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”.