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

Precis 2

Lindsey Knight

Honors Government

Mr. Comer

10/17/14

Precis #2: AP Classes Are a Scam

John Tierney, a former professor of American History at Boston College,  in his article entitled “AP Classes Are a Scam,” posits that the College Board’s program of implementing college level courses into high schools is nothing but a waste of money, time, and inspiration.  In fact, he states that the Advanced Placement Program is “one of the great frauds perpetrated on American high-school students” (Tierney).  

In order to bolster his argument, Tierney utilizes ethos, counterexamples, and a sardonic tone.  Throughout his article, Tierney consistently employs ethos in order to provide validity and statistical facts.  The author’s appeal to authority makes the article more credible and factual to those that may disagree with his claims.  For example, he starts off his article by claiming that he has a wide base of knowledge of the AP system and its implication on the college world.  He states that the “criticisms comport… with [his] own experience of having taught an AP American Government and Politics course for ten years” as well as his teaching “for almost 25 years at the college level” (ibid.).  As Tierney asserts his expertise in this area, it is obvious that he is greatly familiar with the issue of AP’s and college.  Once this beginning ethos is established, the credibility of the article increases.  The second type of ethos that Tierney utilizes is actual statistical data.  For instance, he claims that the non-profit College Board may be biased for their programs for monetary gain as their “profits for 2009 [from AP courses]… were 8.6 percent of revenue, which would be respectable even for a for-profit corporation” (Tierney).  The use of data validates his argument and points at the corruption within the College Board.  Finally, John Tierney clearly organizes his points by stating the arguments in favor of AP Classes at the beginning of his article and addressing six pitfalls as counterexamples. He begins by reporting that “the courses allegedly provide students the kind of rigorous academic experience they will encounter in college as well as an opportunity to earn college credit for the work” (ibid).  However, he refutes these claims by insisting that AP classes are weak in comparison to college classes, that “students don’t receive college credit for high scores on AP courses,... [that] minority students are left out,” that they are costly to “low income school districts,” and that they curb “intellectual curiosity” (Tierney).  In order to successfully attack the College Board, he must highlight their faulty claims and attack them accordingly.  The use of counterexamples sets up an organized format and clearly illuminates every side of the argument for and against AP classes.  

John Tierney’s purpose is to expose the supposed evils to the public and to call a strike in order against AP courses.  Also, he adds a bit of a humorous tone throughout his essay to add a lightness to his serious exclamation of distrust with the College Board.   For example, he hyperbolises the AP scam as being on the same “scale and audacity of which would raise Bernie Madoff’s eyebrows” (Tierney).  This overextension of the truth is meant to prove the point that the scandal of the College Board is a bigger deal than many would like to acknowledge.  To further employ a bit of humor, Tierney uses some military diction when describing the teenager’s plight for college.  He asserts that in the face of college uncertainty, “one rational form of behavior is to take the shotgun approach, blasting away at the admissions committee with every weapon in the student’s armory” (ibid.).   Tierney is able to connect with the audience by comparing the AP scandal to common, tangible themes which creates amusement.

I believe that Tierney is right to accuse the college process of being inorganic and narrow, but I think that it is the best option for pre-college success.  Because the College Board’s “schemes… wear a patina of respectability,” many people buy into them (Tierney).  Having participated in AP courses myself, I confess that part of my adoration with the process was the reputation it had with colleges.  If colleges like AP classes, then I like AP classes.  However, there is so much that AP classes offer.  The quick pace and vast expanse of material teaches students to develop collegiate study habits, pacing skills, and organization.  True, the ability to slow down to take a look at a particular molecule in biology, thinker in history, or famous art piece is limited, but not to the extent that it “leads to rigid stultification” or “a kind of mindless genuflection to a prescribed plan of study that squelches creativity and free inquiry” (Tierney).  Keep in mind that once tests are over in early May, there is about a month of school left over for exploration of these things.  For example, after my AP Biology exam, I was assigned to complete a report on a controversial topic in biology.  I chose Fish Farming—something I probably wouldn’t even looked into if I were following a regular biology curriculum.  In addition, Tierney claims that “high-school AP course[s] don’t… hold a handle to any...college courses” (ibid.).   Based on my own experience visiting colleges and talking to friends, these introductory classes beyond high school are actually easier than the AP equivalent.  Often, it is a basic overview for those who haven't taken biology, European history, or art history since high school.  Therefore, if one is able to test out of an intro class, he or she won’t be missing much.  Could there be a better solution to preparing students for college?  Probably.  But for now, the College Board has established a program that people buy into, and there isn’t enough of an issue for blatant protest.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/10/ap-classes-are-a-scam/263456/

Precis 1

Lindsey Knight Knight 1

Honors Government

Mr. Comer

10/12/14

Precis: A Shaky Step Forward in Afghanistan

The peaceful transition of power from one leader to the next is an accomplishment that many nations have not achieved.  Especially in the Middle East where terrorists are rife with a jihadist drive, this handover of leadership is feat of victory when it occurs peacefully.  Recently, after a Democratic vote, Afghanistan decided to elect a president and a prime minister under him.  The Editorial Board of the New York Times, a group of 19 journalists who publish articles based on the voice of the board, posits that the recent election of a new president in Afghanistan, though peacefully done, is a risky “step forward” (Times).  

The Board employs three rhetorical devices to bolster their point about Afghanistan’s unstable political atmosphere.  First, they utilize a metaphor to compare the new government situation to “rocky” ground (ibid).  Just as an unkempt road, full of rocks and debris can be “disastrous” to a foot traveler or carriage, so too does the potential “unrest” and “violence” that the Taliban and dissenters pose to Afghanistan could possibly disrupt the smooth change of power (Times).  The purpose of this metaphor is to connect the idea of an unbalanced and unstable road to the current position of the country.  In addition, the Board uses an anecdote to support their position on the Middle East and establish a sense of justification for making these claims.  They describe the instance of the “governor of Balkh Province in the north, Atta Muhammad Noor, who was among those urging Mr. Abdullah [the new Afghan President] to not concede” to sharing of power with another candidate, Ashraf Ghani (ibid.).   Because of the “fraud-plagued” election on June 14th, the nation decided to elect Mr. Abdullah as the President of Afghanistan and allowed his competition, Mr. Ghani to act as a prime minister under the president (Times).  The purpose in including this specific dissenter, Mr. Noor, is to highlight that there are those that disagree with the new power positions in the Afghan government.   Finally, the group of Times writers employs pathos to specify their point about the frenzy of chaos in this newly organized country.  They talk about the new placement of a president into power after a “bitter fight” that gave the government a “fighting chance” to “mend the nation scarred by decades of  war” (ibid.).  By recalling these saddening images of a nation ruined by war, the Board is making the claim that the stability of the country will be hard to achieve.  However, they qualify that through a passionate fight, the Afghans may possibly achieve their goal of ridding the terrorism from their midst.  These rhetorical devices contribute to the negative tone of the article and don’t allow much room for hope.

The Editorial Board of the New York times utilizes a pessimistic tone when discussing the possible new age of democracy in Afghanistan. To achieve this, they employ downcast diction with the use of sulken words.  The Board shares that former President Hamid Karzai, “whose years in power were tainted by tolerance of corruption and… antagonism toward Washington… deepened anxiety in Afghanistan unnecessarily” (Times).  Syntactically, the Board employs many complex sentences to juxtapose different things like the present and the past, order and disunion, and agreement and dissent.  For example, the conditional statement in the form of a complex sentence proves this: “For the deal to hold, Mr. Abdullah and Mr. Ghani will have to formalize the details of an agreement that is subject to interpretation on many fronts” (ibid.).  The purpose of this article is to inform the American public about the current political state of Afghanistan.  The combination of uncertainty and needed conditions contributes to the pessimistic tone.

I disagree with the Times’ argument.  I believe that any sort of step towards a democratic government in the Middle East is beneficial, despite the possible minor pitfalls.  The New York Times shares that “the change of leadership… is dampened by serious concerns over whether the power-sharing deal will prove durable” (Times).  True, the Afghan government is not perfect.  It probably won’t be perfect for a great deal of time. However, if the step towards a free democratic nation is the goal, one small step in the right direction begins the process of reform. Afghanistan is bombarded with terrorist groups, weak leadership, and an unfree society.  Perhaps the government may not be on solid ground yet, but the institution of an elected President with a peaceful change of power is groundbreaking.  If this “works, [it] will mark the first peaceful transfer of power in the country’s history” (ibid.). This is something to be celebrated, and though pessimists might try to cast doubt on this situation, it is truly a good thing for this country that is so in need of peace.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/22/opinion/a-shaky-step-forward-in-afghanistan.html?_r=0