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
Monday, January 25, 2010
Using kairos to respond to Paul Krugman
Respond to Krugman’s article and foreground kairos in your response. That is, draft a letter to the editor of the New York Times that makes your own argument about this issue, but draws specifically on or acknowledges the rhetorical situation as a way to strengthen your own point. Post your response here as a comment to this post before you leave class today.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Dear NYT,
ReplyDeleteUpon reading "Do the Right Thing," by Paul Krugman, I am frustrated to find an issue of such importance to be written with so much cynicism. Krugman writes as if he knows all, and can clearly say there is no solution to the health care bill. Using irrelevant metaphors and overly obvious kairos statements, Krugman drills out a two page pessimistic piece of writing. Even the title, "Do the Right Thing," makes him sound like he is all-knowing." Despite being overly opinionated, I guess I have to hand it to him for making the foreground kairos statements.
Dear NYT,
ReplyDeleteAfter reading "Do the Right Things," I started to question whether or not this situation even had to be dealt with urgently. This piece comes off as a bit pushy and the writer appears to be in a state of kayos. You can't put down everything that the Republican party has tried to do, tell them it is a near impossible situation, and then tell them that it must be fixed now, and that there is not much time left before it all goes to hell. You can certainly see how there ideas may have not been the perfect decisions, but it is a difficult issue. If you think that you know what is best, then why didn't you propose a way out of this mess?
Paul Krugman,
ReplyDeleteAfter reading your article titled Do the Right Thing, I have come to the conclusion that you feel the need to immediately pass this health care bill that has recently been taking up substantial amounts of time on news stations, and space in our nation’s papers. With all this press being given to this subject, have you considered the fact that maybe this bill is not a simply stated as you may have put it? You recognize this bill as a centrist document, yet in the same article promote the idea of ignoring Republicans who oppose this bill, doesn’t sound very centrist to me. I understand your feeling that if this bill does not pass private health insurance will feel no pressure on lowering and or making health costs more affordable. At the same time you feel this need to pass the bill with a strong sense of urgency, something that I am not totally sure if I agree with. This country’s political system was designed in order to move slow, giving a chance for all different views to be heard to before coming to a rapid conclusion. Many are worried about the fact that if this bill passes it will be extremely hard for private and public healthcare to co-exist, which is something I feel you need to take into consideration when forming your argument. As much as you feel there is, the urgency you are pushing for is not a vital as you may see it. Let’s let this bill play out in a slow manner, working out the kinks so more agree, before coming to a rapid conclusion without hearing all sides.
To the editor:
ReplyDeleteAlthough much of your argument was very valid, certain aspects were contradictory. This is a much more complex issue than you make it seem. You say that Healthcare reform must happen and that a bill must be passed but you say it as if it is a hopeless situation and that there is no way for this to occur. It is true, we must pass something or it will only continue to get worse for many Americans but there must also be some compromise in order for the reform to be a success. Although full-scale reform would be ideal, something must get passed if only for a start. Even if it is a small piece of the bill that passes it will put the country on track for full-scale reform. If democrats back out then there is certainly no hope for the reform to occur. This however, does not mean that it is all or nothing. Make something (if only a piece of the bill) law and the country will start on the right track of reform.
As stated in class today, there are so many positives and negatives when it comes to the urgency of health care. I believe that health care is an issue that needs to be taken care of quickly. Since the United States is made up of a lot of low income families, there is urgency for them. It seems that the more impoverished a person is they are more likely to become sick due to the fact that they do not have good health care. Krugman’s argument was very here and now, as well as very negative. It seems as if he did not have hope for any future of the bill due to the way that politicians are handling it currently. He seemed to only care about the present and not the future. There are many people, including myself, who do not have to worry about health care because I am covered under my parents insurance, but this article made me think about what will happen after college. Since job security is something that is on the line, what will happen after I graduate?
ReplyDeletePaul Krugman,
ReplyDeleteI feel that with the economic crisis we, as a country, have faced, along with all the negativity radiating throughout the world such as the Haiti catastrophe and other big scene issues such as terrorist threats, the continuous flow of pessimistic attitude in your persuasion will not create the mass influence you are aspiring. The power dynamics you have used in your piece, of the “all or nothing” point of view is unnecessary and falsely accused. Democracy should be more-so promoted with compromise rather than ‘this is how it needs to be done, there is not other alternative’, a statement which was bluntly exclaimed multiple times in the column. A smarter and more logical approach to you argument would be to create a more positive outlook, something that Americans, and anyone else for that matter, are constantly striving for, especially in this day and time. In all due respect, positivity is a key component in today’s persuasive tool.
To the Editor:
ReplyDeleteKrugman’s article, “Do the Right Thing”, is much too radical of an idea concerning the current situation of American politics and the thought process of the American people. Yes, some sort of legislation needs to be passed to sway the tide of the misdeeds and troublesome nature of the existing health care plan, but insisting on such urgency and a one-sided mindset is going to do nothing to reform this county in the interests of the majority. The current health care system has been in place for quite some time, as only just recently has the progression of society seen its process to be unsatisfactory. With that in mind, the community should be able to hold out for the time being and await a bill that truly meets their needs. The pressure that the media is placing on Obama and respective legislative bodies is not encouraging them to find good, progressive solutions but to find the easiest and fastest ways to find consensus. Instead of being so worried about the introduction of another republican into Congress, we should view it as a way to make sure that the true meaning of democracy, the representation of the people is truly met within a piece of legislation that holds so much gravity within the American nation. Reform is inevitable and has been agreed upon by both parties, we need not fear that things will remain as they are. If the people relax and trust the system that has worked since the 1780’s more progress is likely to be made. Krugman’s hurry undermines all that we are trying to achieve with this health care bill. This is a country based on equality and freedom of speech, denouncing one party’s ability to have input and due process is un-American and unconstitutional. Remember that patience is a virtue and with a little more trust in the individuals we as a people have voted to represent us, the bill for health care reform will be passed with a proper representation of all people of society.
The advantages and disadvantages of passing the Senate Bill through the House is at this time politically neutral. Democrats have already taken the approval rating hit for attempting health care and to stop now would be similar to getting in a car with a tank full of gas then stopping a mile off your destination with a low tank of gas. They've burned up their approval taking it this far and do stop would be to waste all that gas. Republicans have shown their true colors. Sen-elect Scott Brown voted FOR a bill eerily similar to the Senate version that Mitt Romney signed yet will vote against a bill granting the rest of the nation the same rights those in Massachusetts have? Those complaining about Nebraska having special treatment through the Cornhusker-kickback, which Nelson asked to be removed should a compromise bill emerge, should complain furthermore about Brown denying the rest of the nation the same rights he granted his constituents. Those Democrats who second guess their votes on health care because of Massachusetts should realize that the vote in Massachusetts was not a referendum on health care because those who voted for Brown or Coakley had nothing to gain and nothing to lose. To vote against the Senate bill should it be introduced into the House would be to vote against providing Americans with affordable coverage, granting them a right given to every other developed nation on Earth.
ReplyDeleteTo the editor: Paul Krugman’s “Do the right Thing” letter to the House Democrats struck many readers as pushy, negative and pessimistic, but—regardless of the context of the issue—Krugmen skillfully laid out a need for urgency for Congress to pass a bill. However, I question Krugmen’s urgency to Congress as he states, “The Senate bill is much, much better than nothing”; Americans deserve a good healthcare plan, not simple leftovers from a previous dinner for an anxiously hungry family. A democratic republic—the democratic ideals that Americans hold true—should be respected even in an event of urgency. Paul Krugmen says that there is no chance for reconciliation between the House and the Senate; I hope that, for democracy’s sake, Krugmen is wrong.
ReplyDeleteMr. Paul Krugman,
ReplyDeleteYour claims are important and imformative, and it is understood you feel very strongly about decisions that have been made concerning health care. I think your message of frustration is delivered clearly and even five paragraphs into the article I as a reader saw where you were coming from. However, it seems that your feeling took over the keyboard and let you go on a tangent on everything thats going wrong while giving a hint of who to blame. When thinking about this injustice I agree to the fullest with what you are saying, however I challenge you next time to write with more constructive criticism that tells the reader that you are not just angry, but care very much about the outcome to this struggle with health care. Or perhaps even give your input on how this issue can be resolved; you seem very knowledgeable and you have the media as an outlet to your ideas. I think you can use your sources better so you are able to deliver a well rounded strong message.
To the Editor:
ReplyDeleteA Message to House Democrats: This is your moment of truth. You can do the right thing and served the public who elected you.
In “Do the Right Thing” (column, Jan. 22), Paul Krugman writes as a defeatist with no chance of a victory in sight. He is the coach of the 1A loosing football team, bullying his team into an impossible victory against impossible odds. His inspirational speech is devoid of inspiration, relying on fear to intimidate Congress into rash and egocentric actions. Where is the optimism? Where is the perseverance? Where is the hope?
Despite his fatalistic attitude and regardless of his call to legislate complete health care reform, my only criticism of Mr. Krugman is regarding his attitude toward the democratic identity of our representative government. Although he charges the House Democrats to “serve the public,” he completely disregards the principles of compromise and cooperation so treasured by our founding fathers. By advising House Democrats to completely ignore opposing views, to absolutely refuse to make any reasonable concessions whatsoever, Krugman is asking Congress to go directly against the core values of our national government – values written explicitly into Constitution by Madison, Franklin, Jefferson, and Washington.
So I ask you, House Democrats, to understand Mr. Krugman’s words as the treason they are – not for his goal but his plan of attack. As rightfully elected officials, do what you think is best for your electorate. Vote on behalf of your community as you see fit. Do not, however, ignore the Constitution. It is up to your best judgment on whether or not to fight for government health care, but do so in a democratic manner. I hope you rally passionately behind your cause, but I ask you to do so within the limitations of our laws. The Republican victory in Massachusetts is not a death to public health care; it is merely one solitary vote. Instead, look at it as an opportunity to exemplify the beauty of democracy, an opportunity to win back one solitary vote. Take honor in a battle righteously fought, and work together towards progress – work as a team. Be optimistic. Be persistent. Be hopeful.
Dear writer:
ReplyDeleteIn your article there are few statements that you focused on while you should have concentrated on others. One of those statements is when you referred to republican governor Mitt Romney and his health care plan and you stated how similar his health care plan for Massachusetts to the senate bill. The problem here is you should focus more on why this healthcare plan is important for people, you shouldn’t try to justify whether republicans should agree on it or not. The main focus should have been is why this bill is important for low income families, what are the consciences if the healthcare plan didn’t pass. The consciences could varies: first too many people will be without health care because they can’t afford the astronomical amount of money that one has to pay to cover himself and his family, since the low income families form a big part of the U.S.A population therefore many people will get sick and they can’t afford to pay for hospital’s and a huge deficit in the economy will happen because the government will pay for the citizens to cover the hospitals expenses.
Dear NYT,
ReplyDeleteAs we read the Krugman article in the class, we sort of found a debate within ourselves and it is clear that the issue on health care is split and varies from family to family as it does from income to income. Also it would be favorable and the easiest thing to just pass the popular pieces, it is impossible as it would be like Krugman's analogy of a 3-legged stool and wanted to eliminate some of the legs. I did not really like Krugman's pessimist view on the subject but Krugman puts the word out there that the health care reform is something that needs to happen now and we need to come together as Americans to get this through as a whole, not only the popular parts.
-victor valle