The letter to Brooks states that the dissatisfaction with Obama is because he has made them aware "of just how much money their government has to spend to subsidize the cherished “middle-class” American life."
ReplyDeleteThe letter writer obviously comes from the left side of the political spectrum. He believes that American's currently wish to "have their cake and eat it to". He is distraught over the claims that people make saying that a limited government in its entirety is what the people want. He hardly makes the claim for a larger government however he feels that government should not be shrunk. The letter writer simply points out the unavoidable truth, "The paradox ... will become increasingly evident as our work force (and, consequently, income tax base) shrinks as a result of retirements and gains in workplace efficiency."
On January, 17 2010 the article “Review of Jet Bomb Plot Shows More Missed Clues” was published by Eric Lipton, Eric Schmitt and Mark Mazzetti. The Article is discussing the clues and the trends that were present in front of Mr. Obama and his team that consist of the F.B.I , the C.I.A , and homeland security, but for some reason they have failed to notice all these trends and to connect the dots to avoid the terrorist attack that took place on Christmas day bombing attempt. The other point that the article hits on really hard that in early November intelligent authorities say that they learned form a communications intercept of Al Qaeda followers in Yemen that a man with man named “Umar Farouk” the first two names of the jetliner suspect, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab had volunteered for a coming operation. Moreover the article is covering how the U.S.A was fully aware of the threat that has been growing in Yemen from al Qaeda and they were fully aware of the connections between Saudi Arabia and Yemen and the financial support that Saudi Arabia provides Yemen with. Another thing that the article focused on is that some in November United Nations expert on Al Qaeda warned policy makers in Washington that the explosive device used by Yemen militant could be carried on airlines. Miss. Laurie Caplan in her respond letter addressed how weak and careless the security officials like the F.B.I and Homeland security acted and one of the sentence that blow her mind away was “Counterterrorism officials assumed that the militants were not sophisticated or ambitious enough to send operatives into the United States”. So she addresses that all the security routines in the airports like taking off shoes, long line and delays and so on is pretty much useless of the security officials underestimate their enemies and don’t takes their threats seriously. In her respond she is arguing that the government acted seriously and she used previous events such as 9/11 to back up her ideas and believes that terrorist attacks cannot be taken as a joke and they must be treated seriously all the time.
ReplyDeleteI read the Letter to the Editor about terrorism and the ridiculous amount of security we, as United States citizens have to encounter just to travel within the United States. The letters were in response to an article written on the front page on January 18, 2010 entitled “Review of Jet Bomb Plot Shows More Missed Clues”. The first article began to discuss Obama’s recent acts of discussion about the “possible plots against the United States”. It then continued to describe the promiscuity of a bomb threats of the holidays, particularly Christmas Day. It further announces the blind sight that we as a country have about the simplistic ideas such as “the possibility of a suicide bomber aboard a Detroit bound jetliner”, and failed to acknowledge the extremists linked to Yemen. Obama admits that there were far more warning signs than we acknowledged and grasped, and this is a worrisome thought. Again, the article articulates “the officials also cited lapses and mis-judgments”, another scary thought. Continuing in the article it lists different occasions of possible threats we missed in the months of September, November and December. Lastly the article tries to assure the audience that America’s security has improved and through networking we can weave our way in and out of “secret” scenarios. The letters to the editor each expressed the concern and annoyance that the overprotective security in the United States’ airports has become. If the security does not protect us anyways, due to lack of intellectual mapping and grasp of acknowledgment of other threats, why punish the citizens with such a nuisance of delays and removing our shoes, and liquids, etc.
ReplyDeleteThe writer who responded to the article was clearly ticked off by the whole admittance of lack of interpretation from the government and security standpoint. She is upset that we as citizens have to face the consequences when the situation could be directed to a more crucial and direct matter, such as “the American intelligence network was clearly listening in Yemen and sharing that information, a sign of progress since the 2001 terrorist attacks”. I think the responder was targeting the letter at the United States’ population as a whole, specifically travelers such as herself. She created the idea of having to reread the article because she was in such disbelief, creating a strong stand point. She also used this direct quote from the article “Counterterrorism officials assumed that the militants were not sophisticated or ambitious enough to send operatives into the United States.” She further elaborates that we should set protection based on worst case scenarios, but not on wishful thinking. In the original article September 11 was brought up, the respondent implies that we have not learned from our experience years back.
On January 19th, 2010, Op-Ed columnist David Brooks wrote an article for the New York Times reflecting on the first year of President Obama’s term. He opens his article with references to Thomas Hobbes’ “Leviathan,” and gives context to the political climate in which it was written. He then draws a connection between the repressive and authoritarian crown of Victorian England and the current Obama administration. Although he is somewhat critical of Obama’s recent actions and decisions, Brooks remains largely objective in his commentary. He avoids being accusatory and includes praise for Obama, and then follows his commendations with his questioning of the president’s actions over the past year. Brooks also supports his seemingly impartial hesitations with facts and figures regarding the consensus of the American people. Concluding his article, Brooks ends with an “I Statement,” giving a recommendation instead of a harsh reprimand.
ReplyDeleteIn response to “The Pragmatic Leviathan,” Joshua Singer wrote a response addressing one of Brooks’ assumptions – that the American people want a balanced government. It is written very much like a response from a debate. He opens his article by restating Brooks’ assumption and then proceeds to argue against it, explaining why Brooks is in err. Singer, unlike Brooks, is more argumentative in his writing, aiming to win the debate in a fiery passion and emotion, ethos, than through logic, or logos. Responding to Brooks and sharing his opinions with the readers of the New York Times, Singer also makes assumptions, especially regarding the conservative platform of which he is clearly not a member. Although Singer does assert his point, I think he was constrained by his own political views to adequately address Brooks and his audience.
Here's another response from Flora:
ReplyDeleteIn the article “What Could You Live Without”, written by Nicholas D.Kristof, was telling a story of Kevin Salwen and his family. As a famous writer and entrepreneur in Atlanta, Salwen donated a great amount of money to the poor who need help, including the Haiti people currently. It is an interesting conversation when Hannah, their daughter, asked her parents to sell their big house, and then give half of the money to the poor and used the rest to buy a smaller house but more modest. Actually, smaller size of house narrows the distance between families and create a happier family. Salwen’s family has done a lot for helping the poor, and at the same time, their behavior affected the people around them to get involved in philanthropy. In Salwen’s book, his object is not to convince people to sell their houses; instead, people are highly encouraged to think over what they could offer to the society based on what they have.
Considering the comments written by some students ( in the section of Education- the leaning network), almost, everyone keeps different opinions. XavIer thinks Hannah’s behavior of selling her house was foolish when giving your own money to others you don’t know; Gillette is willing to help the poor and offer anything that she might not need. In the point view of Drea, whose idea I am interested in, it is said “What we , as humans, don’t realize is that those expensive things we own, that we think of as necessities, are simply luxuries.” I think Drea’s idea have some similarities to Salwen’s family’s belief that good life doesn’t mean fancy big house, cars, cloths, most importantly, it is to live a happy life by doing something significant to the higher level of self, the community or society. However, people are born with different natures when growing up in different education background as well. Not everyone could act like the Salwens, whose behavior confirms the “selfish pleasure of selflessness”
I would say that Nicholas wrote this article in order to encourage people to take some actions, especially the present situation of Haiti; of course, based on personal ability. Rich people should stop buying luxuries when the community they live in needs more money; middle class people should consider how to save money and do anything as much as they could, like “a message to shoes; the poor are not allowed to be just waiting there and never put any effort for gaining a better life.