Blog 3

http://www.trustedreviews.com/samsung-galaxy-note-10-1-2-2014_Tablet_review I chose this topic because tablets really fascinate me and I enjoy Samsung products.

The Galaxy Note 10.1 2014 Edition is designed to help people make life easier. It is packing a bunch of hardware and software enhancements from regular tablets that make it far more advanced for the normal user. With its high pixel display and the handy S pen, this tablet can definitely change the way we use technology and save us from carrying tons of different journals for your classes.

Blog Post #5

1. In the article I chose, "Put the Smartphone Down. Now." by David Wygant who is a dating and relationship coach. He gives multiple valid points as far as what having a smartphone takes away from in life, but he doesn't mention any benefits society has also acquired from having these types of phones as well. Author Wygant refer's to smart phones as elements that prohibit us from finding love. Often times, society is so focused on what's going on in this "imaginary world" called Facebook, or Instagram, or even Twitter. Whichever it may be, he believes takes away from our ability to meet new people on a daily basis and potentially acquiring the types of relationships we as a society have often been searching for.
2. Author Wygant provided multiple realistic explanations to the disadvantage of having smartphones, but failed to recognize the advantages society now has due to a more advanced technological network. We as a society, have the ability to meet people not only in person, but also over social networking sites. Contact each other on an easier basis, and get fast responses such as texting or instant messaging. Even though, there are multiple disadvantages to having smartphones, they also acquire multiple advantages as well.
3. Author Wygant doesn't address the alternative side or perspective of having smart phones. His opinion is that people leave their "smart phones" alone throughout the day so they can actually come in contact face to face with people who might potentially become someone more in their lives rather than just another face they see.
4. No rebuttal's were made in this piece. It was strictly a one-sided biased piece. He disagrees with meeting people over telephone or social networking, and believes that face-face contact needs to be a priority rather than trying to learn more about someone behind a telephone screen.

Blog Post #5

1. The opinion piece that I chose to write about is called “Make the time fit the crime” by the LA Times Editorial Board, written on November 19, 2013. The author explicitly states their opinion about the lengthy sentences given to nonviolent felons, also mentioning the flaws of the Three Strikes Law in CA. It is stated in the title itself that they believe that the time should fit the crime. They believe that “only the most dangerous offenders, chiefly those who would perpetrate violence, should be locked away forever.” They also made the point that imprisoning nonviolent people for life terms is “absurdly expensive” and “outrageously harsh.”

2. The anticipated objection that I found in the piece was the point that sentences are meant to be social retribution, and prisons provide education, skills training, cognitive behavioral therapy, and substance abuse treatment. These rehabilitation programs help the felon to successfully reenter society as, hopefully, a changed person.The author makes a concession by stating that they are “a legitimate and necessary part of the justice system.” They also make the point, “It would be naive to believe that every offender, even every nonviolent offender, can be rehabilitated.”

3. I think that the people who may make this anticipated objection would be supporters of the Three Strikes Law in CA. They believe that it is good that these felons are kept off the streets because they obviously haven’t learned from the first two times, and who knows what they will do next.

4. The rebuttal that the author made to this objection was that it is not the best solution to lock up felons for unreasonably long periods because it clogs up prisons and wastes taxpayers dollars. They also say that unreasonably long sentences fail “to establish a coherent connection between the sentence and what it was supposed to accomplish.”

Blog Post #5

I chose to write my opinion piece on an article published on November 6^th, 2013 on Huffingtonpost.com. In his article “The Reason Every Kid Should Talk Back to Their Parents”, author and Clinical Psychologist Kelly Flannagan discusses the conflict he faces as both a parent and a psychologist when it comes to the topic of his children saying “No”. According to Flannagan, “the inability to say "No" -- the inability to set personal boundaries -- is one of the most common, insidious causes of human suffering”.   Flannagan feels that if we do not learn to say “No” in the safety of our family environments, we will not learn to say “No” to others. If we do not say “No”, we “become a sponge for the feelings of everyone around us and we eventually become saturated by the needs of everyone else while our own hearts wilt and die.”

As for the conflict he feels on this topic, he states that “The parent in me feels like a failure because I'm not being respected. The parent in me gets angry because I feel out of control and I'm supposed to be "in charge." And the human in me feels just plain sad, because the morning just got a whole lot harder. But the psychologist in me is secretly thrilled he said, "No."”

I think that any parent would be able to relate to this article. This is a common issue that all parents face at some point. The likely objection to Flannagan’s point of view would be that encouraging our children to say “No” could cause them to lose respect for us and to think that they are in charge. Flannagan addresses this by stating: “Do children need to learn to set boundaries assertively rather than aggressively? Yes. Do they need to learn the art of compromise? Definitely. Do they need to learn to wisely choose moments of submission? Absolutely. But all of that learning begins with a "No."

I loved the examples that Flannagan provided regarding when he hopes that his children WILL say no. "When my son is offered a bunch of pills or my daughter is offered the backseat of a car, I want my kids to have had a lot of practice at saying "No." Someday, there will be more at stake than a bunch of Lego action figures and, by then, I want them to know their worth isn't jeopardized one iota when they don't give themselves away to everyone around them. I want them to know their voice matters. I want them to know they are they author of their own story."

Because the truth is, you can't truly say "Yes" until you can say "No." We need to know we have a choice in life. The freedom to say "No" is the very beginning of our ability to say "Yes." To ourselves. To life. And to love.”

Blog Post #5

Matthew Tampon

11/18/2013

Professor Bolaski

English 100

Blog #5

The opinion piece I chose is “The Reason Every Kid Should Talk Back to Their Parents” found on Huffington Post. I found this article interesting because I was always taught to never talk back to my elders. In the article, the author, Kelly M. Flanagan, gives his opinion on why he thinks it is good when a kid says “No” to his/her parents. Flanagan, a psychologist, believes that “the inability to say "No" -- the inability to set personal boundaries -- is one of the most common, insidious causes of human suffering.”

            Throughout the article, the author is torn between two different points of view on the subject as both a parent and psychologist. He first elaborates on the subject from a parent’s perspective. It all starts when Flanagan’s son says “No” to him when asked to hand over his toy.  When Flanagan hears this, he thinks to himself “The parent in me feels like a failure because I'm not being respected. The parent in me gets angry because I feel out of control and I'm supposed to be "in charge." And the human in me feels just plain sad, because the morning just got a whole lot harder.”

            The audience who can relate to this claim can really be any parent who reads this article. As a parent, you can feel mad, frustrated, hurt, or even disrespected when your kid says “No” to you. Most parents’ ideal outcome of a situation is asking their kid to do something and their kid immediately doing it without hesitation. Growing up, a majority of people are taught to obey their parents and especially not back talk to them. Therefore, it isn’t surprising that when you first read this article you are right away opposing the very thought that is ok for a child to say “No” to their parents.

            Flanagan states that although he might not like the answer “No” as a parent, he says “the psychologist in me is secretly thrilled he said, "No."” He goes in further with the subject presenting a very well thought out argument to one of society’s oldest ideas. Flanagan believes that” Our families are where we first learn how to say "No" in a safe, supportive environment. If we don't learn to do so there, we won't learn to do so anywhere. If our children can't say "No" to us, they won't say it to anyone.” He gives different scenarios of when his children are older and his son gets offered pills to take or his daughter gets offered the backseat of a car. He wants them to “have had a lot of practice at saying "No."” This is because when children grow up; there will be a lot more at stake than just a single little toy and Flanagan wants his children to know that “their voice matters.”

Blog #5

The piece I chose to comment on is “Why Facebook Would Pay $3 Billion for Snapchat (And Why It Shouldn’t)” written by Ryan Tate and published on Wired.com.

The major claim of this article is that Facebook should not buy Snapchat and the author supports this claim explicitly by stating, “SnapChat has no revenues, and its collection of users — however many there are — is puny when you consider that Facebook reaches over 1.2 billion people around the world.” 

Ryan Tate concedes that photos fuel social networks and “Snapchat processes nearly as many photos every day as Facebook itself.” “In addition to helping Facebook corner the market on mobile photos, Snapchat is also popular with teens, a group with whom Facebook has struggled to connect.”

The author offers the rebuttal that, “Indeed, for teens, much of the value in Snapchat is precisely its distance from Facebook: If you’re friends with your parents and relatives on Facebook, you don’t want to share your most candid pictures there. Snapchat is a safe space away from the judgmental eyes on Facebook, which in turn makes it a potentially dangerous place, which in turn makes it fun.

The extent to which Snapchat can be integrated with Facebook is really the extent to which it can be ruined for many of its users. If Facebook tries to get billions of dollars in value out of Snapchat, it may well ruin the product in the process. Snapchat understands this dynamic better than anyone.”

Blog post 5

The article I chose is one that was meant to Inform. I chose it because they information conveyed is such that I found to be extremely useful and feel urged to share. The article "A California-style fix for Obamacare's runaway premiums" written by Harvey Rosenfield is something that I feel like could save millions of people from being taken advantage of the loophole for health insurance companies found only days new legislation approved. The legislation, passed Friday, originally had the individual American's best interest in mind.  Rosenfield clearly explains the issue and offers an excellent solution very explicitly stated as, " Regulation of insurance companies, introduced by Proposition 103, could repair a loophole in the Affordable Care Act".

Anticipating objections to this claim is not an easy task. The claim is seemingly beneficial to every individual American across the board aside from those to benefit from insurance companies taking advantage of the loophole in legislation (e.g. board members of big health insurance companies). The closest thing to an opposition I can find is likely very right wing conservatives. Citing the lack of successful track record of the idea of social health care and feeling that refining the idea instead of getting rid of it completely is a waste of time and money.

I understandably was unable to find a concession from the author of my article, I was also unable to think of one myself that Rosenfield could have offered. One that I read in the comment section was aligned with my previous statement referring to the likely very right wing conservative Americans who think that the health care reform should be eradicated completely instead of being refined. The commenter wrote, " That's the liberal attitude! If we don't like the price of something, we'll just assume that it's "corporate greed" and then pass a law changing the price to something that liberals believe to be more "equitable" or "fair". 

Because those policies worked so well in Russia, China, and Cuba! STUPID LIBERALS! DUST UP ON YOUR HISTORY! IT'S A FAILED POLICY, THAT'S BEEN PROVEN OVER AND OVER AGAIN TO NOT WORK AS INTENDED!".

Due to my articles lack of concession, I have no rebuttal from the author. However can easily rebuttal the commenter myself with saying that their statement regarding our health care reform being a futile effort, however it is an effort being made regardless and for American's not to make revisions to better protect themselves in the thought that the health care reform may stick, would be very unwise.

(also I didnt write the date of the article because for some reason it is time stamped November 19, 2013 which is impossible being that it is currently 11/18/13, must be typo?  http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rosenfield-obamacare-prop-103-20131119,0,2059028.story#axzz2l40k7SNP) )

Blog 5

The opinion piece I chose to write about is No, child support can’t be a choice.  This article was written by Carolyn Edgar and published on Salon.com. Child support easily becomes a heated debate for families with splitting parents. This article makes a point of stating that paying child support is not the equivalent of fatherhood, which men can easily opt out of. Edgar insists on the non-custodial parent paying child support because they too assumed the risk and bear the responsibility.

On the other hand, an article written by Anna March claims that fathers should not be made to pay child support and an abortion is as much the fathers choice as it is the mothers, since forced “fatherhood” is unfair to men. For example, this excerpt comes from author Anna March’s article Make fatherhood a man’s choice!, “Despite all of this and in complete keeping with my deep-seated feminism, I believe that making fatherhood optional—as motherhood is—and revamping the child support system to stop requiring financial support from noncustodial parents (usually men) who want to opt out early is good for women, men, and the kids in question. In addition, we should further our support of women who choose to opt out of motherhood via abortion or adoption as well.  It’s time to make parenthood a true choice, on every level.”

Most of objections of child support are coming from men, and those children who have been put in the crossfires of two un-agreeing parents. Child support is needed now more than ever for single mothers. The finances needed to raise a child do not come easily from one paycheck.  Financially supporting your child is the least that can be done if the decision is made to “opt out of fatherhood.”

The counterargument is made in the second to last paragraph when Edgar explains how the child support system needs some revamping as the children and system can be manipulated. It goes to show that just paying child support is not the answer to every situation, and if the father does not live to his responsibilities and he is not willing to “co-parent after a failed marriage or partnership,” than however inconvenient paying child support is it is nowhere as inconvenient as forced fatherhood.  

Blog #5

Michael McKay

Professor Bolaski

English 100

November 18, 2013

Why Do We Let Video Games Break Our Spirits?

1. The Opinion Piece I chose to write about today is "Why Do We Let Video Games Break Our Spirit?" by Ben Reeves. This article was posted on GameInformer on October 21, 2013. I chose this piece because video games is something I love to do and it interests me how people go nuts over not being able to complete hard missions. The author wrote this piece implicitly because he didn't directly state the main claim. He just showed what video games can do to your brain.

2. An objective claim that the author states is that we let these games fool around with our brain into thinking that we can not beat it. He says that we need to keep calm and just have fun with these games and not get frustrated by the harder levels. He states the game is supposed to be hard because that's what makes it more interesting to play.

3. The people who play the games will make these objections because they have control of their brain. All they have to do is not get to frustrated with it and just have fun. Don't let these difficult video games stress you out and make you feel worthless or not good enough.

4. The rebuttal to this argument is video games are not bad and they are just doing their job. The video games are not at fault. It is all a mental thing, people are letting these games take control of them.

Blog post #5

Maryssa Harris

Professor Bolaski

English 100

November 18^th, 2013            

 

 

1.) The opinion piece I chose to write about was “Woman share their stories of being lied to by crisis pregnancy centers”. This article was published November 15^th, 2013 on salon.com.  This piece stuck out to me because when I have asked for help before I have been told a bias answer, more how they feel about the issue. It is shown in this piece that the CPC (crisis pregnancy center) are lying to woman that are calling for advice. They are told “birth control is a mini abortion every month”, this is so crazy to that these woman are lien to these girls, it is stated in this article that four different CPC counselors are lien. They are putting their personal beliefs into their answers, when you are a CPC you can’t lie to these woman that is not right.

2.) The objectives in this article are these anti- choice counselors are telling lies by saying “The woman would become infertile”, “ they said condoms have holes and birth control causes cancer” or even “  You will get breast cancer if you have an abortion”. None of these are real facts, the counselors are making medical misinformation and antiabortion sermonizing which is misleading them about certain healthcare choices.

3.) The CPC woman are making these lies up because they are anti- abortion and Prolife. The definition is advocate against the practice of abortion, both through seeking legal bans and other means. Modern anti-abortion movements generally began as counter movements in response to the decriminalization and legalization of elective abortion in various countries. These are personal preferences they are using their own personal opinions are someone else’s life. These women could have been raped, and possibly couldn’t think of keeping the baby but then these women that are lying to them. They change their minds because of these lies.

4.) I feel the objective would be  they are collecting the stories of woman who have been lied to by anti- choice crisis pregnancy centers. That is the objective that I can figure out.

Blog Post 5

1.  I chose my topic piece to be “Juvenile Justice:  Or Not So Just?”.  The author explicitly stands for the right that juveniles aren’t being tried properly, not giving the teens a chance to mature- rather they are being thrown into jail for the rest of their lives.  A sentence that the author uses that explicitly explains his stand-point is, “Juvenile delinquency is an issue that heavily impacts America by the justice system inadequately forcing youth to suffer unfair consequences.”      

2.  Some anticipated objections to the authors claim may be after he had finished discussing how there are being laws and acts placed so that minors cannot be sentenced to a life sentencing without first being placed on parole, some may object to this pointing out how not only does it just postpone the time until the child is sentenced to the death penalty, but it also does a dime on the tax payers dollar.  The author then counteracts this objective claim by stating how he feels about the “people” not paying attention to the fact that these are kids we are talking about, they are still not completely able to rationalize compared to a fully grown/mature adult who better understands how actions can lead to severe consequences.  He then backs this up with scientific experiments’ that were done on a teenagers brain vs a fully matured adult brain; finding that the child had “grey matter” meaning places where the brain wasn't fully developed yet.

3.  Those that might make such an objection are adults that are paying taxes understanding how their money might be paying for a delinquent- making them frustrated and angry.  Others might include concerned family members or those that feel uncomfortable with the possibility of a minor who murdered living in the same neighborhood as them- agreeing that minors should be tried as an adult.  Lastly, this might also include those who seem to have no sympathy for a child. 

4.  The author then takes in the point of view of an objector by commenting, “Some teenagers are fully aware of their actions regardless of their age, though they can’t fathom the significance that their crimes might have.”  Then he goes onto say, “However, children make mistakes and should not be punished based on being taught incorrectly.”

Blog Post #5

Sung Mi Pyun
Professor Bolaski
English 100
November 18, 2013

1.     The opinion piece that I choose to write about is called “Why women love big dogs,” by Hayley Krischer. This article published on the website, salon.com on November 17, 2013. This piece is interesting to me because I do not love big dogs as a woman. But this piece explains the reasons that women love big dogs rather than small dogs. This article is explicitly stated that “pop culture likes to depict ladies with tiny Yorkies. But there’s something great about a pet who’s a gentle giant.”

2.     In this piece, the author is not only explaining the reasons of women love big dogs. Some objections of this piece are that women who live in cities like small dogs due to the size of houses and plenty of uber-business women own miniature dogs.

“There are also plenty of uber-business women who own miniature dogs, like Laura Wellington, CEO of The Giddy Gander. And of course, Oprah Winfrey has been dedicated to Cocker Spaniels for decade.”

3.     Women who love small dogs might make such objections because small dogs could be represent as scary dogs rather than sweets. Small dog caretakers might experience same feelings as women who take care big dogs.

Concession: “This is not to suggest that women who have small dogs should be taken less seriously or that they are not powerful.”

4.     Rebuttal: “Some small dogs pack an intimidating presence (bulldogs, for instance)—so can petite women. Also, the author preferred big dogs but when she took a dog personality quiz on Dogster, her result came out as Chihuahua, small dog.

The Insanity of Our Food Policy

By JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ

[Please ignore the weird appearance here. Something's really off.]

Opening Paragraph: “American food policy has long been rife with head-scratching illogic. We spend billions every year on farm subsidies, many of which help wealthy commercial operations to plant more crops than we need. The glut depresses world crop prices, harming farmers in developing countries. Meanwhile, millions of Americans live tenuously close to hunger, which is barely kept at bay by a food stamp program that gives most beneficiaries just a little more than $4 a day.”

Major Players: This paragraph clearly establishes the writer as critical of what we might call the agricultural industrial complex and the government and in support of the poor/food insecure/those on SNAP. The social class divide the piece highlights is already clear, and this makes sense, as this opinion piece is an entry in TNYT’s “Great Divide” series.

(The Great Divide is a series on inequality — the haves, the have-nots and everyone in between — in the United States and around the world, and its implications for economics, politics, society and culture. The series moderator is Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics, a Columbia professor and a former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers and chief economist for the World Bank.)

The problem/conflict: “For the putative purpose of balancing the country’s books, the measures that the House Republican caucus is pushing for in negotiations with the Senate, as Congress attempts to pass a long-stalled extension of the farm bill, would cut back the meager aid to our country’s most vulnerable and use the proceeds to continue fattening up a small number of wealthy American farmers.”

Side note: Look at how the language used bolster’s the writer’s argument: “meager” aid to the “most vulnerable” as compared to “fattening up” and “wealthy” for the other group. Diction clearly aids in making this assertion.

Illustration of problem: “ Small, powerful interests — in this case, wealthy commercial farmers — help create market-skewing public policies that benefit only themselves, appropriating a larger slice of the nation’s economic pie. Their larger slice means everyone else gets a smaller one — the pie doesn’t get any bigger — though the rent-seekers are usually adept at taking little enough from individual Americans that they are hardly aware of the loss.” The “pie” metaphor is an easy-to-understand, visual illustration of the problem.

Concession, which illustrates anticipated objection: “While the money that they’ve picked from each individual American’s pocket is small, the aggregate is huge for the rent-seeker. And this in turn deepens inequality.

This concession/conceding of a point to the opposition – the amount each American will lose is small – is offered to acknowledge the likely objection that the proposed changes don’t affect individuals all that much so therefore their benefits are far greater.

The rebuttal comes quickly; after all, it’s in the same sentence: “the aggregate is huge for the rent-seeker. And this in turn deepens inequality.”

Essentially, this means that these small, individual losses mean giant games for a small, powerful minority . . . and this is a problem because it will deepen the divide between the rich and poor. (The piece’s intro foreshadows this rebuttal by noting that “ . . . wealthy commercial operations to plant more crops than we need . . . [while] while, millions of Americans live tenuously close to hunger.”

The rebuttal is offered again, this time in different, perhaps more powerful terms, here: “It takes real money, money that is necessary for bare survival, from the poorest Americans, and gives it to a small group of the undeserving rich, in return for their campaign contributions and political support.”

Concession #2: “FARM subsidies were much more sensible when they began eight decades ago, in 1933, at a time when more than 40 percent of Americans lived in rural areas. Farm incomes had fallen by about a half in the first three years of the Great Depression. In that context, the subsidies were an anti-poverty program.” By acknowledging that farm subsidies used to be morally and economically justified (the two kinds of justification the author says the current proposals are not), he appeals to those in favor of subsidies by acknowledging their usefulness . . . at one point.

Restatement of the significance of his argument:

Remember, the author’s thesis is this: “[these proposals] would cut back the meager aid to our country’s most vulnerable and use the proceeds to continue fattening up a small number of wealthy American farmers.” He restates the significance of this argument in his final paragraph/sentence: “For these proposals to become law would be a moral and economic failure for the country”.