Analytical Essay 4: Machiavelli's Nixon and Carter

Lindsey Knight

Honors Government

Mr. Comer

12/10/14

Analytical Essay: Nixon and Carter

Niccolo Machiavelli, a 15th century humanist and philosopher, held a belief that a ruler should do everything in his power to benefit his people.  Virtue and ethics are irrelevant as long as the public good progresses.  Machiavelli would say that a prince could murder or lie to advance his society.  This thinker would believe that Carter’s presidency was filled with unnecessary goodness or that it was a period bereft of strong leadership where risks were minimized.  Machiavelli would say that Nixon’s presidency is valid and beneficial, even with his obvious political deceptions.

Jimmy Carter was a president based on morals; however, he was so concerned with the possibility of tarnishing the public’s opinion on him and protecting his ethics that he actually didn’t accomplish much with his presidency.  Sure, Carter had a “strong and frequently expressed moralism,” but he “never articulated a sense of purpose” (Star Spangled).  Machiavelli would say that a ruler can have all the good ethics he wants, but if this doesn’t progress society, then his rule is pointless.  Carter was ruined by his “seemingly simplicity [and] lack of bombast” (ibid.).  He helped to “eradicate poverty and disease in Africa and other impoverished areas,” but Machiavelli wouldn’t attribute this one accomplishment to the resume of a strong ruler.  In fact, he believes that “it is necessary for a prince wishing to hold his own to know how to do wrong, and to make use of it or not according to necessity” (Chapter XV, Machiavelli).  The issue with Carter’s presidency was that he was too focused on maintaining good morals, so he didn’t take any risks or do any wrong to make any positive change for America.  According to Machiavelli’s philosophy, a strong leader is the man who knows when to make judgements that are ethically unacceptable when necessary, but Jimmy Carter was too focused on goodness and public acceptance. In Machiavelli’s opinion, Carter was a weak leader.  

Richard Nixon, however, took the measures necessary to progress his political agenda without the bounds of ethics.  The blatant scar that history remembers is Watergate -- the direct “violat[ion of] the Constitution” (400, Star-Spangled Men).  Barry Goldwater, a Republican politician, believes that Nixon was “the most dishonest individual [he] ever met”  (ibid.).  Nixon followed Machiavelli's principles in his presidency.  He chose to deceive the public.  However, in the 1954 year of elections, Nixon chose to not play by the Machiavellian rules, and he soon learned that this would hurt him.  He “failed to make good use of his assets, and… he wanted to win on his own… without providing himself any benefit” (423, Star-Spangled Men).  In this first election, Nixon tried to play the game innocently, but he ended up losing because he didn’t try to hide the introverted and insecure man that he was.  In his next election he did the exact opposite; he became what the people wanted, and “never again would he trust the normal operations of politics to function as intended” (ibid.).  From then on, he decided that he would have to use foul play in order to achieve in the political realm.  Nixon secretly bombed Cambodia, bugged the Oval Office, targeted “political enemies... for tax audits,” and had his associates break into the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate complex.  These actions under his presidency are wrong and dishonest.  It is against the Constitution to utilize illegal strategies to gain an up in politics or accomplish an unlawful mission, such as oppressing the Communist rule in Vietnam through bombing.  However, Nixon realized that “if everything is considered carefully, it will be found that something which looks like virtue, if followed, would be his ruin; whilst something else, which looks like vice, yet followed brings him security and prosperity” (Chapter XV, Machiavelli).  Unfortunately for Nixon, he was caught in his schemes, but Machiavelli would applaud his effort to work against the tide to achieve the necessary accomplishments in his presidency.

Niccolo Machiavelli's ideas concerning the scope of a ruler’s ethical and moral capabilities can be the lense to look at the presidents of Carter and Nixon.  While Nixon’s rule supports Machiavelli's philosophy of neglecting what is accepted as right to achieve political “security and prosperity,” Jimmy Carter was too focused on sticking to the status-quo and following every rule, even at the expense of leadership and progression.  

Analytical Essay 3: Overrated

Lindsey Knight

Honors Government

Mr. Comer

12/11/14

Analytical Essay: Overrated

Nathan Miller, author of Star-Spangled Men, believes that John F. Kennedy and Thomas Jefferson are the two most overrated presidents of the United States.  His criteria for measuring the greatness of a president has a lot to do with the accomplishments of the leader’s time in office.  Also, Miller analyzes whether the president had any sort of obvious mission that would influence his policy making.  Miller argues that both of these presidents’ “reputations are not based upon their records in the White House, but are colored by events, sentiments, and feelings that have little to do with their presidencies” (448).  

Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the United States, is built upon a legacy of founding-fame and biased history according to Miller.  First, “Jefferson’s presidency is the tendency to be blinded by the brilliance of the man” as he is often remembered as a “statesman, philosopher, diplomat, scientist, farmer, architect, inventor, rationalist theologian, founder of the University of Virginia, author of the Declaration of Independence, and apostle of freedom” (ibid.).  Thomas Jefferson has every surface-level indication of a great and powerful man.  It is hard to argue that someone who wrote one of the most influential documents in history was a bad president.  However, Miller would argue that Jefferson’s rejection of his ideals about strict construction completely devalues his presidency.  The “practical necessities of politics-- particularly foreign affairs-- forced Jefferson to abandon almost every policy that he had espoused” (449).  One of the most obvious events was the Louisiana Purchase, a payment that subdued every one of his views.  He had no “right to buy a partially inhabited wilderness as large as the union itself,” but Jefferson decided to “compromise with his conscience” and buy this land that was not his to own (454).  In addition, the Embargo Act of 1807 tarnished Jefferson’s policy for good; his “clos[ing of] American ports to trade, practically wrecked the nation’s economy and plunged it into its first depression while having absolutely no effect upon its targets” (455).  Jefferson not only wasted money and time by shutting off trade from Great Britain, he took measures to over regulate economic policies through federal government powers-- a principle that he claimed not to stand for.  Jefferson’s presidency is over-praised because of his shining personal achievements and slot as the second American president, but Miller argues that the president was weak because he did not stick to his ideals and hurt the nation’s growing economy.  

John F. Kennedy, a man living in the days of television, a new youth, and pop-star fame, was given too much credit after his surprising death sparked tears across the nation, drowning out his unsatisfactory political methods.  Kennedy was charming.  Miller explains that “he communicated a glittering image of himself and his presidency through his lofty, inspiring speeches, his youth and personal elegance, and his stylish and glamorous wife” (457).  Also, Kennedy came into his position with the appearance of a vision; he promised “change-- to revitalize a floundering America by offering the most ambitious program for domestic reform since the New Deal” (458).  However, Miller points out that “he failed to deliver on his vow to ‘get America moving again’” (458).  He had a “reluctance to fight for his programs” (ibid.).  But even beyond his misgivings ideas, Kennedy was not efficient in foreign affairs.  With the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy helped to spur on the freezing Cold War tension.  Finally, his questionable character is often glanced over because of his glittering, Hollywood-esque fame.  His hushed moral ambiguity hides Kennedy’s “reckless behavior and sexual liaisons” (462).  Kennedy’s term ended with a “brutal assassination, but Kennedy’s “ghastly death may have spared the nation from being torn apart by public disclosure of his extracurricular activities”  (463).  John F. Kennedy had all of the glitz and glamour suitable for a celebrity, but his presidency is truly marked by failure, infidelity, and an over exaggeration of his greatness, according to Nathaniel Miller.

If Nathan Miller were to analyze Barack Obama’s presidency, he would say that the man is overrated.  In the election of 2008, Barack Obama had everything going for him-- a public who couldn’t stand another day with a Republican president, a progressive social atmosphere, and the backing of many African-Americans.  Obama came into his campaign as a symbol of hope for the ever increasing lower class.  He promised to set a timetable for the war in Iraq, get the lower class on their feet, and pour federal money into government-funded programs.  According to factcheck.org, the unemployment rate has decreased since 2009 to 5.9%, but the number of people in poverty has increased to 5,489,000.  In addition, controversy around Obamacare has led to small of numbers of Americans actually registering.  A less-than-professional launching of its website and low registration are testaments to Obama’s poor leadership.  Obama’s weak foreign-affairs and his poor economic reform make Obama an overrated president.  His approval ratings are slipping, however, and Americans are starting to get a taste of his weak programs.

Jefferson, Kennedy, and Obama are all overrated presidents because their lack of vision, accomplishment, and most of all, integrity.  Nathaniel Miller analyzes these men through this lense and although he doesn’t put them on his “worst presidents” list, he acknowledges that they were substandard.

Analytical Essay 2: Image of God

Lindsey Knight

Mr. Comer

Honors Government

12/12/14

Analytical Essay: Image of God

The Bible teaches that in the beginning, “God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27).  Along with this idea, a series of intuitions follow.  If mankind is created in God’s image then are men naturally good?  Are men naturally creators?  Are men the height of nature?  The answers to these questions attempt to fit the philosophy of man with God’s intention.  Because John Locke believes in a high anthropology of man’s natural state, his ideas best fit with the Bible’s teachings that men are made in the image of God.  In fact, he employs logos, a metaphor, and paternal diction to illustrate his idea that men are naturally loving beings who have the ability to live peacefully among others while establishing an organized society.  

In his essay on “Two Treatises of Civil Government,” John Locke attempts to discover what man’s state of nature implies about his actual nature as a man; he employs logos to describe his idea that men are inclined towards brotherhood.  For example, he claims that men “are naturally induced to seek communion and fellowship with others; this was the cause of men’s uniting themselves at first in public societies” (Two Treatises, Chapter 2).  The very inclination of men to want friendship with one another reflects God’s nature.  According to the Bible, men are told to “not use... freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another” (Galatians 5:13).  The idea that men can live in harmony because they are able to love each other in a selfless way directly correlates with God’s creation of man in his image as loving beings. God even commands his followers to “love one another.  As [He] ha[s] loved [humans], so [humans] must love one another” (John 13:34).  Because humans are a literal representation of God, his characteristics are apparent in human nature; men are loving beings because they have God’s love inside of them.  Therefore, John Locke’s idea that men are not “nasty, brutish, and short” but peaceful and good beings connects with Biblical teachings (The Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes).  Not only are men loving, but they are also creations of the living God.

The philosopher John Locke also employs a metaphor in his essay as he compares God to a handyman who has created humanity as his own property to love and enjoy.  He believes that “men are all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not another’s pleasure” (Two Treatises, Chapter 2).  Within the idea that men are created by God’s own hands, there is an assumption that there is a part of God within all of his creation, for a maker cannot make something without including a part of himself into the result.  For example, a potter cannot make a ceramic bowl without interacting and including a part of his own intuition in the process. Therefore, it follows that if God created man with his own being, they are inclined to possess some of his traits such as love, sacrifice, selflessness, and goodness.  The very fact that humans were created by God implies that the created reflect His image.  

Finally, John Locke’s belief that humans choose a paternal figure to be the organizer of societal structure fits with God’s nature as a superior, caring being.  He employs paternal diction to illustrate this point.  The similarities between government structure and God’s role in human life are closely aligned which supports the idea that men are created in the image of God.  As he discusses man’s state of nature, Locke claims that “government commonly began in the father [because] he was fitted to be trusted; paternal affection secured [people’s] property and interest under his care; and the custom of obeying him, in childhood, made it easier to submit to him, rather than any other” (ibid.).  God is the ultimate father, but earthly fathers are put in place to maintain family order.  The ability of men to hold positions of power and make decisions that will benefit a whole is a characteristic that has been inherited from God by man.  In fact, the Bible explicitly states that “the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God” (1 Corinthians 11:3).  Therefore, men reflect God’s paternal nature, and their ability to maintain peace through leadership is a quality that humans have obtained from Him.  Humans are subjected under men because God has allowed some humans  to rise to higher places of power like him.  

Many of John Locke’s ideas about the nature of man fit with the Biblical teaching that men are created in the image of God.  Locke’s philosophy works because he believes that men are naturally able to take care of themselves by being communal people, workmanship of God, and people that hold power.  All of these qualities align with God’s nature, thus men are scaled representations of his good characteristics on earth as his creations.

Analytical Essay 1: Freedom Quotes

Lindsey Knight

Honors Government

Mr. Comer

12/9/14

Analytical Essay: Freedom Quotes

Freedom is a subject that is often hard to understand.  To different people, freedom means different things.  Tell a southern slave after the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 that he is now free, and the reaction would probably differ from someone’s perspective on freedom from North Korea.  Freedom is relative to the central governing authority, for freedom and law can coexist.  Therefore, it becomes necessary to evaluate what freedom is in the current world, and it is important to realize that freedom can be seen differently among people.  Within the three quotes that were given, H.L. Mencken’s assessment of freedom is the most true while Jean-Paul Sartre follows, and Albert Camus ranks last.  Mencken’s honesty about human nature is relevant today, while Jean-Paul Sartre looks at freedom as something only obtained through struggle.  Finally, Albert Camus’s quote is the least true because one cannot simply become free in a world bereft of freedom, and this would be no act of rebellion because to act against human nature in a way of revolt would be pointless.  

H.L. Mencken rightly believes that the “average man does not want to be free[;] he simply wants to be safe” (Mencken).  Safety and comfort are natural instincts of man.  In fact, one of the “first...principal causes of quarrel...[is] for safety (The Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes).  Preservation of one’s self is one of man’s principal focuses.  In a state where there is no government, “men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal” (ibid.).  Therefore, if it is true that a man must fend for himself on his own ability, it follows that the existence of stability would cause men to feel comforted.  Take away his freedom, and he might get angry, but his preserved safety would instinctually matter first.  In addition, “when taking a journey, a [man will] lock his doors, and even in his house he locks his chests” (The Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes).  The idea that men will give up their freedom by keeping their doors locked or keep large sums of money out of their house to be safe reflects Mencken’s argument.  Safety comes first before the idea of being able to freely act and live in society.  Finally, in America today, only 0.5 percent of Americans over the age of 18 “serve in the armed forces;” a testament to the fact that people would rather be safe at home than fighting for freedom (Karl W. Eikenberry, David M. Kennedy, New York Times).    Therefore, in the case of Mencken’s argument, society is based on man’s tendency to be comfortable whether it be in his physical, mental, or spiritual situation.  Chains can tamper the man, he will be in more distress if his own body, mind, or spirit is threatened.  Finally, the implication that Mencken ends with is that freedom is only a means, not an end.  Freedom is one way to achieve safety, but it is not the end-all factor for remaining stable and comfortable.   Safety comes first, then freedom according to Mencken.

Secondly, Jean Paul-Sartre’s idea that “freedom is what [one] do[es] with what’s been done to” the person is partly true (Sartre).  This would be second in truth behind Mencken because although it is true that freedom can be personally gained, there is a part of human nature that is already free.  Humans are able to reason, love, hate, and fear naturally.   Therefore, even if someone is not literally free in the sense that he can’t do whatever he wants, he still is able to reason, love, hate, and fear.  Only death can separate humans from the freedom of their own thoughts.  If this quote were completely true, then the end goal of humanity would be to progress for the sole purpose of progressing.  This would make freedom a means and and an end.  A person would use what has been done to obtain freedom, and once he were free he would continue to progress for the sake of obtaining more freedom.  If freedom can only be achieved after something harmful or beneficial has been done, then would freedom be the goal or would freedom be the way to get to the goal?  Because of this paradox between what one does and what has been done to someone, freedom isn’t even important.  It’s more of the journey between bondage and freedom.  However, this isn’t all true because people that have freedom don’t necessarily act off of historic events.  Freedom can exist as a result only when the previous circumstances have created a reason to need it, but many are born into circumstances where they are naturally free with the qualities of reason, love, hate, and fear.  For example, someone familiar with oppression might say, “I am where I am today because I have progressed with my freedom;” however, someone else might say “I am where I am today because I was born into it.”   The issue with this quote is that there is no clarification whether freedom is referring to the literal physical freedom or the personal mental freedom of an individual.  Freedom can even be interpreted differently by different people, so it is less relevant than Mencken's quote.  

Finally, Albert Camus’ quote that “the only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that [one’s] very existence” is an act of rebellion is the least true among the three (Camus).  This quote is impossible because one cannot just become free.  There have to be external forces that support this coming of freedom, and often these are limited.  For example, many people would believe that knowledge through education frees the mind.  However, if one wishes to become liberated from their ignorance but doesn’t have the books, teachers, school, or mental capacity to achieve this then there is no way that he or she can become free.  In addition, Albert Camus’s quote assumes that the world is unfree.  If this is how the world exists by nature, then rebelling against the natural “un-freeness” of the world would do nothing.   It would not help anyone else, and it would just be a revolt for the sake of revolting.  If this quote were true, then it would force people to consciously make themselves free at every given moment.  Society would be so focused on denying the captivated nature in order to “rebel,” but the rebellion would be selfish.  Only one’s “existence” would be the rebellious act which doesn’t connect with other people.  Morally, people’s life goal would be to make their own self a force against nature.  Using freedom as a means to achieve a free world is again a paradox, and it is impossible.

Between these three philosophers, Mencken’s idea is the most true, followed by Sartre and Camus.  Each of their ideas about freedom are pulled partly out of context, but they still serve to provide insight into the nature of freedom and its implication on society and morality.

Summary 10

Lindsey Knight

Honors Government

Mr. Comer

12/9/14

Summary 10: “We Can’t Trust Uber”

In the article entitled, “We Can’t Trust Uber” by Zeynep Tufekci and Brayden King, columnists for the Opinion Pages for the New York Times, the authors argue that Uber’s leadership is corrupt as it threatens to expose confidential information that its app collects.  Tufekci and King begin by recalling an “apparent threat from a senior vice president of Uber to spend “a million dollars” looking into the personal lives of journalists who wrote critically about Uber” (Tufekci, King).  The fact that Uber was willing to disclose personal information about the whereabouts of these people is incredibly concerning to the columnists.  In one of Uber’s executive statements, it boasts that the company is able to “track the rides of users who went somewhere other than home on Friday or Saturday nights, and left from the same address the next morning. It identified these ‘rides of glory’ as potential one-night stands” (ibid.).  The company can literally follow people’s lives, and the authors worry that this information will be used malignantly.  Tufekci and King state:

The paradox... is that

while we gain from digital connectivity,

the accompanying invasion into our private

lives makes our personal data ripe for abuse

— revealing things we thought we had not

even disclosed (Tufekci, King).  

The authors conclude that in a world where safety is on the forefront of the public’s minds when it comes to healthcare and finance, people need to realize that social media poses an equal threat to the confidentiality of personal information.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/08/opinion/we-cant-trust-uber.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Summary 9

Lindsey Knight

Mr. Comer

Honors Government

12/9/14

Summary #9: “Rolling Stone and Rape on Campus”

In the article entitled, “Rolling Stone and Rape on Campus” by the Editorial Board of the New York Times, the Board argues that although campus rape is an important issue to solve, a lack of clarity makes it difficult to actually resolve.  It begins by recounting the story about the freshman in college, Jackie, who’s story in Rolling Stones was inaccurate.  Either the article was “superficially inaccurate or substantially false” (Board.).  The board believes that “Rolling Stone’s willingness to accept Jackie’s story mirrors a national willingness to believe that campus assault has reached epidemic proportions” (ibid.).  The fact that rape on campus hasn’t been researched fully creates an uninformed public that doesn’t know the true statistics.  The Board argues that studies on rape culture are “flawed” (Board.).  The way to solve this problem, according to the New York Times, is to follow the newly introduced Campus Accountability and Safety Act “which would require colleges to conduct anonymous, standardized surveys on sexual violence and publish the results to a centralized database, or face a fine” (Board.).  Until this is done, the Board is skeptical that rape on campus will truly get the attention it deserves.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/09/opinion/rolling-stone-and-rape-on-campus.html?ref=opinion

Summary 8

Lindsey Knight

Honors Government

Mr. Comer

12/9/14

Summary #8: Common Core Has No Better Alternative

The education of America is a matter that is of utmost importance for the future of this nation.  Therefore, countless measures have been thought out to solve the problem of America’s falling intellectual ranking.  William Bennett, an Op-Ed writer for CNN, believes that the Common Core standards for public education are the necessary option.  He begins by stating that one of the reasons that many educators have lost hope in Common Core is because they have “lost its perspective of purpose” (Bennett).  Common Core has helped create a unified curriculum across the U.S. where “an "A" in math in New Jersey should be equivalent to an "A" in math in Louisiana, or in California, and so on” (ibid.).  However, pessimists are looking more at what the program doesn’t offer, such as creative classes or higher standards.  Bennett argues that the problem of low test scores and embarrassing SAT averages should be tackled first before anything else.  He believes that educators need to raise the minimum standard so that students across the nation will benefit more through school.  If there were no common course of education, nobody truly knows how adept the public schooling is at educating students.  For example, many states lower their testing standards to make their students seem smarter.  William Bennett implores his readers to realize that “some of the criticisms leveled against Common Core stem from mistakes made in local implementations -- not from a uniform federal mandate” (Bennett).  Therefore, if the Common Core is able to continue, then accomplishing this issue will only be relevant on the local sphere.  Specific schools, districts, and teachers need to be improved, not the federal mandate.  Bennett realizes that if the Common Core is able to continue then the education of America will improve for good.

http://www.cnn.com//2014/12/02/opinion/bennett-common-core/index.html

Summary 7

Lindsey Knight

Mr.Comer

11/29/14

Honors Government

Summary 7: Military Action in Syria Requires a New A.U.M.F

 

In the article entitled, “Military Action in Syria Requires a New A.U.M.F,” the Editorial Board of the New York Times posits that Congress must take action against ISIS.  The Board claims that recently, with the threat of ISIS eminently penetrating foreign and internal relations, Congress hasn’t done enough to fight against the terrorist group in Syria.  However, there is hope for those who call for action; the new Republican control over the Senate will begin in January 2015.   The newly Republican legislators will be a helpful tool for entering Syria quicker.

 Even with this Republican control, Democrats still need to take a stand for entrance into a new war-zone.  The Board claims that “Some Democrats, including Senate leader Harry Reid, seem oddly passive, saying they are open to an authorization vote but doing little to advance it now” (Board).  Obama also “insisted that he had all the legal authority he needed to attack” (ibid.).  The Editorial Board recognizes the president’s two year plan for succumbing the Syrian terrorists, but believes that action needs to be taken quickly.  In order for any fighting to remain contained and lawful, Congress needs to put out a “resolution that focuses on the war on ISIS, not on any far-flung terrorist group, and limits the fighting to Iraq and Syria” (Board).  With this focus in mind, American forces are able to contain the brutality of ISIS.  Even though Obama has not granted ground-forces, there is a bill with several loopholes that “would allow trainers, advisers, intelligence officers and special operations forces to be” in Syria and Iraq, much to the liking of the New York Times's Editorial Board.  Now is the time for Congress to act, according to the Board, as the war on terror continues to grow.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/opinion/military-action-in-syria-requires-a-new-aumf.html

Summary 6

Lindsey Knight

Honors Government

Mr. Comer

11/29/14

Summary 6: “College Costs: Make them Transparent”

With an ever-expanding economy and an expectation for teenagers to continue on into higher education, there is one thing that just doesn’t add up—the price.  Phillip B. Levine, an economics professor at Wellesley College argues that even when the cost of college is hard enough to scrape up, colleges don’t have clear price-tags.  In his article entitled “Why are College Costs so Hard to Figure Out,” the author claims that if colleges had better net-price calculators, the process toward becoming a debt-free graduate will be cut much shorter.  For example, he posits that colleges “don’t tell [students] how much financial aid [they’ll] get until after [they’ve been] accepted” (Levine).  With many colleges asking for up to $60,000, nobody knows how much financial aid, grants, or student loans they might get.  Finding out the cost just a few months before payment is too quick a decision for Levine.  Even though the price is the problem, easy solutions are not far away.  He claims that some colleges have attempted to solve this issue by providing “net-price calculators,” but he finds that they just “ask too many technical questions” that many don’t have the time or resources to answer (ibid.).  Fed up with these challenging calculators, Levine has come up with his own estimator for Wellesley college that takes “three minutes to complete” (Levine).  He claims that through easier procedures and a more clear system, planning and paying for college can be done more efficiently.  

http://www.cnn.com//2014/11/20/opinion/levine-college-calculator/index.html

Summary 5

Lindsey Knight

Honors Government

Mr. Comer

11/29/14

Summary 5: “Suffer Little Children”

Obama’s newly announced policy concerning immigration laws has sparked debate across the country.  Paul Krugman, a columnist for the New York Times’ Op-Ed section, believes that the president’s new recognition of humane practices towards illegal immigrants and their children is a step toward progression.  First, the author recalls his times in the Tenement Museum in New York where he visited the living places of early 20th century immigrants.  He denotes the inspiring effect of these apartments where his own parents grew up as children of immigrants.  After visiting these historical sites, Krugman declares that he “enthusiastically support[s] President Obama’s new immigration initiative” (Krugman).  However, he clarifies that he does not necessarily “support open borders” but believes that America should be taking care of those who are already in America by supporting their education and basic health needs.  Krugman remembers how FDR’s New Deal opened the gates for repaired foreign relations that “wouldn’t have been possible without the immigration reforms that went into effect after World War I” (ibid).  

Although Krugman acknowledges that there are many issues regarding illegal immigration, there is one basic reason why people should be less hostile towards immigrants—humanity.  He believes that America isn’t cruel enough to completely turn from the faces of those starving children who have no choice but to live in a society where they are seen as alien.  He states that “today’s immigrant children are tomorrow’s workers, taxpayers, and neighbors” (Krugman).  Viewing them as lesser or neglecting to take care of these children would fail them the opportunity of an education and improving their lifestyle to benefit future America.  Krugman ends by thanking the president for his efforts to improve the immigration policies and turn a kind eye towards those who are in need.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/21/opinion/paul-krugman-immigration-children.html?_r=0

Summary 4

Lindsey Knight

Mr. Comer

Honors Government

11/29/14

Summary #4: "Why I’m Standing with Walmart Workers This Black Friday"

For Americans in 2014, Black Friday was less about the fancy deals and materialistic battleground; this year, thousands rallied together for a new hot deal— economical change.  In the article entitled “Why I’m Standing with Walmart Workers This Black Friday,” Carol Joyner, the director of the Labor Project for Working Families, posits that the government needs to step in to raise the minimum wage, allow for better hours, and support women when huge corporations like Walmart tend to rack up profits and give little in wages to workers.  In fact, she begins by including the story of a college graduate, Cantare, who earns $322 a week at Wal-Mart.  Cantare is attempting to pay of college debt, rent an apartment, and buy a car, but her meager salary forcers her to cut her budget. Joyner continues on with Cantare’s story to explain the recent protesting of Wal-Mart stores.  She appeals to ethos as she states countless statistics claiming that the owners of this big business have been nothing but greedy in their collection of profits.  However, Joyner does point out that recent federal acts have been helping low-income workers and families.  For example, with the Fair Minimum Wage Act, the minimum wage is increasing, and the Schedules That Work Act helps workers schedule easier hours.  In addition, the Paycheck Fairness Act can help to “close the gaps that exist from the Equal Pay Act of 1963” (Joyner).  The author concludes by calling her readers to join her and 1,600 other protesters this on November 28th to "deliver a memo to the store manager, and contribute to building a fair economy” (ibid.).  

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carol-joyner/why-im-standing-with-walm_b_6193006.html

Precis 5

Lindsey Knight

Mr. Comer

Honors Government

10/17/14

Precis #5: “The Cost of War”

In the article entitled, “The Cost of War” by Charles M. Blow, the New York Times’ visual Op-Ed Columnist, the author declares that the fight for freedom against terrorists in the Middle East is a waste. In fact, he states that war with Syria “can kill anti-American fighters and even their leaders, but [it] can’t kill anti-American sentiment” (Blow).  

In order to correctly convey his argument, Blow employs three rhetorical devices.  He implements data from a survey to first point out the uninformed position of many Americans by stating that “according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll published Tuesday, a vast majority of Americans see ISIS as a threat to the United States, a slight majority believe the president hasn’t moved aggressively enough, and most support expanding United States airstrikes into Syria” (ibid.).  Although this goes against his thesis, he includes these figures to explain the need for Americans to be educated on the dire consequences of another war.  In addition, Blow employs direct quotations.  He uses President Obama’s authority as he quotes the President saying that America “will send an additional 475 service members to Iraq; as [he has] said before, these American forces will not have a combat mission — [America] will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq” (Barack Obama).  Blow includes this quote from Obama in order to share the position of America’s ultimate war general— the executive branch.  Without this information, any argument about the status of American foreign policy would be incomplete.  Finally, the author employs documented statistical numbers regarding past wars in order to show the huge cost of another long war.  He points out that “now, U.S. warplanes are flying sorties, at a cost somewhere between $22,000 to $30,000 per hour for the F-16s, to drop bombs that cost at least $20,000 each” (Blow).  By including these numbers, Blow increases the seriousness of his argument; these huge sums of money that are being spent on bombs are scary, and many are not informed of them.  

As he discusses his fear of future war in the Middle East, Charles M. Blow utilizes a cynical tone.  For example, he begins his whole article by unenthusiastically saying, “here we go again” (ibid.).  In order to get this downcast tone across, he implements wound diction.  Blow states that “involv[ing] American combat troops” will cause America to be “blood soaked” (Blow).  This notion of America physically being harmed by foreign involvement contributes to Blow’s cynical tone.  Syntactically, he uses incomplete sentences.  He says: “And there are also consequences, some of them unintended” (ibid.).  The use of this grammatically incorrect sentence serves to make his point stand out; the direct and straightforward language delivers his argument and also stands as a strong statement.  Even though it is incorrect, the power behind its meaning is heavier because it is stated in an odd way.  This type of sentence structure contributes to his cynical and depressed tone.  

I disagree with Blow that all of America’s efforts should be taken out of the Middle East; sure, we should be wary, but a complete recall wouldn’t get the job done.  Blow notes that “when [America] invaded Iraq in 2003, about three out of four Americans approved of President Bush’s handling of the situation” while “three years later, that approval had fallen by half” (Blow).  However, this doesn’t include all of the information.  Sure, people in 2006 might have grown tired of war, but the terror of ISIS in 2014 proves that taking a step out of the Middle East will only plant a seed for more terrorism.  In addition, Blow calls Americans to “think long and hard about what it will really mean for [America] to engage in another foreign war and weigh that against the urgent needs [it has] right… at home” (Blow).  It may look like the needs of intervention in the Middle East aren’t “urgent,” but they are.  The threat of ISIS and other military groups are imminent and could threaten the safety of America.  Atomic weaponry is a reality in the world today, and every step possible should be done before the safety of the world’s democratic nations is diminished for good.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/11/opinion/charles-blow-the-cost-of-war.html?_r=0

Precis 4

Lindsey Knight

Honors Government

Mr. Comer

10/17/14

Precis #4: “U.S. Isolation is a Bad Policy, Even if Americans Say They Want It”

Michael Gerson, an opinion writer for the Washington Post, in his article entitled “U.S. Isolation is a Bad Policy, Even if Americans Say They Want It” posits that the present attitude of the United States is to take a step back from national affairs which in turn hurts the rest of the world.  In fact, he states that the United States must “confront” its “problems” because the longer “it takes to realize [them], the harder [the United State’s] tasks become” (Gerson).  

The author utilizes statistics, historical references, and logos to explain how America should be taking the forefront in leading the world’s affairs.  He points out that “in 2013, 52 percent of Americans agreed that their country should mind its own business internationally” while “in 1964, the figure was 20 percent” (ibid.).  This piece of factual information highlights the new sense of nationalism that Americans feel.  In the 60’s during the blizzard of the Cold War, Americans were more prone to proactivity with global issues like the Soviet Union and Cuba.  However, as the disillusionment of the 20th century is still on the minds of the older generation, a domestic outlook is common.  Gerson employs uses of historical examples as he recollects that “since World War II, the United States has been the only nation willing enough, capable enough, and responsible enough to keep a semblance of order,” and without “the United States bearing” the world’s burdens, “the horrors of the 20th century would have been infinitely more horrible” (Gerson).  This allusion to the near past illuminates the importance of the United State’s involvement in foreign affairs.  Finally, Gerson uses logos to express his cause-and-effect system of thought.  He notes that it wasn’t until September 11th that the US got involved in the Islamic state.   He also points out that now that Ebola is on the rise, Americans are finally waking up to this global menace.  Gerson notices this shift in attention and mentions it in his article to show that global affairs are rarely noticed until the issue is pressing on the home front in America.  However, he argues that America can’t pick and chose when to step in as “the United States has no real interest in the problem of failed states except when it results in al-Qaeda, the Islamic State, and Ebola” (ibid.).  Due to America’s limited involvement, Gerson advocates unconditional international support.  The use of statistics, historical references, and logos contributes to Gerson’s position on global intervention.

In order to further express his argument, the Washington Post writer utilizes military diction.  He claims that the U.S. must be “responsible enough to keep a semblance of order,” and while “the divided states of Europe will sometimes join a coalition,” they are “weak at best” (Gerson).  The addition of words that correlate with strict organization, rule following, and battle strategies, illustrates the author’s calling for increased military action.  This contributes to Gerson’s critical tone which portrays his growing discomfort with the American system of a domestically focused foreign-affairs program.  Gerson’s purpose is to illuminate the need to return to the days of strict intervention and serious ultimatums in order to keep the world peacefully balanced.

I agree that the United States should step into the affairs of the world when major global needs are at hand.  Obviously, it’s impossible for America to police every country in the world, but when the safety of its own citizens is in danger, something should be done.  Obama can’t be “half hearted” when it comes to Islamic state (ibid.).  He must either commit full-fledged to this crumbling nation until the problem is solved or else any effort to contain terrorism will continue to fail around the world.  Some conservatives imagine that “global problems can be contained by the isolation of Syrian chaos or by the effective quarantine of Liberia” (Gerson).  The truth is that “200,000 are dead in Syria” and “the isolation of Ebola-affected nations could accelerate economic and political collapse, increase suffering and death, and result in further spread of the disease” (ibid.)  In order for the global problems to be solved, America can’t turn away from the rampant death, but must be ready to spend the resources needed to keep Ebola in check and the Middle East safe so that they don’t fall back onto America.  Gerson is right to call America to action as the horrors of the world just keep getting worse and worse.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/michael-gerson-us-isolation-is-bad-policy-even-if-americans-say-they-want-it/2014/10/13/651fad6c-5300-11e4-892e-602188e70e9c_story.html

Precis 3

Lindsey Knight

Mr. Comer

Honors Government

10/17/14

Precis #3: Five Economic Reforms Millennials Should Be Fighting For

In the article entitled, “Five Economic Reforms Millennials Should Be Fighting For,” Jesse Myerson, a journalist for the Rolling Stones, posits that the socio-economic gap is hurting the lower class more than ever, and the way to solve it would be through a more universal distribution of the work force, money, and land ownership.  In fact, he claims that millennials should “regard capitalism with a level of suspicion” and vouch for a more “fair society” (Myerson).

In his article, Myerson employs a plethora of anecdotes, ethos, and metaphors to solidify his point that a more equal playing field would be the best financial option for America.  In order to clarify his idea that everybody should be guaranteed work, he brings up the example that the “idea of a universal basic income...has been gaining traction in Switzerland” (ibid.).  Because this type of economic system seems to be working in this European country , Myerson is led to believe that it will work in America too, even though the social, and economic sects of both countries are set up completely differently.  He goes on to ease some pointed fingers from his face by mentioning that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. “vocally supported a public-sector job guarantee in the 1960s” (Myerson).  This is Myerson’s way of establishing some ethos for his controversial words; the name Martin Luther King Jr. comes automatically packaged with an air of authority, so Myerson uses this to his advantage.  Finally, the author employs a metaphor as he compares the profit of “mega corporations like Walmart and McDonald’s stimulus money” to a faucet that rarely trickles all the way down” (ibid.).  Just as a leaky faucet will cause water to slowly “trickle” in tiny spurts of water, so too does Myerson believe that the greedy huge businesses only let the remainder of their extra money minimally fall into the hands of the “poor and long term unemployed” (Myerson).  This metaphor highlights the author’s view that money should not be concentrated in the hands of the wealthy but that it should be poured out generously on everyone.  Anecdotes, ethos, and metaphors all contribute to Myerson’s pleading call for change.

Throughout his article, Myerson maintains a colloquial diction in order to keep a connection with his audience from Rolling Stone.  He brings up that if a universal basic income is “good enough for Levi Johnston, it’s good enough for” anyone in order to pull in his audience (Myerson).  Although some might argue that this undermines the seriousness of the article, others would retort that this conversational diction simply further adds to his forthright and honest tone.   His purpose is to rally as many people as he can to persuade America of a different economic path, so this forthright tone with colloquial diction serves to keep a lighthearted feel with strict goal in mind.  

I believe that “guaranteed work for everybody...social security for all… everything owned by everybody… and a public bank in every state” goes against the ideals of the United State’s constitution (Myerson).  Myerson asserts that the ideal world would be one where “people could contribute the skills that inspire them” (ibid.).  In other words, people would be guaranteed a job, and everyone would get to pick the job of their choice.  However, this would be completely unrealistic.  Everybody would be rushing to get the job as the lifeguard and everyone would be paid the same.  There would be no doctors!  The incentive of possibly not getting a job and the striving for goals is what makes capitalism work.  In addition, the author posits that a sovereign wealth fund would be the best option for America as the government “pays dividends to all permanent U.S. residents in the form of a universal basic income” (Myerson).  This is completely against everything that capitalism stands for and sounds a lot more like communism.  Big businesses like Starbucks, McDonalds, and WalMart all employ thousands of employees.  The minimum wage is meant to be a starting income for the unskilled worker.  The beauty of capitalism holds that if you want to make more money, you move up in the system either by hard work or an education.  Universal basic income would decimate the people’s will for monetary success and would therefore deprive the nation of intellectual thinkers and doers.  Myerson’s is right in noticing that America needs some sort of change, but his solutions are impractical.   

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/five-economic-reforms-millennials-should-be-fighting-for-20140103